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 =================================================================
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
The Issue Whether under Section 381.494(6)(c)-(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent, Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is entitled to a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing a proposed 75-bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, Martin County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent, Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. ("Martin Memorial"), seeks a CON to construct and operate a 75- bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, Florida. Of the proposed 75 acute-care beds, 50 will be new and 25 will be transferred from Mar in Memorial's existing hospital in Stuart, Florida. The proposed satellite hospital will have six intensive care beds, 69 medical-surgical beds, and two operating rooms. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"), preliminarily issued the applied-for CON. After Petitioner, Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center ("PBMC"), owner of nearby Jupiter Hospital in northern Palm Beach County, requested a Section 120.57 hearing to contest issuance of the CON, DHRS forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. This case, in its earlier stages, was a consolidated proceeding with numerous parties and party-applicants. In the fall of 1984, several parties withdrew or were dismissed. One of the them, American Healthcorp., dismissed its challenge of DHRS' denial of its application to construct a 120-bed new hospital in Vero Beach, Florida. Prior to that dismissal, American Healthcorp. had filed a mandamus action in Leon County Circuit Court to require DHRS to issue a CON. The writ of mandamus was issued and that order was appealed by DHRS to the First District Court of Appeal. On June 18, 1985, the First District reversed the Circuit Court's order. DHRS never issued a CON to American Healthcorp., as the writ of mandamus was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Initially, PBMC, another party-applicant, contested DHRS' denial of a proposed 66-bed addition to its existing hospital in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. Later, PBMC dropped its opposition to the denial after concluding that, due to a dramatic drop in patient census during 1984, additional beds in the area were not needed.1 On Martin Memorial's unopposed motion to dismiss, PBMC was dismissed as a party. Other nonapplicant intervenors subsequently withdrew. In the earlier consolidated proceeding, Martin Memorial had contested the denial of its initial application (filed in 1983) for a CON to construct a 150-bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, on the same site as now proposed for the 75-bed hospital. In October, 1984, Martin Memorial revised its application, within a deadline for submittal of amended applications set by prehearing order. This revised application, now the subject of this proceeding, reduced the number of beds in the proposed hospital from 150 to 75: 50 were to be new and 25 were to be transferred from Martin Memorial's existing hospital in Stuart.2 This 75-bed application was then preliminarily approved by DHRS, as part of an effort to settle the pending consolidated proceeding. After notice of the approval was published on December 7, 1984 in the Florida Administrative Weekly, PBMC timely requested a hearing to contest it. PBMC's position is, generally, that another hospital in the area is not needed and will result in an unnecessary duplication of services and that, if built, the hospital would draw patients who would otherwise use Jupiter Hospital, to the economic injury of PBMC. The remaining party-applicant in the consolidated proceeding was Lawnwood Medical Center, whose proposed 50- bedexpansion of its hospital in Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), was preliminarily approved by DHRS. Martin Memorial requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing to contest the approval. By stipulation dated May 15, 1985, Lawnwood Medical Center was dismissed as a party. Martin Memorial II. The Parties The applicant, Martin Memorial, operates a not-for- profit community hospital in Stuart, Florida, which has served the health care needs of the area since 1939. At that time, it had 25 beds and the site consisted o eight acres. In subsequent years, Martin Memorial added five additional acres of land, and the hospital now has 336 beds, including 26 new beds: nearing completion. Martin Memorial is a subsidiary of Coastal Health Corporation, a not-for-profit holding company. One of the holding company's other non-profit subsidiaries, Coastal Care Corporation, provides services such as ambulatory surgery and primary or emergency care at medical treatment centers. Martin Memorial and its parent corporation, Coastal Health Corporation, are governed by boards comprised of full- time residents of Martin County who serve without compensation. Martin Memorial Hospital has a proven record of providing health care to indigents. Its policy is to provide health services without regard to race, religion, national origin, or a patient's ability to pay. It has always participated in the Medicare/Medicaid Programs and participates in the county indigent program. It proposes to follow the same policy at the proposed satellite hospital. Martin Memorial Hospital, in Stuart, is adjacent to the St. Lucie River on the north, bounded by the Heida-Brad Park residential development on the east, by the St. Mary's Episcopal Church on the south, and by various businesses and residences on the west. It would be difficult for Martin Memorial Hospital to expand to meet anticipated future demand. It has found it impractical to buy additional land adjacent to its existing facility. (It does not nave eminent domain power.) Under current zoning, its height is limited to the existing six floors. Other obstacles include problems with parking access and compliance with fire safety codes. Palm Beach-Martin (PBMC) PBMC is a non-profit corporation, organized in 1973, with the stated purpose of serving tee health care needs of residents of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County. It operates a community not-for-profit hospital, known as Jupiter Hospital, in Jupiter, Florida. A 156-bed acute care hospital, it is the northern most hospital in Palm Beach County and provides health care services to the residents of northern Palm Beach and southern Martin Counties. Over 10% of Jupiter Hospital's patients come from the Hobe Sound area of Martin County, and another 20% come from the Tequesta area of Martin County. The boards which operate PBMC and Jupiter Hospital are made up of volunteers; one-half of whom are doctors on the hospital's medical staff, and the other half are lay-members from the community. All policy decisions are made by the boards. The hospital is managed, under contract, by hospital Corporation of America Management Company (owned by Hospital Corporation of America) which supplies only the hospital administrator and finance director, all other personnel are employees of PBMC. Like Martin Memorial, PBMC has a practice of providing health care to indigent patients. It has a Medicaid contract at its convalescent pavilion and treats Medicaid patients requiring care. (Since it has not had a Medicaid contract with the state, PBMC "writes-off" the cost of care provided to Medicaid and indigent patients. But due to an increasing number of Medicaid patients, PBMC has applied for a Medicaid contract.) It has a current contract with Palm Beach County to treat indigents in its out-patient facility. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) DHRS is designated by statute as the single state agency charged with issuing and denying CONs in accordance with district plans, DHRS rules, and state and federal statutes. See, Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1983). Geographic Facts The proposed satellite hospital would be located in Port Salerno, Martin County, 5 1/2 miles south of Martin Memorial Hospital and 15 miles north of Jupiter Hospital. The site of the proposes hospital is 35 acres in size, and is located approximately 1/4 mile east of Highway U.S. 1, on Port Salerno Road. Jonathan Dickinson State Park, abutting Highway U.S. 1 for five miles, is situated between the site of the proposed satellite hospital and PBMC's Jupiter Hospital. The area of Hobe Sound is just north of this State Park. The proposed hospital would be adjacent to the Martin County Campus of Indian River Community College. III. Standing of PBMC: Expected Impact of Proposed Hospital on PBMC. Since it is physicians who admit patients to hospitals, the extent to which medical staffs overlap is one factor used to project how a new hospital will affect an existing one. Martin Memorial Hospital and Jupiter Hospital have distinct medical staffs and there is no material overlap. Neither has it been shown that Jupiter Hospital physicians will seek staff privileges at the proposed satellite hospital. It is reasonably expected that the proposed hospital will be staffed, for the most part, by physicians who are also on the staff of Martin Memorial Hospital. Nevertheless, the proposed satellite hospital would draw away a substantial portion of Jupiter Hospital's patient base and is intended to reduce Jupiter Hospital's market share in the Hobe Sound area to near zero. (Indeed, this is a result projected in Martin Memorial's Long Range Plan.) Martin Memorial (in its Long Range Plan) estimates Jupiter Hospital's current market share to be 65%. Jupiter Hospital's primary service area includes Hobe Sound, from which it draws approximately 10% of its patients. The northern boundary of the Hobe Sound area is 20 minutes driving time from Jupiter Hospital. Hobe Sound is also within the primary service area of the proposed satellite hospital. The proposed hospital would be in the same DHRS Service District as Jupiter Hospital and both hospitals would have overlapping primary service areas. The projected loss of 10% of its patient base to the proposed satellite hospital would have a significant adverse financial impact on PBMC. It has not been shown, however, this impact would imperil the continued financial feasibility of Jupiter Hospital. IV. Numerical Bed-need Projected by Applying DHRS Rule-Based Bed-need Methodology. The proposed satellite hospital would be located in DHRS Health District 9, which consists of Indian River, St. Lucie, 55artin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. The state acute care bed-need methodology is a complex formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code. It projects bed-need, on a district-wide basis, five years into the future, creating what is referred to as a "five-year planning horizon" for assessing acute care bed-need. The formula requires several district-specific inputs, including population forecasts in four age groups, the average fertility rate in the district for the three most recent years, the average historical utilization rate in the district for the three most recent years, together with specific factors used to determine the net flow of elderly patients. Three other input factors are applied uniformly to all districts: discharge rates by service and by age cohort for Florida residents, average length of stay by service and by age cohort, and occupancy standards by service and by age cohort. Application of the formula entails seven steps: Project patient days by service and by age cohort using the formula: Patient days = projected population x discharge rate x average length of stay Adjust the projected patient days for the 65 and over age cohort to account for patient flows. Calculate bed-need by applying service- specific occupancy standards to projected patient days. Calculate the district bed allocation by summing the beds needed by service. Calculate the projected occupancy of these beds using the district's historical utilization rate. If the projected occupancy. rate is less than 75 percent or greater than 90 percent, apply specified formulas to adjust the district bed allocation (downward or upward, respectively. Check to ensure that each district will be able to meet peak demand based on the adjusted allocation. (R-l8l/, Testimony of Kolb) Population projections used in the methodology are: "for age- specific cohorts residing in the relevant district projected five years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(23)(f)1., Florida Administrative Code. These age-specific cohort projections (of county populations) must be "those developed by the State Health Planning Agency, and will be based on the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida [BEBR]." Id. There are currently 4,695 licensed or approved acute care beds in District 9, which includes the 50 additional beds (preliminarily) approved for the proposed satellite hospital and the 45 beds approved in a subsequent batching cycle. For July, 1989, application of the bed-need methodology shows a district wide gross need of 4,621 beds. This is based on population forecasts for July, 1939, released by the Governor's Budgeting and Planning Office on- January 1, 1985.This office interpolates and publishes population forecasts based on figures received from BEBR. Since later 1934 (when Rule 27E-2.01-.04 was adopted requiring state agencies to use, in their planning, population projections provided by the Governor's Office), DHRS's Office of Health Planning and Development has used such forecasts to project bed-need under the methodology. These forecasts are appropriate for such use since they are "developed" by the State Health Planning Agency and based on the latest mid-range projections published by BEBR. When the licensed or approved bed total of 4,645 (excluding 50 beds for the proposed satellite hospital) are subtracted from the district wide gross need, there is a net surplus of 24 beds. If the 50 beds of the proposed satellite hospital are included, the net surplus increases to 74 beds. A planning horizon of January, 1990, however, is more appropriate. It more closely conforms to the methodology's requirement that need be projected five years into the future. (At hearing, all parties agreed or acquiesced to the proposition that the five year planning horizon should begin to run, to the extent possible, from the date of final hearing in June, 1985.) The latest county-wide projections released by the Governor's Office for state agency use, projects population by age and sex cohorts for January 1, 1990 and July 1, 1990. The July 1, 1990 projections are beyond the five year horizon and so less suitable for use in the methodology. Applying, then, the bed-need methodology to project bed-need for January, 1990, shows a gross need of 4,702 beds, resulting in a total district wide net need of 57 beds (excluding the proposed 50-beds satellite hospital). Hence the methodology shows (just barely) a January, 1990 need for the 50- beds sought for the proposed satellite hospital. Because of projected increases in district population, the methodology predicts a significant growth in bed-need between July, 1989 and January, 1990: bed-need grows by 81 beds or by more than 10 beds per month. PBMC contends that a planning horizon of July 1, 1989, and no later, must be used since DHRS has, historically, updated bed-need projections only on July 1 of each year. Annual updates were limited to once a year because updated population figures were received only in July. Now, however, -he situation has greatly improved. DHRS receives updated population forecasts from the Governor's Office twice a year--in January and July. There is no reason why these updated and, presumably, more accurate population forecasts cannot be used to project bed-need Martin Memorial, on the other hand, argues for a more distant planning horizon--April 1, 1990. This horizon, however, requires use of BEBR projections recently received but not yet released or interpolated by the Governor's Office, until released, such projections are not appropriate for use by state agencies. See, Rule 27E-2.01-2.04, Fla. Admin. Code. V. Consideration of Other CON Review Criteria [A CON may be denied even though the bed- need methodology projects a need for the proposed beds five years into the future. Rule 10-5.11(23)(b): "An unfavorable Certif- icate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed-need exists, but other criteria specified in Chapter 3Bl.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met." DHRS must consider CON applications in light of all statutory and rule criteria. See, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson & Johnson, 447 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).] Subdistrict Need: Allocation of District Wide Bed-need to|-. Relevant Subdistrict In 1983, the Local Health Council divided District9 into five subdistricts: (1) Indian River County, (2) Martin and St. Lucie Counties, (3) Okeechobee County, (4) northern Palm Beach County, and (5) southern Palm Beach County. Each subdistrict "is an area where the co-unity, by itself, uses the facilities in an area. It is supposed to be a sort of natural boundary that separates the different communities." (TR-413) The council also adopted a methodology for allocating acute care beds among the five component subdistricts. (R.-19) Although DHRS has not yet adopted, by rule, District9's subdistricts and subdistrict bed-need allocation methodology, both are part of District 9's Local Health Plan, adopted after a series of workshops and public hearings. The subdistricts were identified pursuant to a protocol furnished by DHRS which required consideration of whether an area was urban or rural, or comprised a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA). Under the protocol, an SMSA must be designated a separate subdistrict. Since Martin and St. Lucie Counties form a SMSA, they form a separate subdistrict. The five subdistricts of District 9 were identified in a rational manner, have a factual basis, and are useful tools for health care planning purposes. The methodology for allocating district wide bed-need to the subdistricts, also part of the Local Health Plan, has also been shown to be supported by reason and accepted health care planning concepts. DHRS cannot rationally determine the need for additional acute care beds, at least in =he context of this case without looking at subdistrict need or lack of need. In this way, local needs and conditions are considered in the decision- making process. District 9 is too large to serve as a useful unit for acute care bed planning purposes. Applying the Local Health Plan's sur5istrict bed-need allocation methodology to the July, 1989 planning horizon, indicates a net acute care bed-need for the Martin/St. Lucie-- County Subdistrict (not counting the 50 beds at issue) of 103beds. If the proposed hospital were approved, the subdistrict bed-need methodology would show a remaining subdistrict need for53 acute care beds. (R-18, TR-249) When applied to the January, 1990 planning horizon, preferred to the July, 1999 horizon., the subdistrict methodology shows a net acute care bed-need of 119 beds for the Martin/St. Lucie County Subdistrict (not counting the 50 beds at issue). Thus, the bed-need allocation methodology contained in District 9's Local Health Plan, shows a need for the proposed 50-acute care beds, with a 69-bed margin. (T-18, TR-248) Since the total number of licensed and approved beds (excluding the 50-beds at issue) for the subdistrict is 761, the projected need for 119 new acute care beds in January, 1990, is considered to be substantial. But the subdistrict bed allocation methodology assumes, incorrectly, that patients do not "cross-over" from one subdistrict to another. It fails, therefore, to consider or take to account the significant number of patients residing in the Martin/St. Lucie Counties Subdistrict who use acute care beds at Jupiter Hospital, located in the subdistrict to the south. This failure in the subdistrict methodology detracts from the weight to be given the resulting bed-need calculation. Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Facilities. Section 384.494(6) (c) 2.; Florida Statutes, requires review of CON applications in context with the "availability . . . accessibility and adequacy of like and existing health care services . . . in the district of the applicant."] Excess or under-utilized acute care bed capacity is a problem because it contributes to higher health costs. There are fixed overhead costs associated with acute care beds, whether empty or filled by a patient. These costs must ultimately be borne by the patients, or their insurers In reviewing a CON application, DHRS considers the number of available unoccupied beds at the facility and in the county or subdistrict for the most recent calendar year, determines actual occupancy rates, and compares them against an 80% occupancy standard, a standard generally accepted by health care planners. For example, one stated reason for DHRS' denial of Martin Memorial's initial 150-bed application was the availability of 20 unoccupied medical-surgical beds at Martin Memorial in 1982, on an average daily basis. Similarly, the average daily availability of 73 unoccupied medical-surgical beds in the five hospitals within PBMC's service area, plus additional approved but not licensed beds in the area, were stated reasons for DHRS' denial of PBMC's initial 1983 application for additional beds. (R-13) Applying the 80% occupancy standard to 1984 bed utilization statistics in the Martin/St. Lucie County Subdistrict, there were 111 unoccupied acute care beds on an average daily basis, not counting the 50 new beds recently approved for Lawnwood Hospital and the 26 new beds soon to be available at Martin Memorial. This is a 63.7% occupancy rate. Moreover, there were 47 unoccupied licensed beds on an average daily basis at Martin Memorial Hospital (not counting the 26 new beds under construction). The same calculation using only medical-surgical beds shows that in 1984, on an average daily basis, Martin Memorial had 36 unoccupied medical-surgical beds or an occupancy rate of 661. At Jupiter Hospital and Port St. Lucie Medical Center, the two hospitals having overlapping service areas with Martin Memorial, there were 31 (58.2% occupancy rate) and 49 (43.7% occupancy rate) unoccupied medical-surgical beds, respectively, on an average daily basis. (HRS-4) There is an ample supply of available beds: there is not a shortage of acute care hospital beds at Martin Memorial Hospital or in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict. Martin Memorial has shown only that there may be, or could be, bed availability problems during certain peak months at Memorial Hospital in 1990, based on seasonal considerations. At most, it has shown that, without the proposed satellite hospital, the average occupancy for its highest occupancy month in 1990 would reach 91%. (TR-263-265) However, it is possible to operate a hospital at such an occupancy level for several months and yet maintain an acceptable level of service. (Moreover, Martin Memorial's analysis fails to take into account acute care beds which would be available in 1990 at Port St. Lucie Medical Center and Jupiter Hospital, where occupancy rates would be much lower.) Martin Memorial does not assert that in 1990 its average daily occupancy rate will exceed 80%. Indeed, assuming the validity of its average length of stay and hospital utilization assumptions (which are questionable), Martin Memorial forecasts an average daily occupancy rate of 79.4%. The State Health Plan states that "the issue of surplus beds is expected to be an even greater problem in the future because of the growth of alternative delivery systems"-- (R-20, p.22)--a proposition with which Martin Memorial's expert generally agrees. (TR-287-288) The State Health Plan concludes that "the combined effect of ambulatory surgery, HMOs, DRGs, and other innovations could reduce acute care bed-need by 15% or more." Id. Thus it becomes more likely that there will be an ample supply of available unoccupied beds in the subdistrict through 1990. The proposed satellite hospital would improve or enhance the accessibility of hospital services, since it would be located closer to some patients than either Martin Memorial or Jupiter Hospital. However, it has not been shown that geographic accessibility has been or will be a serious problem without construction of the proposed satellite hospital. The proposed hospital would be located about 5 miles from Martin Memorial and about 15 1/2 miles from Jupiter Hospital. Patients in the southern part of Martin County, residing south of the northern part of Hobe Sound, can be driven to Jupiter Hospital in 20 minutes or less. The definitive standard, commonly used by DHRS and.generally accepted by health care planners to detect geographical bed-access problems, is the 30 minute drive-time standard. Under this standard, if acute care hospital beds are available and accessible, within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average traffic conditions to at least 90% of the population, there is no cause for concern about geographic accessibility. It is undisputed that hospital beds are now available well within 30 minutes travel time to all residents of Martin County during all relevant periods, and will continue to be so through 1990. In short, geographic accessibility is not a current or projected problem and although the satellite hospital would make in-patient services more geographically accessible to some residents, such a result could be expected whenever a new hospital is constructed, whatever its location. As to adequacy of existing and licensed and approved facilities, there is no showing that the quality or extent of health care provided is inadequate. Extent of Utilization of Like and Existing Facilities. [Under Section 3Bl.494(6)(c)2., Florida Statutes, CON applications must also be reviewed in context with the "extent of utilization . . . of like and existing health care services . . . in the service district of the applicant."] During the last two years, the health care industry has undergone major changes resulting in a sudden and dramatic decline in the use of hospital in-patient services. The main cause of this decline was the shift, in October 1983, to the Medicare prospective payment system, otherwise known as Diagnostic Related Groupings (DRGs). The DRG payment system changed Medicare reimbursement from a cost basis to a set reimbursement based on diagnosis. It has caused a sharp decline in the average length of stay of Medicare patients as well as a decrease in Medicare admissions, and a resulting decline in hospital occupancy levels. For example, in calendar year 1984, the average length of stay for hospital patients in District 9 dropped from approximately 6.8 to 6.1. (DHRS-4) Another recent development contributing to the general decline in hospital utilization .is the increasing emphasis on providing out-patient services such as out-patient surgery and home health services. In many areas of the country, the advent of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) have significantly impacted hospital occupancy rates, not only by encouraging shorter lengths of stay, but also by greatly lowering admission rates. (TR-604-05, 773: P-3, p.l8) According to the State Health Plan, "the emergence of [these] alternative delivery systems . . . [has] exacerbated declining occupancy rates." (R-20, Vol. 1, p.26) Martin Memorial has developed free-standing medical treatment centers in Hobe Sound and Port St. Lucie, which can provide up to 80% of the services required by patients in hospital emergency rooms. (TR-56-59 R-1, Vol. II at 73) In addition, Martin Memorial is merging with VNA in Martin County to provide home health care. These alternative delivery systems, along with the expected increasing effects of PPOs, HMOs and prospective payment systems, will contribute to further declines in hospital utilization and tend to extend the time during which the existing inventory of acute care beds will be adequate to meet the needs of a growing population. Although witnesses for Martin Memorial suggest that this steady decline in bed utilization at Martin Memorial will soon bottom out and that the average length of stay will fall no further, the weight of credible evidence shows that hospital utilization in District 9, as well as in the country as a whole, is still declining and that no one can say, with any reasonable degree of certainty, just when the decline (or "nose dive," TR- 682) in average length of stay and overall utilization will stop. The Executive Director of the District 9 Health Council predicts that the average length of stay in the district may fall from its current level of 6.1 or 6.2 to 5, and a recent survey of southeastern hospitals predicts at least a 5% further decline in average length of stay from 1984 levels. Hospital admission or discharge rates in District 9 fell slightly in 1984, but on the whole have remained relatively constant. The decline in hospital utilization has been chiefly caused by the unprecedented drop in average length of stay. Several factors causing declines in hospital admissions as well as utilization in other areas of the state and country have not yet begun to significantly affect northern Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties. It is, however, reasonably expected that these factors, such as out-patient or ambulatory surgical centers, and home health services (which are becoming increasingly used), will continue to grow and further decrease hospital in-patient surgery and care, admissions, and utilization. (TR-39-40, 578) As stated earlier, the most recent State Health Plan predicts that the combined effect of ambulatory surgery and other alternative health care delivery systems will be to reduce hospital discharges (or admissions) by 15% or more by 1989. (R-20, Vol. 2, p.72) Another factor which will contribute to the further decline in hospital utilization in Florida will be the required adoption of prospective payment programs by hospitals and private insurers for non-;5edicare patients. Under the Florida Health Care Access Act of 1984, hospitals are required to negotiate a prospective payment arrangement with each health insurer representing 10% or more of the hospital's private pay patients (R-20, Vol. 1, p. ll) To date, the only active HMOs in District 9 are found in southern Palm Beach County and their impact has not been felt elsewhere in the district. It is reasonably anticipated, however, that HMOs will expand throughout the district in the next several years and will contribute to a further decline in admissions. (Some commentators predict HMOs will reduce hospital admission rates by as much as 40%.) (TR-605-06, 679-80) Even without these factors, the extent of the decline in hospital utilization in District 9 has been dramatic. Overall hospital utilization i., 1984 declined from a level of 73.7% in 1983 to 65.R% in 1984. (HRS-4; R-~9: P-5) The District 9 medical-surgical utilization rate dropped from 76.3% in 1983 to 67.3% in 1984. The decline in hospital utilization in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict and at specific hospitals in the area have been even more pronounced: 1983-84 Subdistrict and Specific Hospital Utilization Rates Overall Rate Med-Surg Rate 1983 1984 1983 1984 Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict 76.9%1 63.7% 78% 63.8% Martin Memorial 74.1% 65.1%4 74.8% 66.0% Port St. Lucie5 38.9% 44.1% 37.6% 43.7% Jupiter Hospital 67.7% 55.7% 71.4% 58.2% Although experts disagree on how long the decline in hospital utilization will continue and how far it will fall, it is apparent that hospital utilization is continuing to decline in District 9 in 1985. By January and February 1985, the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict medical-surgical utilization declined about 1% from the same period in 1984. However, the most recent data for March, 1985, shows a decline in monthly medical-surgical utilization from 73.2% in 1984 to 68.8%. Martin Memorial's patient days in 198; are less than the corresponding number of patient days .when compared to the same periods in 1984. In addition, in no single month during Martin Memorial's 1985 fiscal year, beginning on October 1, 1984, has Martin yet achieved its budgeted patient days or admissions. In fact, Martin Memorial's bed utilization is more than 10% under budget for fiscal year 1985. (TR-66-69 P-1) Martin Memorial contends that the projected increase in the population and the aging in population in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict will offset the decline in average length of stay and gradually increase the in-patient population. Although it is reasonable to expect that such factors would increase utilization, over the last year in District 9, use rates have gone down and admission rates have decreased slightly even though population increased and aged. In addition, it is reasonably anticipated that the future negative impact of HMOs on use and admissions will offset these population changes and contribute to further decline in utilization. Projected Utilization of Martin Memorial Hospital and the Proposed Satellite Hospital. In projecting- utilization for its existing and proposed facilities, Martin Memorial used 1984 District 9 use rates and a constant to increasing average length of stay. (R- 18) Use and admission rates have declined steadily for several years for the under-65 population and, in the first year of DRGs, dropped by over 3% for the over-65 population. Vet, despite this t-end and projections of decreasing use and admission rates in the future due to alternative delivery programs, Martin Memorial's utilization forecast uses admission rates slightly higher than the 1984 actual admission rates. (R- 18) In projecting the average length of stay for the proposed Port Salerno Hospital, Martin 'Memorial discounted 10% from its 1984 average length of stay. This discount, however, was due to projections of lower Medicare utilization and lower intensity of services at the new hospital, and makes no allowance for any further decreases in average lengths of stay. Similarly, in projecting utilization for Martin Memorial Hospital, Martin Memorial assumed an increase over the 1984 average length of stay of 6.0 days to 6.1 days in 1990. These assumptions are unreasonable in that they 'ail to fully into account the current and projected continuing decline in hospital admissions and utilization. Consequently, little weight is assigned to Martin Memorial's forecast of future bed utilization—that the satellite hospital would experience 58% occupancy in 1990, the first year of operation. Martin Memorial projects that without the proposed Port Salerno Hospital, Martin Memorial would achieve an occupancy rate of 79.4% in 1990. This utilization projection was based on population projections for Martin County done in 1984 by Dr. Stanley Smith it fails to take into account Dr. Smith's recent revision downward of the 1990 population projections for Martin County from 100,900 to 98,700. (TR-95-96, 294-95 R-6) The decline in average length of stay and hospital use rates will have a major impact on the number of empty beds in District 9 and, at least as applied to this District, the bed- need methodology of Rule 10-5.11(23), over-states the need for additional beds in 1990. The methodology uses a constant average length of stay derived from prior years. It is not an accurate predictor of future occupancy when, as now, use rates and utilization are declining and are reasonably expected to continue to decline. (TR-639-41: TR-614, 621-22 P-5) Martin Memorial's projected 79.4% occupancy rate in 1990 is overstated because it fails to fully take into account continuing declines in average length of stay and use rates, and because the 1984 population figures used to derive the 1984 use rate may be understated, thereby overstating the use rate. Similarly, using the same assumptions, an occupancy rate of 69.7% was projected for Jupiter Hospital (without the proposed Port Salerno Hospital). This projection is also overstated for the same reasons. If the Port Salerno Hospital were approved, the 1990 occupancy figures for both Martin Memorial and Jupiter Hospital would, in all likelihood, be much lower. (TR-627 P-5) 21 A more credible projection of ,Martin Memorial Hospital's 1990 occupancy rate was offered by Thomas W. Schultz, PSMC's health care planning expert. By reducing the 1984 Dis- trict 9 use rate by 2.9% to account for declining utilization at Martin Memorial during the first three months of 1985, as well as the general continuing decline in hospital utilization, Mr. Schultz projected Martin Memorial's 1990 occupancy (without the new facility) to be only 72.6%. Similarly, because use rates are still declining and because the 1985 population numbers used to calculate the rates may have been understated, this projected occupancy is overstated. (TR-628-30, 635-38; P-5) The State Health Plan and the District 9 Local Health Plan [Section 381.494(6) (c)l. requires that CON applications be reviewed "in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan "] Several specific utilization and occupancy standards are contained in the State Health Plan and the District 9 Local Health Plan. A major stated goal of the State Health Plan is to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services by raising the occupancy rates or acute care hospitals. (R-20) It identifies 80% as the appropriate minimum occupancy level for acute care hospitals: an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80% is made an objective. As conceded by Debra S. Kolb, Ph.D., Martin Memorial's expert health planner, the 80% occupancy standard is an appropriate minimum standard which should be "looked at as a hurdle before beds are added." (TR- 289) She adds, however, that "there are other factors, such as . . . size of the facility, seasonality issues, age problems. . . that would warrant special cases." (T?.-289) By policy and practice, DHRS considers current occupancy levels to be an important criterion and has applied this 80% occupancy standard in reviewing CON applications. Its use of these standards is illustrated by its initial action on the various applications which were once part of this proceeding. DHRS granted Lawnwood Hospital's application for several stated reasons, one of which was a 1982 occupancy rate of 90%. Martin Memorial's initial 150-bed application and PBMC's 60-bed application (later dropped) were denied, in substantial part, because of low utilization rates in 1982 and because there was an adequate supply of beds currently available. (Interestingly, both Martin Memorial and PBMC had 1982 occupancy rates exceeding 70%.) As stated by Gene Nelson, then supervisor of DHRS' CON review section, in the State Agency Action Report denying PBMC's application: "Overall utilization for Palm Beach Martin County Medical Center for 1982 was 72.3% and medical/surgical utilization was 76.4%, neither being sufficiently high to justify additional beds." (R-13) The Acute Care portion of District 9's Local Health Plan (1984), contains "Recommendations by Priority Ranking" reflecting policies and priorities which, according to the local health council, should be used (in addition to the DHRS bed-need methodology) in planning and allocating acute care bed-need. Priority I delineates the subdistricts for purposes of allocating acute care hospital beds: Priority II establishes the_ subdistrict allocation methodology: Priority III establishes an occupancy rate which must be met before additional beds may approved: Before needed beds, as determined by Rule 10-5.11(23), may be approved, applicants requesting additional acute care beds should demonstrate that certain occupancy thresholds have been achieved relative to medical/surgical, obstetric, pediatric and ICU/CCU beds. The average annual occupancy rate (most recent calendar year) in the applying facility and its corresponding subdistrict average, should equal or exceed the following levels (inclusive of CON approved beds): Medical/Surgical 75% Obstetrical 65% Pediatric 65% ICU/CCU, Monitored & Intermediate Care 75% (e.s.) (R-10, pp.48-49) The rationale for this standard is set forth in the plan: With the advent of the Medicare prospective reimbursement system, there is literally no way to estimate the magnitude of impact that this reimbursement mechanism will have on hospital admissions, occupancy rates, and average lengths of stay. Therefore, relying upon the national standard of 4 beds/1000 population was not adequate. There is a need for an indicator based solely on utilization for the elderly. Since the reimbursement mechanism for non-Medicare patients has not changed, a resource based methodology has been utilized for this population group. Moreover, the program goals of the Local Health Plan state that the overall occupancy rate in District 9--as a whole--for licensed acute care beds as well as the occupancy rate for medical/surgical beds should equal or exceed 756. (Id. at 47) These minimum annual district and subdistrict occupancy rates take seasonality and age considerations into account. Bed utilization or occupancy standards are the only bed-need criteria that look to actual, verifiable data reflecting current conditions as opposed to forecasts, which look to the future.6 Failure to achieve the occupancy standards of Priority III A of the Local Health Plan creates, at least, a strong presumption against the approval of the project. In exceptional situations, however, additional beds may be approved even though the occupancy standard is not met. A typical example projected continuing decline in hospital admissions and utilization. Consequently, little weight is assigned to Martin Memorial's forecast of future bed utilization--that the satellite hospital would experience 58% occupancy in 1990.the first year of operation would be where there was a geographical access problem.7 Both the State and District 9 Health Plans cite the high cost of unused hospital beds which add to the cost of hospitalization. (R-20, p.70: R-10, p.10) A primary goal of both plans is to raise occupancy rates and eliminate excess beds. With this in mind, it is reasonable to give considerable weight to current utilization rates even though a numerical "need" for the beds is projected by the DHRS bed-need methodology.8 1984 bed utilization at Martin Memorial, Port St. Lucie and Jupiter Hospitals, as well as average utilization for District 9 and the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict, fall well below the minimum occupancy standards normally applied by DHRS and set out in the State and Local Health Plans. These minimum occupancy standards have not been met and are not reasonably projected to be met by 1990. Considerable weight should be accorded this factor since that is the effect of the State and Local Health Plans and DHRS' normal practice. Moreover, since occupancy rates are based on actual current conditions, they are less subject to manipulation, and inject a healthy measure of reality into CON decision-making during a time of great change in the health care industry. Economies and Improvement Services Derived From Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Resources. [Another CON criterion is whether there will be "[p]robable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources." Section 3fll.494(6)(c)5., Florida Statutes.] Because the proposed project is a satellite hospital, there will be economies and improvements in services realized from the operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources, as compared to the operation of a wholly separate free-standing hospital. The satellite hospital will not offer obstetrics or a defined pediatric unit. It will not have a CAT Scanner, a -- personnel office similar to Martin Memorial's, or a hospital laundry. It will have an emergency room, normal operating room suites, and radiology and lab services, although the more complex lab tests will be performed at Martin Memorial Hospital. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities. [CON applications are also reviewed in context with the "need for research and educational facilities . . .." Section 381.494 (6)(c)7, Florida Statutes.] The proposed satellite hospital will be located directly adjacent to the Martin County campus of Indian River Community College ("IRCC"). The IRCC campus has an Allied Health Building with approximately nine classrooms, a nursing 120 and an emergency medical technician lab. IRCC has a contract with Martin Memorial Hospital which allows IRCC students to use Martin Memorial facilities for clinical training. Clinical training is an important part of the allied health curriculum at IRCC. Construction of the satellite hospital next to the IRCC campus would benefit the Allied Health Programs since there could be joint use of equipment, facilities, and personnel, and a better opportunity to invite doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals to the classroom. The satellite hospital would also be more convenient to students, in terms of scheduling and transportation, than Martin Memorial Hospital, where they now receive clinical training. Although the proposed satellite hospital would enhance the IRCC health care training programs, there is no evidence that the clinical training programs now provided at Martin Memorial Hospital are inadequate. The proposed facility is not predicated on a claim that its primary purpose will be to serve as a research or educational facility. Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Satellite Hospital. [Another CON criterion is "[t]he immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal." Section 381.494 (6)(c)9, Florida Statutes.] Estimated Project Costs The estimated costs of the movable equipment for the proposed satellite hospital are reasonable. (Stipulation, P.3) The real property in Port Salerno where the proposed satellite hospital would be located, is owned by Martin Memorial and is of adequate size and otherwise appropriate for the proposed project. (Stipulation, p.3) The estimated cost of construction and fixed equipment is $7,490,625.00, which amounts a cost of $117.50t per square foot. (The hospital will have 850 square feet per bed: $117.50 X 850 X 75 = $7,490,625.00.) his is a reasonable cost for bidding the project in the spring of 1986. Estimates of the architect's fee ($545,317.00), the cost for surveys and borings ($25,000.00j, the 3% contingency cost ($251,000.00), the developmental costs ($195,000.00), the site work and utilities ( $960, 000.03 ), the actual land costs.($595,000.00), and the financing and refinancing costs($3,100,770.00) have also been shown to be reasonable. Short-Term Financial Feasibility Martin Memorial has sufficient funds to make the equity contribution necessary to obtain financing. It also has the ability to raise $16,370,000.00 through the sale of tax exempt bonds, which appear to be marketable. It is likely that Martin Memorial would be able to secure the necessary funds for construction. The proposed satellite hospital would be financially feasible in the short-term. Martin Memorial has proven its ability to operate a hospital efficiently and profitably. Even with the advent of the DRG payment system, Martin Memorial Hospital has continued to operate profitably. During the initial DRG phase-in year of 1984, Martin Memorial benefited financially from the use of the new prospective payment schedule. Even if bed use at the satellite hospital is less than projected, or desired, during the start-up years, it is likely that Martin Memorial would be able to subsidize its operation until, with expected population growth, utilization increases and it becomes financially self- sustaining. Long-Term Financial Feasibility The proposed satellite hospital is also financially feasible in the long-term his conclusion is supported by a financial analysis utilizing reasonable assumptions based on Martin Memorial Hospital's historical experience an t financial costs obtained from a qualified securities analyst. The financial analyst also used bed utilization projections supplied by Martin Memorial's qualified earth care planner. Although the reliability of the 1990 utilization forecast is questionable, over the long-term--with projected increases in population9 is likely that the proposed hospital would become financially feasible, self-sustaining, and able to meet its operating expenses and debt service payments. I. Availability of Manpower and Resources [Another CON criterion is "[t]he availability of resources, including health manpower . . .." Section 381.494 (6)(c)8, Florida Statutes.] Martin Memorial has an in-place recruiting department which, in the past, has successfully recruited new employees for expansion programs. It has the capability of recruiting, training, and staffing the 175 full-time equivalent medical personnel shown in its CON application. There has been no showing that the hiring of employees for the satellite hospital will significantly impact other facilities or that there is a shortage of health manpower and resources. III. Need for the Proposed Hospital (using a planning horizon of January, 1990) Based on a Balanced Consideration of all CON Criteria_ ["Need" for a proposed facility, under CON law, is determined by "a balanced consideration of all the statutory [and rule] criteria." Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson & Johnson, 447 So. 2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) See, Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes. DHRS may not adopt a rule allowing it to "ignore some statutory criteria and emphasize others." Id. Nor may it adopt a methodology, in rule form, which "rigidly control[s] the granting or withholding of [CON] approval." Humana, Inc. et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA Case No. AY-422, Opinion filed May 16, 1985), 10 F.L.W. 1222.] (a) The foregoing evidentiary findings support an ultimate finding that the proposed satellite hospital is not needed, either now or within the planning horizon of January, 1990. When measured against all pertinent statutory and rule criteria, the factors favoring approval of Martin Memorial's application are outweighed by the factors supporting denial. The DHRS numerical bed-need methodology projects a January, 1990 "need", but barely so. Further, the methodology, as one criterion among many, is assigned less weight since it is a less accurate predictor of "need" in times, such as these, when in-patient bed use is steadily declining. This decline is pervasive, has continued, unabated, for over 13 months and has not yet bottomed-out. The methodology uses bed-need figures rooted in the past and does not adequately reflect this decline. Allocation of bed-need to the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict shows a more substancial "need" (103 beds), but this figure is, in part, also derived from the DHRS methodology. There is an adequate current supply of available acute care beds at existing facilities, similar in nature. No geographical access problem has been shown. The existing hospitals which serve the area proposed to be served by the satellite hospital, as well as the subdistrict and district, have 1984 occupancy rates considerably below the,30% occupancy standard generally applied by DHRS and health care planners. There is not a current shortage of beds. In January, 1990, it is likely that the supply of acute care beds will continue to be adequate. In all likelihood, daily occupancy rates at Martin Memorial and in the subdistrict will still be below the 80% standard. At best, Martin Memorial has shown that during two or three peak winter months, its own institution-specific occupancy rate will exceed 90%.10 But on a short-term basis, such a rate is doable and consistent with quality health care. Current bed utilization, a readily ascertainable criterion which reflects actual conditions, should be accorded considerable weight on the scale of criterion when, as now, the health care industry is in rapid flux and past trends have been disrupted, or even displaced. With declining average lengths of stay and anticipated growth in alternative delivery systems, it is reasonably expected that acute care bed use will continue to decline. The steady drop in bed use makes it more likely that the currently existing and licensed or approved beds in the area will be adequate through January 1990. Martin Memorial's utilization forecast failed to fully take into account the steady decline in bed use. Approval of the proposed hospital would be inconsistent with the State Health Plan, which identifies 80% as a minimum occupancy rate for acute care hospitals and, more particularly, with the Local Health Plan (Priority III) which, with few exceptions, does not allow new beds (irrespective of the DHRS methodology numbers) until specified occupancy thresholds have been met. These thresholds have not yet been met. The proposed hospital would be financially feasible in the short-and-long-term, enhance competition, and improve the education of health care students at the adjacent Indian River Community College. These benefits, however, are outweighed by the other factors which support a conclusion that the proposed hospital will not be needed by January, 1990. Construction of an unneeded hospital would have the effect of reducing occupancy rates at nearby hospitals and exacerbating the problem of excess bed capacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Martin Memorial's application or a CON to construct and operate the Port Salerno Hospital be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, J . Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1985.
Findings Of Fact I The Parties Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc., (Charter) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation, founded in Macon, Georgia in 1969. The parent corporation operates approximately 92 hospitals throughout the country, including Florida. Most of its hospitals are psychiatric or substance abuse facilities. Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) is a 1,119- bed, nonprofit medical system comprised of four divisions. In downtown Orlando it operates a 630-bed tertiary care hospital and a 255-bed Arnold Palmer Hospital for women and children. A Sand Lake campus is located 10 miles southwest of Orlando, off I-4, and includes medical/surgical beds and 32 licensed short-term psychiatric beds. ORMC's St. Cloud Campus in Osceola County, south of Orlando, includes 84 medical/surgical beds. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the certificate of need program pursuant to Sections 381.701-.715, F.S. Psychiatric Institute of Orlando, Inc., d/b/a Laurel Oaks Hospital, (Laurel Oaks) is a subsidiary of P1A Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises (NME). P1A owns approximately 50 psychiatric hospitals throughout the county, including (30-bed Laurel Oaks, in southwest Orange County, a short-term psychiatric and substance abuse facility for children and adolescents Health Management Associates, Inc., (HMA) is a health management company which owns or operates 16 hospitals in the southeastern United States, including four psychiatric hospitals in Florida. HMA's Crossroads University Behavioral Center is a 100-bed free-standing psychiatric hospital in northeast Orange County. Its 60 adult beds and 40 adolescent beds opened in January 1989 as a licensed long-term facility, but it has been operating continually as a short-term facility. The Applications Charter proposes to develop a new free-standing 60- bed psychiatric hospital (40 beds for adults, 10 beds for adolescents and 10 beds for children). It plans a wide range of treatment modalities utilizing a multi-disciplinary team approach, tailored to the age and needs of the patient. Although no specific site has been selected, several have been identified in southwest Orange County. Charter anticipates the total cost for the project will be $7,783,000. Charter's patients will be primarily commercially insured (71%), with 15% Medicare and 4% indigent. Charter has committed to serve this share of indigent for the first two years of operation. As a specialty hospital, Charter is not eligible to accept Medicaid patients. ORMC proposes to build a 60-bed free-standing facility on a 7.2 acre site within 40 acres it already owns at Sand Lake and adjacent to its existing Sand Lake Hospital, for a total project cost of $6,678,935. No new licensed beds are required as ORNC will transfer its 32 short term beds from the sixth floor of the Sand Lake Hospital and will convert 28 of its licensed medical/surgical beds from its downtown hospital. The 60 beds will consist of 30 adult and 30 adolescent short term beds. Since the existing 32 beds are primarily adult beds, ORMC's project will be adding adolescent beds to the inventory in District 7. Proximity to Sand Lake Hospital will facilitate shared services, including engineering, dietary and laundry. ORMC also expects the joint use of therapists at its psychiatric facility and its existing brain injury rehabilitation unit at Sand Lake. Because the facility will be added to ORMC's general hospital license, it can and will accept Medicaid patients. ORMC has committed to serve 20% Medicare, 8% Medicaid and 8% indigent patients. ORMC will likely seek an outside management firm to operate its psychiatric facility. The Review On August 23, 1988, HRS published a need for 140 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. Its SAAR issued in January 1989, recommended approval of a total of 137 beds. When the SAAR was amended in March 1989, to include the Charter approval, the total surged to 197 approved beds. Even after First Hospital withdrew its application for 55 beds, the total approved exceeded the published need for the 1993 horizon year by two beds. Numeric Need The short-term psychiatric bed need rule is found at Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) , F.A.C. "Short-term" is defined as an average length of stay of 30 days or less for adults, and 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. A favorable need determination will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to sub-paragraph (1)(o)4 of "the rule". Rule 10-5.011(1)(0)4, F.A.C. provides as follows: 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 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 shall be projected 5 years into the future based on the most recent available January or July population estimate prior to the beginning to the respective batching cycle. The projected number of beds shall be based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District under Paragraph 10-5.011(1)(m). The net need for short term psychiatric beds shall be calculated by subtracting the number of licensed and approved beds from the number of projected beds. The population estimates are based on population projections by the Executive Office of the Governor. Occupancy Standards. New Facilities must be able to project an average 70% occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60% for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80% occupancy rate for adult beds and 70% 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% 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% for the preceding 12 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% 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. The parties do not dispute that application of the formula yields a need for 140 beds, the total published in the applicable fixed need pool. Nor do the parties dispute that the occupancy standard was met, since HRS uses the lower standard of 70% as a threshold for determining whether need should be published. The parties agree that approval of both Charter's and ORMC's applications results in an excess of two beds over the published need. There is substantial dispute as to whether that excess is justified, and as to the composition of the beds as "speciality hospital" or "general hospital" beds. The only provision in agency rules or policy for exceeding bed need calculations is when "not normal" or "special" circumstances exist in the District. HRS' Policy Manual for the Certificate of Need program, dated October 1, 1988, provides in Section 9-6 B. (3): If a qualified applicant exist but the proposed project exceeds the beds or services identified in the fixed need pool, the department may award beds or services in excess of the pool when warranted by special circumstances as defined in rule 10- 5.011(1)(b), 1-4, F.A.C. and, specifically for nursing homes Rule 10-5.011(1)(K)2.j. F.A.C. (Laurel Oaks Exhibit #10, P. 9-2) The referenced sections of Rule 10-5.011(1)(b), F.A.C., relate to the enhancement of access--primarily economic access and access by underserved groups. Access is addressed in Part VII, below. No evidence was presented regarding special problems of access in District 7. Rather, HRS asserts that its excess approval was based on "rounding up" the numbers of beds, and on the favorable occupancy rates in the district. In its SAAR, HRS calculated the following occupancy rates by age cohort in the district: Adult 75.8% Child/Adolescent 74.8%; and in Orange County: Adult 57.4% Child/Adolescent 100. The adult rate is therefore slightly above the 75% minimum in the district, and substantially below the minimum in Orange County. The child/adolescent rate is above the 70% minimum in both the district and county. HRS appropriately does not utilize occupancy in beds other than licensed short term psychiatric bed in calculating its rates as it would be difficult to compute the number of available beds (medical/surgical, long term psychiatric, etc.). The rule specifies that a minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population "should" be allocated to hospital1s holding a general license and that .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in either speciality hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. Of the 140 beds needed in District 7, 75 may be located in a speciality hospital under this formula. 30 speciality beds were awarded to West Lake and are unchallenged. The Charter application for 60 speciality beds exceeds by 15, the 45 speciality beds left to be allocated. The State and Local Health Plans The State Health Plan is dated 1985-1987. Goal 1 is the only portion of the plan that is relevant in this review. It essentially reiterates the need methodology described above, regarding the .35 beds per 1000 population and the 70% and 75% annual occupancy thresholds. The applicable local health plan is the 1988 local health plan for District 7. This plan divides the district into "planning areas": Brevard, Osceola, Seminole and Orange -- the four counties within the district. Planning areas, unlike subdistricts, are more in the nature of guidelines and do not carry the same legal weight as subdistricts. Both applicants are committed to submit data to the local health councils, as provided in recommendation #2. Both applicants have committed to provide a fair share of care to the underserved, although ORMC's commitment is substantially greater and has a proven record to support it. Recommendation #5 provides that no new short-term psychiatric or substance abuse beds shall be approved until all existing beds in the planning area are operating at or above 75% occupancy for the most recent twelve months for which data is available from the local health council. This criteria is barely met when adult and children/adolescent occupancy is combined, and is not met by the occupancy rate for adult beds in Orange County. Financial Feasibility The pro formas of both applicants, which are no more than best guess estimates, are generally reasonable, based upon the experience of the applicants' existing programs. Charter's proposal makes no provision for management fees, although such fees are remitted to the parent company by its subsidiaries and are reported to the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Charter anticipates that it would not incur additional corporate overhead to support this facility if it is built. In recent years ORMC's psychiatric unit has lost money in its operation when overhead is factored into the cost. Its Program Director, Jeffrey Oppenheim, reasonably anticipates the new facility will make a profit, as it will serve a better mix of age cohorts and will offer a more desirable setting than its limited facility now located on the sixth floor of a medical/surgical hospital. The financial feasibility of both applications depends on the programs' ability to attract patients. That ability is not seriously questioned. Both applications have substantial experience in operating financially efficient health care programs. Quality of Care and Accessibility No evidence was presented to challenge either applicant's ability to provide quality care. Nor, however, was the quality of care of existing alternative programs at issue. Geographic access in District 7 is not a problem, and none suggests that the access standard in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., F.A.C., is not met (travel time of 45 minutes or less for 90% of the service area population). Charter's inability to provide Medicaid services and its time-limited commitment to serve even 4% indigents amount to only minimal contribution to the economically underserved population. In the past, ORMC has been a receiving facility for Baker Act patients and it anticipates it will again when the psychiatric program has its new quarters. It is only one of two hospitals in Orange County eligible to provide Medicaid services and is the fifth highest provider of charity and Medicaid in the State of Florida, according to Medical Health Care Cost Containment Board data. Impact on Existing Facilities and Competition Positive competition among providers already exists in District 7. There are eleven existing short term psychiatric programs in the four-county area, including both speciality and general hospitals, and adult, children and adolescent programs. Only three obtained an occupancy rate of more than 75% for the fiscal period ending June 1988. The Availability of Health Manpower There is a shortage of nurses, qualified social workers and counsellors in District 7. HMA has experienced problems in recruiting staff at its Orlando facility. Competition for these staff has caused salaries to rise, and consequently the cost of providing services has risen. Turnover results when staff are attracted to new facilities, causing training problems and affecting quality of care. Charter has the corporate resources to conduct effective recruiting, but has no experience recruiting in the Orlando area. ORMC, a large diverse facility, with good opportunity for lateral and upward mobility, has experienced few problems staffing its programs. The Availability of Alternatives Eight of eleven District 7 short term psychiatric facilities have operated below 75% occupancy in the last two years. These under-utilized facilities are plainly alternatives for new projects proposing the same services. Neither applicant is proposing novel or innovative services in psychiatric care. That licensed long term psychiatric facilities such as HMA, are operating short term programs does not justify the approval of new short term beds, but rather suggests these programs could be converted, with little or no capital outlay, into short term programs. Conversion of under-utilized acute are beds to short term psychiatric beds is also an alternative in District 7. Acute care bed occupancy rates in each county of District 7 failed to reach 60% in the most recent 12-month period of available data. The criterion of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.f., F.A.C. favors the conversion of under-utilized beds in other hospital services unless conversion costs are prohibitive. There has been a trend in the last several years away from inpatient care and toward less restrictive treatment modalities. Both applicants acknowledge this trend with their inclusion of partial hospitalization programs in their plans. ORMC has no reasonable alternative to building a new facility if it is to maintain its inpatient psychiatric program. There is an increasing demand for the medical surgical beds it currently occupies on the sixth floor of Sand Lake Hospital. There is no appropriate space in its downtown facilities. Balancing the Criteria Comparative Review and Summary As reflected above, not all of the relevant statutory and rule criteria have been met by these applicants. There remains, however, the planning horizon numerical need for additional short term psychiatric beds. While that need could likely be met with the utilization of beds that are not licensed for the provision of short term care, such a solution frustrates state licensing requirements. Three alternative dispositions exist: to deny both ORMC and Charter applications, leaving an unmet need in this cycle for 86 beds; to grant one application only; or to approve both and exceed the need by two beds. HRS argues that the two-bed difference is of little consequence and that the excessive number of specialty beds if Charter is approved is irrelevant, as no general hospital is currently competing for the beds. It is not possible to conjecture that appropriate general hospital applicants will participate in a near future cycle, but it is certain that if those beds are awarded in this cycle to a specialty hospital, they will not be available in a future cycle. Nothing requires that all beds identified in a fixed pool must be awarded in that cycle. The converse follows when, as here, other considerations weigh against approval of additional beds. Between the two applicants, ORMC more consistently meets the rule and statutory criteria. Although it still proposes a substantial capital outlay, (ORMC) relies on conversion of existing licensed beds and results in less impact on other existing programs. Its contribution to the underserved population is more substantial; it proposes more needed adolescent, rather than adult beds; and it does not violate the .15/.20 general hospital, specialty hospital bed balance. That balance needs to be maintained in this case to insure competition among Medicaid providers. In summary, the evidence supports approval of ORMC's application and denial of Charter's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered denying CON number 5691 to Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc.; and granting CON #5697 to Orlando Regional Medical Center. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NO. 89-1358,89-1366.89-1368,89-2039 & 89-2041 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6.-17. Adopted in statement of the issues. 18. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. 19.-36. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 6. 37. Addressed in paragraph 30. 38.-5O. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 36. 51.-57. Rejected as unnecessary, except at summarized in paragraph 7. 58.-6I. Adopted in paragraph 16. 62.-69. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the methodology in the rule. 70. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 71.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. "Not normal" does not include high occupancy rates in several facilities. 79.-8I. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. 82.-83. Rejected as immaterial. The evidence in this case supports maintenance of the balance, notwithstanding past practice. 84. Adopted in paragraph 15. 85.-103. Rejected as unnecessary. 104. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. 105. & 106. Adopted in paragraph 22. 107.-109. Adopted in paragraph 23. 110. & 111. Rejected as unnecessary. 112. & 113. Adopted in paragraph 24. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 116.-149. Rejected as unnecessary. 150. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 26 and 29. 151.-161. Rejected as unnecessary. 162.-164. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. 165.-171. Rejected as unnecessary. 172. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 173.-180. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 181. Adopted in paragraph 5. 182.-190. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 43. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 193.-198. Rejected as unnecessary. 199. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 200.-206. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. 210.-213. Rejected as unnecessary. 214. Adopted by implication in paragraph 33. 215.-218. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. & 221. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 222. Adopted in summary in paragraph :28. 223.-238. Rejected as unnecessary. Orlando Regional Medical Center Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 9. 3.-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Adopted in summary in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as ummaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 15. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 22.-24. Adopted in summary in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 15 and conclusion of law #7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. 29 & 30. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 23. 36 & 37. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 11 and 33. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 11. 41 & 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 26. 48.-52. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (the finding as to no alternatives). The finding regarding Park Place is unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 36. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. 63.-66. Rejected as unnecessary. 67. Adopted in paragraph 47. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1. & 2. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 6. and 9. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 36. 7.-9. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 30 and 34. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The policy is found in HRS' Policy Manual. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 26 & 27. Adopted by implication in 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 33 & 34. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 46. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, and immaterial (as to the ratio). Rejected as contrary to the definition "not normal" and immaterial. 38 & 39. Rejected as argument. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as unnecessary. 43 & 49. Rejected as argument. Laurel Oaks Hospital Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. & 9. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. 10. Adopted in paragraph 18. 11.-21. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The term is "should", not "shall". Adopted in paragraph 15. 36 Adopted in paragraph 13. 37.-40. Adopted in paragraph 16. 41 & 42. Adopted in paragraph 18. 43 & 44. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 45.-47. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. 48 & 49. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 52 - 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55 & 56. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. 57.-61. Rejected as unnecessary or argument. 62.-65. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 23. 66 & 67. Adopted in paragraph 22. 68. Adopted in paragraph 23. 69.-72. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 73 & 74. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 75. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 76.-78. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 30 and 31. Adopted in paragraph 37. 82.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86. Adopted in paragraph 30. 87 & 88. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 and 39. 92.-95 Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 101-112. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 35. 116-121. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Health Management Associates1 Inc:. (HMA) 1. & 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 15 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 18. 20 Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 21. 23 & 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 & 26. Adopted in paragraph 5. 27.-51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52. Adopted in paragraph 35. 53.-55. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 James M. Barclay, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer, Harbert & Bates 225 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly First Florida Bank Building, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32401 C. Gary Williams, Esquire R. Stan Peeler, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Brennan, Jr., Esquire Bonner & O'Connell 900 17th street, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben & Culpepper 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Miller, General Counsel HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Status of the case South Broward Hospital District (SBHD) is a special taxing district created in 1947 by a special act of the Florida Legislature to provide health services to the residents of South Broward County and surrounding areas. SBHD is a designated disproportionate share provider of medical services to the indigent, and currently operates two Class I General Hospitals in Broward County, to wit: Memorial Hospital, located in Hollywood, and Memorial Hospital West, located in Pembroke Pines. Pertinent to this case, SBHD was authorized to establish Memorial Hospital West by Certificate of Need (CON) number 4019 issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the predecessor to respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration) on December 21, 1988. The certificate's project description read as follows: Construction of a new 100 bed satellite hospital facility, which will be composed of 92 medical surgical and 8 intensive care beds, in southwestern Broward County, HRS District 10, via the transfer of 100 beds from an existing facility, Memorial Hospital, Hollywood, and retiring an additional 25 medical/surgical beds from the existing facility upon the opening of the satellite facility . . . . By letter of June 3, 1992, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3288, effective May 12, 1992, which authorized it to operate Memorial Hospital West as a Class I General hospital with 100 acute care beds. Contemporaneously, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3289, effective May 12, 1992, which reduced Memorial Hospital's licensed acute care beds to 489, "reflecting the transfer of 100 acute beds to Memorial Hospital West, and the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds," "[p]ursuant to Certificate of Need Number 4019." SBHD filed a timely petition challenging the respondent's issuance of License No. 3289, and, more particularly, the provision in such license reflecting "the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds." It was SBHD's position that the provision of CON 4019 which required the retirement of the additional 25 beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West was invalid or, alternatively, that the CON should be modified to delete such requirement. Respondent disagreed with SBHD's assertion that the provision of the CON requiring retirement of the additional 25 beds was invalid and contended that SBHD's request for modification could not be accommodated under the modification provisions of Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, but required certificate of need review. Accordingly, these formal proceedings to review, de novo, the agency's decision were commenced at SBHD's request. The quest for CON 4019 The quest by SBHD to construct a satellite hospital in southwest Broward County had its genesis in January 1984 when the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) evidenced its intention to deny SBHD's application for CON 2834 and SBHD requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and designated DOAH Case No. 84-0235. Thereafter, in 1985, SBHD filed another application with HRS, designated as CON application No. 4019, for authorization to develop and operate a 100-bed satellite hospital in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds from Memorial Hospital. After HRS's initial denial of that application, SBHD requested a formal hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. That case was assigned DOAH Case No. 85-3940, and was consolidated with the other application of SBHD, DOAH Case No. 84-0235. On April 11, 1986, SBHD updated its two applications to construct the satellite hospital, by proposing to transfer 100 beds from Memorial Hospital to the new facility, which would be composed of 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care beds. Subsequently, SBHD agreed to the retirement of 25 additional medical/surgical beds from Memorial Hospital upon the opening of its satellite facility, HRS agreed to support such project, and SBHD's application was duly updated. Accordingly, when the final hearing was held in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940 on September 12-16, 1986, October 22, 1986, and December 1, 1986, the issue was: . . . whether South Broward Hospital District's (District) application for a certificate of need to build and operate a satellite facility in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds and retiring 25 medical/surgical beds from its existing facility should be granted. On August 4, 1987 a recommended order was rendered in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940, which recommended that SBHD's application be denied. While recommending denial, such order ultimately metamorphosed into a final order, discussed infra, granting SBHD's application, and adopting a number of the findings of fact set forth in the recommended order. Those findings adopted included the recognition of the agency's evolving policy relating to bed transfers and relocation, as well as its consideration of a reduction of excess capacity within the district as affecting its decision to support such transfer. Specifically, the order noted: The Department has formulated a draft policy with respect to standards for evaluating applications to transfer beds or convert facilities. This policy was first written on August 7, 1986, and is based on the agency's prior experience in health planning. The Department's general policy for transfers and conversions is to try to "work off" any overbedding in a service district when approving transfers by requiring bed retirement as a condition to the approval of transfers. This strategy is the Department's attempt to reduce the excess of licensed and approved medical/surgical beds. The Department does not believe it possesses statutory authority to delicense acute care beds or retire acute care beds. Voluntary reduction of surplus beds in conjunction with applications to transfer beds or convert facilities provides one means for reduction of the number of beds in a service district. While the hearing officer observed that the agency did not believe it possessed the statutory authority to require the retirement or delicensure of acute care beds as a precondition for approval of a CON application, such observation, considering other findings of the hearing officer and the proof in this case, does not suggest that a proposed reduction in beds was not a legitimate factor for the agency to consider when evaluating an application and deciding whether it does or does not, on balance, satisfy relevant statutory and rule criteria. 1/ Indeed, one criteria to be considered in evaluating a CON application is its consistency with the State and Local Health Plan. At the time SBHD's application was reviewed, the State Health Plan set an appropriate ratio of medical/surgical beds to the population as a ratio of 4.11 to 1,000. Broward County (District X) was significantly overbedded at the time, with a medical/surgical bed ratio of approximately 5.1 to 1,000 and the Local Health Plan encouraged a reduction of licensed beds to achieve a ratio of 4.5 to 1,000 by 1988. Moreover, a proposed reduction in beds could also influence other criteria, such as, access, efficiency, and utilization. Following rendition of the recommended order on August 4, 1987, SBHD's pursuit of CON 4019 to final order took a tortuous route. In this regard, a final order of the agency dated August 18, 1988 observed: A prior invalid order of October 7, 1987, was vacated by order of February 29, 1988. After the order of February 29 was submitted to the First District Court of Appeal pursuant to relinquishment of its jurisdiction, the appeal of the final order was dismissed. Petitioner [SBHD] then moved for entry of a new final order. By order of June 27, 1988, the case was then remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for reevaluation of the merits of the application and additional findings based on the existing record, consistent with the rulings on exceptions by the Department contained in the Order of Remand. The Division of Administrative Hearings, by order of July 26, 1988, declined remand and ordered that the record be returned to the Department for entry of final order. The order then proceeded to adopt, except as specifically noted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the recommended order, and granted SBHD's application for CON 4019. SBHD's pursuit of its CON had not, however, met fruition. The final order of August 18, 1988, "was quashed on procedural grounds by the First District Court of Appeal in an Order dated September 15, 1988". Subsequently, by "order dated December 13, 1988, the District Court dismissed [the case] on the basis of a voluntary dismissal by the parties". The agency then observed that "it is now time for the disposition of the application for CON 4019." Accordingly, by final order rendered December 21, 1988, the agency resolved: . . . I conclude that CON 4019 should be approved for the reasons set forth in the Order rendered August 18, 1988. Therefore, the Order rendered August 18, 1988, is incorporated by reference. Based on the foregoing, it is ADJUDGED that the application of South Broward Hospital District for certificate of need number 4019 to construct a satellite facility in south- western Broward County be APPROVED. Consistent with that final order, CON 4019, dated December 29, 1988, with an issue date of December 21, 1988, was granted to SBHD. As heretofore noted, the certificate, consistent with SBHD's updated application, included the requirement that an additional 25 medical/surgical beds would be retired at Memorial Hospital upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West. The validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds. Here, SBHD has challenged the propriety of respondent's delicensure of 25 medical/surgical beds at Memorial Hospital based on the contention that the provision of CON 4019, which provided for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West, was invalid. SBHD's contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is unpersuasive. In support of its contention, SBHD offered proof a hearing that it was HRS that initiated the proposal to retire beds, and that HRS did not have the unilateral authority to "require" the retirement or delicensure of beds as a prerequisite or condition for approval of a CON application. 2/ Accepting that HRS initiated the dialogue, as well as the fact that HRS could not unilaterally require SBHD to retire beds, does not, however, compel the conclusion that the provision for the retirement of beds was invalid. To the contrary, as heretofore discussed, overbedding in District X was of legitimate concern to HRS, a reduction of beds was an appropriate consideration in the course of CON review, and SBHD elected to update/amend its application to include such a reduction and thereby garner HRS support in the face of opposition from other competitors. Accordingly, that HRS could not "require" SBHD to retire beds is irrelevant. SBHD updated/amended its application and affirmatively proposed, as part of its project, a reduction of beds. Such reduction was an integral part of the project reviewed and ultimately approved, and was a factor appropriately considered by the agency in evaluating the application. Finally, to support its contention that the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 beds was invalid, SBHD suggests, essentially, that the update/amendment of its application to include such a proposal was inappropriate or contrary to law. Such contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is likewise unpersuasive. Rather, the credible proof demonstrates that, at all times material to the subject application, HRS had no policy and there existed no rule or statute, that precluded an update or an amendment to an application for a CON during the course of an administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the amendment by SBHD of its application to include a provision for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds was not improper, and such provision can hardly be characterized as invalid. 3/ The request to modify CON 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 medical/surgical beds be retired. Accepting the validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds, and therefore the propriety of the agency's decision to delicense those beds, SBHD has requested that the CON be modified to delete such requirement due to changed circumstances since its issuance. The agency opposes SBHD's request, contending that the change in bed capacity requires CON review. Pertinent to this case, Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the procedure and the circumstances under which a certificate of need holder may seek a "modification" of a certificate of need. For purposes of the rule, "modification" is defined as: . . . an alteration to an issued, valid certificate of need or to the condition or conditions on the face of a certificate of need for which a license has been issued, where such an alteration does not result in a project subject to review as specified in . . . subsection 408.036(1) . . . Florida Statutes. Rule 59C-1.019(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 408.036(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: . . . all health-care-related projects, as described in paragraphs (a)-(n), are subject to review and must file an application for a certificate of need with the department. The department is exclusively responsible for determining whether a health-care- related project is subject to review under ss. 381.701-381.715. * * * (e) Any change in licensed bed capacity. In this case, the agency contends that the CON cannot be modified to delete the 25-bed retirement provision because such alteration would result in a "change in licensed bed capacity," and therefore a project subject to CON review. Contrasted with the agency's position, SBHD contends that it timely challenged the agency's decision to delicense the 25 beds, based on its contention that the provision requiring the retirement of beds was invalid, and "there can be no actual change in licensed bed capacity at Memorial Hospital prior to final resolution of . . . this proceeding." [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p.17]. As stated by SBHD, Rather than seeking to change its licensed bed capacity, SBHD is opposing a change in its licensed bed capacity in order to maintain the status quo. [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p. 17]. Considering the provisions of law and analysis, as discussed in the conclusions of law infra, it is concluded that the agency's position is founded upon a reasonable interpretation of law and is, therefor, accorded deference. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing SBHD's protest to the delicensure of 25 acute care beds at Memorial Hospital, and denying SBHD's request to modify certificate of need number 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 acute care beds be retired. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of September 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 23rd day of September 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application No. 8614, filed by Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., meets, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration relied upon an unpromulgated and invalid rule in preliminarily denying CON Application No. 8614.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospital South, Inc. (Vencor), is the applicant for certificate of need (CON) No. 8614 to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency authorized to administer the CON program in Florida, preliminarily denied Vencor's CON application. On January 10, 1997, AHCA issued its decision in the form of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) indicating, as it also did in its Proposed Recommended Order, that the Vencor application was denied primarily due to a lack of need for a long term care hospital in District 8, which includes Lee County. Vencor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vencor, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, founded in 1985 by a respiratory/physical therapist to provide care to catastrophically ill, ventilator-dependent patients. Initially, the corporation served patients in acute care hospitals, but subsequently purchased and converted free-standing facilities. In 1995, Vencor merged with Hillhaven, which operated 311 nursing homes. Currently, Vencor, its parent, and related corporations operate 60 long term care hospitals, 311 nursing homes, and 40 assisted living facilities in approximately 46 states. In Florida, Vencor operates five long term care hospitals, located in Tampa, St. Petersburg, North Florida (Green Cove Springs), Coral Gables, and Fort Lauderdale. Pursuant to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed on October 2, 1997, the parties agreed that: On August 26, 1996, Vencor submitted to AHCA a letter of intent to file a Certificate of Need Application seeking approval for the construction of a 60-bed long term care hospital to be located in Fort Myers, AHCA Health Planning District 8; Vencor's letter of intent and board resolution meet requirements of Sections 408.037(4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, and were timely filed with both AHCA and the local health council, and notice was properly published; Vencor submitted to AHCA its initial Certificate of Need Application (CON Action No. 8614) for the proposed project on September 25, 1996, and submitted its Omissions Response on November 11, 1996; Vencor's Certificate of Need Application contains all of the minimum content items required in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes; Both Vencor's initial CON Application and its Omissions Response were timely filed with AHCA and the local health council. During the hearing, the parties also stipulated that Vencor's Schedule 2 is complete and accurate. In 1994, AHCA adopted rules defining long term care and long term care hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part 1, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, Subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Other rules distinguishing long term care include those related to conversions of beds and facilities from one type of health care to another. AHCA, the parties stipulated, has no rule establishing a uniform numeric need methodology for long term care beds and, therefore, no fixed need pool applicable to the review of Vencor's CON application. Numeric Need In the absence of any AHCA methodology or need publication, Vencor is required to devise its own methodology to demonstrate need. Rule 59C-1.008(e) provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or 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. Vencor used a numeric need analysis which is identical to that prepared by the same health planner, in 1995, for St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg). The St. Petersburg project proposed that Vencor would manage the facility. Unlike the current proposal for new construction, St. Petersburg was a conversion of an existing but closed facility. AHCA accepted that analysis and issued CON 8213 to St. Petersburg. The methodology constitutes a use rate analysis, which calculates the use rate of a health service among the general population and applies that to the projected future population of the district. The use rate analysis is the methodology adopted in most of AHCA's numeric need rules. W. Eugene Nelson, the consultant health planner for Vencor, derived a historic utilization rate from the four districts in Florida in which Vencor operates long term care hospitals. That rate, 19.7 patient days per 1000 population, when applied to the projected population of District 8 in the year 2000, yields an average daily census of 64 patients. Mr. Nelson also compared the demographics of the seven counties of District 8 to the rest of the state, noting in particular the sizable, coastal population centers and the significant concentration of elderly, the population group which is disproportionately served in long term care hospitals. The proposed service area is all of District 8. By demonstrating the numeric need for 64 beds and the absence of any existing long term care beds in District 8, Vencor established the numeric need for its proposed 60-bed long term care hospital. See Final Order in DOAH Case No. 97-4419RU. Statutory Review Criteria Additional criteria for evaluating CON applications are listed in Subsections 408.035(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and the rules which implement that statute. (1)(a) need in relation to state and district health plans. The 1993 State Health Plan, which predates the establishment of long term care rules, contains no specific preferences for evaluating CON applications for long term care hospitals. The applicable local plan is the District 8 1996-1997 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report, approved on September 9, 1996. The District 8 plan, like the State Health Plan, contains no mention of long term care hospitals. In the SAAR, AHCA applied the District 8 and state health plan criteria for acute care hospital beds to the review of Vencor's application for long term care beds, although agency rules define the two as different. The acute care hospital criteria are inapplicable to the review of this application for CON 8614 and, therefore, there are no applicable state or district health plan criteria for long term care. (1)(b) availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the district; and (1)(d) availability and adequacy of alternative health care facilities in the district. Currently, there are no long term care hospitals in District 8. The closest long term care hospitals are in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale, all over 100 miles from Fort Myers. In the SAAR, approving the St. Petersburg facility, two long term care hospitals in Tampa were discussed as alternatives. By contract, the SAAR preliminarily denying Vencor's application lists as alternatives CMR facilities, nursing homes which accept Medicare patients, and hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA examined the quantity of beds available in other health care categories in reliance on certain findings in the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Levin-VHI, Inc. ("the Lewin Report"). The Lewin Report notes the similarities between the type of care provided in long term care, CMR and acute care hospitals, and in hospital-based subacute care units, and subacute care beds in community nursing homes. The Lewin Report also acknowledges that "subacute care" is not well-defined. AHCA has not adopted the Lewin Report by rule, nor has it repealed its rules defining long term care as a separate and district health care category. For the reasons set forth in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order, AHCA may not rely on the Lewin Report to create a presumption that other categories are "like and existing" alternatives to long term care, or to consider services outside District 8 as available alternatives. Additionally, Vencor presented substantial evidence to distinguish its patients from those served in other types of beds. The narrow range of diagnostic related groups or DRGs served at Vencor includes patients with more medically complex multiple system failures than those in CMR beds. With an average length of stay of 60 beds, Vencor's patients are typically too sick to withstand three hours of therapy a day, which AHCA acknowledged as the federal criteria for CMR admissions. Vencor also distinguished its patients, who require 7 1/2 to 8 hours of nursing care a day, as compared to 2 1/2 to 3 hours a day in nursing homes. Similarly, the average length of stay in nursing home subacute units is less than 41 days. The DRG classifications which account for 80 percent of Vencor's admissions represent only 7 percent of admissions to hospital based skilled nursing units, and 10 to 11 percent of admissions to nursing home subacute care units. Vencor also presented the uncontroverted testimony of Katherine Nixon, a clinical case manager whose duties include discharge planning for open heart surgery for patients at Columbia-Southwest Regional Medical Center (Columbia-Southwest), an acute care hospital in Fort Myers. Ms. Nixon's experience is that 80 percent of open heart surgery patients are discharged home, while 20 percent require additional inpatient care. Although Columbia-Southwest has a twenty-bed skilled nursing unit with two beds for ventilator-dependent patients, those beds are limited to patients expected to be weaned within a week. Finally, Vencor presented results which are preliminary and subject to peer review from its APACHE (Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation) Study. Ultimately, Vencor expects the study to more clearly distinguish its patient population. In summary, Vencor demonstrated that a substantial majority of patients it proposes to serve are not served in alternative facilities, including CMR hospitals, hospital-based skilled nursing units, or subacute units in community nursing homes. Expert medical testimony established the inappropriateness of keeping patients who require long term care in intensive or other acute care beds, although that occurs in District 8 when patients refuse to agree to admissions too distant from their homes. (1)(c) ability and record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Vencor's application complies with the requirement of Subsection 408.035(1)(c). (1)(e) probable economics of joint or shared resources; (1)(g) need for research and educational facilities; and (1)(j) needs of health maintenance organizations. The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (j) are not at issue. (f) need in the district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Based on the experiences of Katherine Nixon, it is not reasonable for long term care patients to access services outside District 8. Ms. Nixon also testified that patients are financially at a disadvantage if placed in a hospital skilled nursing unit rather than a long term care hospital. If a patient is not weaned as quickly as expected, Medicare reimbursement after twenty days decreases to 80 percent. In addition, the days in the hospital skilled nursing unit are included in the 100 day Medicare limit for post-acute hospitalization rehabilitation. By contrast, long term care hospitalization preserves the patient's ability under Medicare to have further rehabilitation services if needed after a subsequent transfer to a nursing home. (h) resources and funds, including personnel to accomplish project. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that Vencor has sufficient funds to accomplish the project, and properly documented its source of funds in Schedule 3 of the CON application. Vencor has a commitment for $10 million to fund this project of approximately $8.5 million. At the hearing, AHCA also agreed with Vencor that the staffing and salary schedule, Schedule 6, is reasonable. (i) immediate and long term financial feasibility of the proposal. Vencor has the resources to establish the project and to fund short term operating losses. Vencor also reasonably projected that revenues will exceed expenses in the second year of operation. Therefore, Vencor demonstrated the short and long term financial feasibility of its proposal. needs of entities serving residents outside the district. Vencor is not proposing that any substantial portion of it services will benefit anyone outside District 8. probable impact on costs of providing health services; effects of competition. There is no evidence of an adverse impact on health care costs. There is preliminary data from the APACHE study which tends to indicate the long term care costs are lower than acute care costs. No adverse effects of competition are shown and AHCA did not dispute the fact that Vencor's proposal is supported by acute care hospitals in District 8. costs and methods of proposed construction; and (2)((a)-(c) less costly alternatives to proposed capital expenditure. The prehearing stipulation includes agreement that the design is reasonable, and that proposed construction costs are below the median in that area. past and proposed service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Vencor has a history of providing Medicaid and indigent care in the absence of any legal requirements to do so. The conditions proposed of 3 percent of total patient days Medicaid and 2 percent for indigent/charity patients proposed by Vencor are identical to those AHCA accepted in issuing CON 8213 to St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. Vencor's proposed commitment is reasonable and appropriate, considering AHCA's past acceptance and the fact that the vast majority of long term care patients are older and covered by Medicare. services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. While Vencor's services are needed due to a gap in the continuum of care which exists in the district, it has not shown that it will be a part of a multilevel system in District 8. (2)(d) that patients will experience serious problems obtaining the inpatient care proposed. Patients experience and will continue to experience serious problems in obtaining long term care in District 8 in the absence of the project proposed by Vencor. Based on the overwhelming evidence of need, and the ability of the applicant to establish and operate a high quality program with no adverse impacts on other health care providers, Vencor meets the criteria for issuance of CON 8614.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON 8614 to Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., to construct a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, District 8. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should recoup Medicaid payments made to Petitioner for health care services provided to eight patients.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., (Hospital), has contracted with Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to provide services to Medicaid patients. The parties have agreed that there is a dispute for Medicaid reimbursement for goods and services provided to eight patients: S.G., J.D., R.J., C.A., G.M., S.S., M.P., and C.T. The Agency has paid the Hospital for the services rendered to these eight patients and seeks to recoup the payment based on a retrospective review by a peer review organization, Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePro). The Agency claims that either the admission or a portion of the length-of-stay for the eight patients was medically unnecessary. Services were provided to C.T. in 1994 and to the remainder of the patients at issue in 1995. Payment for Medicaid services is on a per diem basis. The rate for 1994 is $473.22 per day, and the rate for 1995 is $752.14. The Agency contracted with KePro to do a review of the Medicaid payments to the Hospital. KePro employs nurses to review the patient files based on criteria on discharge screens. If the services meet the criteria, there is no further review and the payment is approved. If the nurse determines that the services do not meet the criteria on the discharge screens, the patient's files are reviewed by a board certified physician, who in this case would be a psychiatrist. If the physician determines that the services are not medically necessary, a letter is sent to the Medicaid provider, giving the provider an opportunity to submit additional information. Additional information submitted by the provider is reviewed by a board certified physician. If the doctor concludes that the services are still medically unnecessary, the provider is notified that that services do not qualify for reimbursement and the provider may ask for a reconsideration of the denial. If the provider seeks reconsideration, the file is reviewed by a physician, and the provider has an opportunity to be present during the review. If the physician determines that the services are medically unnecessary, KePro sends a letter to the Agency stating the reasons for denial. The denial letters that KePro sends to the Agency are reviewed by the Medical Director of KePro, who is not a psychiatrist. Dr. John Sullenberger, the Agency's Medicaid physician, reviews the KePro denial letters sent to the Agency, and 99.9 percent of the time he agrees with the findings of KePro regarding whether the services were medically necessary. Dr. Sullenberger does not review the patient's charts when he does this review. The Agency sends a recoupment letter to the Medicaid provider requesting repayment for services provided. Patient S.G., a 12 year-old boy, was being treated pursuant to the Baker Act. He was admitted to the Hospital on March 8, 1995, and discharged on March 25, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and the entire length-of-stay for S.G. based on KePro's determination that it was not medically necessary for the services to S.G. to be rendered in an acute care setting because the patient was neither suicidal nor homicidal. Three to five days prior to his admission to the Hospital, S.G. had attempted to stab his father. He also had further violent episodes, including jumping his father from behind and choking him and pulling knives on his parents. S.G. had a history of attention deficit and hyperactive disorder. He had been using multiple substances, such as alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and marijuana, prior to his admission. His behavior was a clear reference that he was suffering from a psychosis. A psychosis is a significant inability to understand what is reality, including delusions of false beliefs, hallucinations, hearing and seeing things which do not exist, and ways of thinking that are bizarre. Psychosis is a reason to admit a patient, particularly combined with substance abuse. S.G.'s treating psychiatrist noted that S.G. had tangentiality, which means that his thoughts did not stay together. He did not have a connection between thoughts, which is a sign of a psychosis. The chart demonstrated that S.G. had disorder thinking, which includes the possibility of a psychosis. There was also a reference in the charts to organic mental disturbance which could infer brain damage as the cause for the mental disturbance. Two days after admission, there was an issue of possible drug withdrawal because S.G. was agitated and anxious and showed other symptoms. Drug withdrawal, psychosis, and a demonstration of overt violence require a stay in an acute care facility. There was some indication that S.G. was suicidal. While in the Hospital he was placed under close observation, which is a schedule of 15-minute checks to determine if the patient was physically out of harm's way. S.G. was started on an antidepressant, Wellbutrin, because the treating physician thought S.G. was becoming increasingly depressed and was having trouble organizing his thoughts. Antidepressants, as contrasted to a medication such as an antibiotic, may take a minimum of two to three weeks before the patient will benefit from the full effect of the drug. It is difficult to stabilize the dosage for an antidepressant on an outpatient basis. S.G. was taking Ritalin, which is commonly used for children with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorders. During his stay at the Hospital, S.G. was engaging in strange behavior, including absence seizures. On March 16, 1995, he was still lunging and threatening harm. On March 20, 1995, he was still unstable and at risk. The dosage of Wellbutrin was increased. On March 21 and 22, 1995, S.G. was still threatening and confused. S.G. was discharged on March 25, 1995. The admission and length-of-stay for S.G. were medically necessary. Patient J.D. was a 16 year-old boy who was admitted to the Hospital on March 7, 1995, and discharged on March 14, 1995. The Agency denied the admission and entire length-of-stay based on KePro's determination that the patient was not actively suicidal or psychotic and services could have been rendered in a less acute setting. J.D. was admitted from a partial hospitalization program pursuant to the Baker Act because he was observed by a health care professional banging his head against the wall and throwing himself on the floor. He had a history of depression and out-of-control behavior, including being a danger to himself and running away. At the time of his admission, he was taking Prozac. Banging his head against the wall can mean that the patient is psychotic, can cause brain damage, and can be dangerous if the cause of the behavior is unknown. Admission to the Hospital was justified because the patient was extremely agitated and self abusive, requiring restraints and medication to decrease his agitation and self abusiveness. One of the tests administered during his hospital stay indicated that J.D. was a moderate risk for suicidal behavior. During his hospital stay, it was discovered that J.D. had threatened to kill himself while at school. He had been in a partial treatment program during the day, but that environment was not working. There was violence in the home, and J.D. was becoming overtly depressed. During his stay at the Hospital, J.D. was placed on close observation with 15-minute checks. His dosage of Prozac was increased. The admission and length-of-stay for J.D. were medically necessary. R.J., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on January 1, 1995, and discharged on February 9, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement based on a determination by KePro that the treatment in an acute care facility was not medically necessary because R.J. was not psychotic, not suicidal, and not a threat to others; thus treatment could have been provided in an alternate setting. R.J. had been referred by a health care professional at Horizon Center, an outpatient center, because of progressive deterioration over the previous fourteen months despite outpatient treatment. His deterioration included anger with temper outbursts, uncontrollable behavior at school, failing grades, sadness, depressed mood, extreme anxiety, extensive worrying and a fear of his grandmother. R.J. also suffered from encopresis, a bowel incontinence. He was agitated, lacked energy, neglected his hygiene, experienced crying spells, and had difficulty concentrating. R.J. needed to be admitted for an evaluation to rule out a paranoid psychosis. It was necessary to do a 24-hour EEG as opposed to a 45-minute EEG. In order to do a 24-hour EEG, the patient is typically placed in an acute care facility. The EEG showed abnormal discharge in the brain, which could be contributing to a psychiatric illness. At school R.J. had smeared feces on the walls, behavior that could be seen in psychotic persons. There was evidence that he had been hitting and throwing his stepbrother and 3 year-old brother. He was fearful of his grandmother and, based on his family history, there was reason to fear her. R.J. was placed on Buspar, a medication which generally takes two weeks to take effect. Contrary to the Agency's determination, R.J. was disorganized. He was also violent in terms of threatening danger and extreme anger. The admission and length-of-stay for R.J. at the Hospital were medically necessary. Patient C.A., a 9 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on June 1, 1995, and discharged on June 12, 1995. The Agency disallowed one day of the length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the services provided on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in a less restrictive setting. C.A. was admitted for violent and disruptive behavior. He also had an attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder and was taking Lithium and Depakote. These medications are used for patients who experience serious mood swings and abrupt changes in mood, going from depression to anger to euphoria. To be effective, medicating with Lithium and Depakote requires that the blood levels of the patient be monitored and the dosage titrated according to blood level. C.A. also was given Wellbutrin during his hospital stay. On June 11, 1995, C.A. was given an eight-hour pass to leave the hospital in the care of his mother. The physician's orders indicated that the pass was to determine how well C.A. did in a less restrictive setting. He returned to the Hospital without incident. He was discharged the next day to his mother. The treatment on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in an environment other than an acute facility; thus the stay on June 11, 1995, was not medically necessary for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. Patient G.M., an 11 year-old male with a history of being physically and sexually abused by his parents, was admitted to the Hospital on March 21, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient hospital treatment from March 28 to April 3, 1995, based on KePro's determination that the length of hospital stay exceeded health care needs at an inpatient level and could have been provided in a less acute setting. At the time of admission, G.M. had suicidal ideation. His school had reported that G.M. had mutilated himself with a pencil, banged himself on the knuckles, and told the school nurse that he wanted to die. Prior to admission, G.M. had been taking Ritalin. His treating physician took G.M. off the Ritalin so that she could assess his condition and start another medication after a base-line period. The doctor prescribed Clonidine for G.M. Clonidine is a drug used in children to control reckless, agressive and angry behavior. Clonidine must be titrated in order to establish the correct dosage for the patient. During his hospital stay, G.M. was yelling and threatening staff. He was placed in locked seclusion, where he began hitting the wall. G.M. was put in a papoose, which is similar to a straitjacket. The papoose is used when there is no other way to control the patient. The patient cannot use his arms or legs while in a papoose. This type of behavior and confinement was occurring as late as March 31, 1995. G.M. was given a pass to go to his grandparents on April 2, 1995. He did well during his pass, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. Treatment in an acute facility was medically necessary through April 1, 1995. Treatment on April 2, 1995, could have been provided in a less acute setting. Patient S.S., a 5 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on March 9, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length of his hospital stay based on a determination by KePro that S.S. was not psychotic or an immediate danger to himself or others and the evaluation and treatment could have been rendered in a less acute setting. Prior to admission to the Hospital, S.S. was threatening suicide, ran into a chalk board at school, scratched his arms until they bled, and showed aggressive intent toward his sister, saying that he would kill her with a saw. S.S.'s condition had been deteriorating for approximately three months before his admission. At the time of admission, he had been suicidal, hyperactive, restless, and experiencing hallucinations. The hallucinations imply a psychosis. S.S. was put on Trofanil, an antidepressant which needs to be titrated. The patient's blood level had to be monitored while taking this drug. During his hospital stay, S.S. was on close observation. All objects which he could use to harm himself were removed from his possession. After he ate his meals, the hospital staff would immediately remove all eating utensils. On March 28, 1995, S.S. threatened to kill himself and became self-abusive. His blood level on March 31, 1995, was sub-therapeutic, and his medication dosage was increased. On April 1, 1995, S.S. had a temper tantrum. The admission and length-of-stay for the treatment of S.S. were medically necessary. Patient M.P., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on April 27, 1995, and was discharged on May 6, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the patient functions on an eighteen to twenty-four month level but is not psychotic and the treatment could have been provided in a less acute setting. M.P.'s IQ is between 44 and 51. He was diagnosed with a pervasive development disorder, which is a serious lack of development attributed to significant brain damage. His condition had deteriorated in the six months prior to his admission. He had episodes of inappropriate laughter, fits of anger, hit his head, hit windows, and put his arm in contact with the broken glass through the window. At the time of his admission, he had a seizure disorder. An EEG and an MRI needed to be performed on M.P. in order to evaluate his condition. M.P. had to have a regular EEG, a 24-hour EEG, and a neurological examination. The patient was aggressive, restless, and uncooperative. In order for the MRI to be performed, M.P. had to be anesthetized. The admission and length-of-stay for M.P. were medically necessary. Patient C.T., a 34 year-old female, was admitted to the Hospital on November 11, 1994, and was discharged on November 26, 1994. The Agency denied the treatment from November 17, 1994, to November 26, 1994, based on a determination by a peer review organization that the patient was stable by November 17, 1994, and psychiatric follow-up could have been performed in an outpatient setting. C.T. was admitted for kidney stones. She did pass the kidney stones but continued to have severe pain. Her doctor asked for a psychiatric consult. The psychiatrist diagnosed C.T. as having a personality disorder, chronic psychogenic pain disorder, and an eating disorder. Her depressive disorder exacerbated pain. C.T. had been given narcotics for the pain associated with the kidney stones. In order to assess her mental status, the physicians needed to taper the dosage of Demerol which she had been receiving. She was started on Sinequan, which is an anti-depressant given to alleviate the psychological condition and to help with the physical complaints. C.T. was later put on Vicodin, an oral narcotic, which seemed to bring the pain under control. The drugs used could cause a drop in blood pressure; therefore, they had to be titrated slowly. Her treating physician was trying to find an appropriate anti-depressant, while weaning the patient from intramuscular narcotics. On November 17, 1994, C.T. left her room and went to the hospital lobby, where she was found by nursing staff. C.T. was crying and saying that she was in pain and wanted to die. During her hospital stay, C.T. was in much distress; she would scream out that she was in pain. On November 18, 1994, she was found crying on the floor of the hospital chapel and had to be returned to her room. It was the opinion of Dr. Bernard Frankel, an expert retained by the Hospital, that C.T. probably could have been discharged a day earlier. The hospital stay for C.T. from November 17, 1994, to November 25, 1994, was medically necessary. The last day of her stay was not medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., to pay to the Agency $752.14 for one day of service provided to G.M., $752.14 for one day of service provided to C.A., and $473.22 for one day of service provided to C.T. and finding that the Hospital is not liable for payment for any of the other services at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Falkinburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Williams, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should grant the application of the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant and the Application. The applicant, the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), is a 102 bed acute care hospital 1/ located at 6600 Madison Street, New Port Richey, Florida, in the West Pasco County Subdistrict of HRS Service District 5, which also includes Pinellas County and East Pasco County. Included among its complement of beds are 14 obstetrical (OB) beds. There are no existing pediatric beds. Riverside's application is for a certificate of need to spend approximately $2,000,000 to renovate its existing OB unit, add 14 beds to the OB unit, add 11 medical/surgical beds and add six pediatric beds. The addition of the pediatric unit will be accomplished by relatively minor alterations to existing space and existing beds, and the cost attributable to this phase of the application is negligible. Similarly, the 11 additional med/surg beds will be accomplished by adding beds to existing private rooms, to create semi-private rooms, at a cost of only approximately $44,000. (Gas and electric lines for the additional beds already have been run to the headwall of these rooms and can be connected without difficulty or much expense.) Most of the $2 million total capital expenditure proposed in the application is attributable to the cost of modernizing the OB unit, with the addition of 14 beds in the process. The addition of 14 beds to the unit does not add significantly to what the modernization effort would cost without the addition of the 14 beds. The proposed new OB unit would include private rooms, to go along with the semi-private rooms that make up the existing 14-bed unit. In addition, the proposed modernized 28-bed OB unit would consist of the combined labor/delivery/recovery/post-partum (LDRP) rooms now preferred by most patients. Pertinent State Health Plan Provision. The 1989 State of Florida Health Plan states at the outset of a list of preferences to be utilized in comparing applications for additional acute care beds: No additional acute care beds should generally be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy rate is at or exceeds 75 percent, or, in the event of an existing facility, an applicant shall demonstrate that the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at or exceeds 80 percent. The Need Methodology. Using the F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038 methodology, the district and subdistrict would show numeric need of approximately 201 and 230, respectively. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(5). Regardless of the calculated bed need, HRS does not normally approve additional beds in a subdistrict unless the annual average acute care bed occupancy rate is 75 percent or higher during the 12-month base period of July, 1989, through June, 1990. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(d). The 670 licensed beds in the West Pasco Subdistrict reported only 68.92% occupancy during the 12- month base period, resulting in no projected need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict for the applicable 1996 planning horizon. Even when a subdistricts's need for additional acute care beds projected by the methodology is zero, an application by an existing hospital still may be approved where that hospital's annual average occupancy rate exceeds 75 percent for the 12-month base period (again, in this case, from July, 1989, through June, 1990.) See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). During the 12-month base period from July, 1989, through June, 1990, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40%, not high enough to be approved under F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). Observation Bed Days. Three types of beds days are included in a category of so-called "outpatient observation bed days." First, "twenty-three hour patients" are patients who are not eligible for inpatient services under the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) criteria for the Medicare program. Second, "observation patients" are similar non-Medicare patients. Third, some outpatients (or ambulatory surgery patients) also use beds for part of a day. With new cost containment and review/regulation developments in hospital care, more patients are spending up to 23 hours in the hospital before a decision is made that further hospitalization in not needed. As a result, "observation" bed use has increased. Outpatient observation services have been recognized and defined by HCFA. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (the Medicare intermediary) and the Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) have addressed issues such as reimbursement, billing and reporting of observation beds. Services are provided to "observation bed" patients under doctor's orders, including diagnostic services, observation and monitoring by nursing personnel and/or medical intervention or treatment. Calculation of occupancy rates under the HRS need methodology does not take into account the so-called "observation bed days." 2/ There was no evidence that any part of District V or the West Pasco Subdistrict are inaccessible geographically. Other Need Factors. The evidence showed that there is a seasonal peak utilization and occupancy of acute care beds in District V and in the West Pasco Subdistrict during approximately October or November through March or April each year. This seasonal peak is reflected by the statistics. As previously stated, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40% during the period from July, 1989, through June, 1990. During the first quarter of 1990, occupancy was 86.83%. Riverside's average occupancy for calendar year 1990 was 73.87%. For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, average occupancy for Riverside's acute care beds was 71.2%. 3/ For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, occupancy for Riverside's obstetrics beds was 92.9%. There is no acute care pediatric unit in the West Pasco subdistrict. Subdistrict residents (as well as others in Riverside's general service area) needing level II pediatric services generally go to a Pinellas County or East Pasco County hospital for them. Given the choice, some but not all of these patients likely would prefer to get these services at Riverside, depending primarily on the severity of the particular medical needs. But the evidence did not quantify the number predicted to switch to Riverside. Also, occupancy of pediatric beds in Pasco county was less than 15% during 1987 and 1988. Medical Care for the Poor. The State Health Plan also notes that the uncompensated care burden on hospitals has grown during the 1980s because of a growing number of low-income persons; simultaneously, the proportion of persons covered by Medicaid has dropped. Numerous statewide studies, moreover, have shown that hospitals' uncompensated care is increasing at the same time that their ability to absorb the cost of care is decreasing. Riverside's predecessor bought the hospital from Pasco County in 1982. As a condition to the purchase, Riverside's predecessor agreed to provide Medicaid and indigent care for Pasco County in perpetuity. When Riverside purchased the hospital on December 29, 1983, it assumed the contractual obligation to provide Medicaid and indigent care in perpetuity. Riverside is a disproportionate share provider within the meaning of the State and local health plans. Approximately, 13% of Riverside's total annual patient days are for Medicaid patients. In 1990, 2,647 of Riverside's obstetrical, and 4,272 of its non-obstetrical patient days, were Medicaid. Riverside's charity care deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 1.07% of gross patient revenue. Riverside's Medicaid deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 5.96% of gross patient revenue. Approximately, 14.8% of Riversides's services go to Medicaid and indigent patients. Although Riverside has only 14% of the beds in the West Pasco subdistrict, it does more than 90% of the non-emergency, non-OB Medicaid care. Approval of the Riverside application would enable Riverside to spread its administrative and overhead costs over a larger base, thereby reducing average charges. Approval of the Riverside application also would make Riverside more profitable and thereby better able to absorb the cost of the Medicaid and indigent care it provides. If Riverside converts existing acute care beds to pediatric or OB beds, it probably would have to squeeze out paying patients during seasonal occupancy peaks, thereby losing more revenue and profits. Competition. If the Riverside application is approved, Riverside's share of the market represented by the West Pasco subdistrict will rise from approximately 14% to approximately 18%. HCA controls the rest of the market. There are no existing OB beds in the West Pasco subdistrict other than at Riverside. The HCA hospital in New Port Richey had an OB unit which it recently abandoned. As a result of the grant of Bayonet Point's application, CON Action No. 6583, with which Riverside had been in direct competition in this application review cycle, Bayonet Point now is approved for a seven-bed OB unit as part of its bed complement. Upgrading its existing OB unit and adding 14 more OB beds will enable Riverside to capture more private paying patients, which will better enable it to compete with the HCA hospitals. At present, Riverside's OB unit is utilized almost exclusively by indigent and Medicaid patients because of the hospital's contract with Pasco County. This unit now is operating at close to absolute capacity. With the upgrades and additional beds, Riverside can work to capture some private pay patients; without them, Bayonet Point will capture the private pay patients. Financial Feasibility. Riverside operated at a deficit from 1983 essentially to the present. By the end of 1990, Riverside had accumulated a deficit of $8.8 million. Riverside's corporate parent, American Healthcare Management, Inc. (AHM), was funding the deficit. From 1985 through December, 1989, AHM was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. During that time period, there was legitimate concern whether AHM would be able to continue to fund Riverside deficits. AHM emerged from bankruptcy in December, 1989, stronger financially. It has since become stronger still. AHM reduced its debt by approximately $88 million. Part of the debt reduction was achieved by the sale of $43 million of underperforming assets. In addition, $45 million of bond debt was exchanged for common stock on September 30, 1991. The interest savings on the bond-for-stock exchange is $6 million a year. As a result, AHM's current debt-to-equity ratio is approximately $160 million to $130 million. AHM's corporate staff has been reduced from about 102 to 65. Its corporate office were transferred from expensive quarters in Dallas, Texas, to less expensive quarters in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Corporate expenses have been greatly reduced as a result. Accounts receivable have been reduced by better collection methods, and the $43 million of assets sold to reduce corporate debt had been underperforming. AHM had $21 million cash and short-term investments as of December 31, 1989. As of the date of the final hearing, it had $18 million cash and short- term investments. Riverside's gross margin (profit) for the first nine months of 1991 was $4 million. After depreciation, amortization, and interest and home office costs, Riverside generated approximately $1.2 million for the first nine months of 1991. Internal cash flow generated by AHM and Riverside would be sufficient to finance Riverside's application project. Since the capital costs of Riverside's proposed project are relatively small, financial feasibility is relatively easy to achieve. Besides costing relatively little, the 31 new beds will not increase intercompany interest or management fees significantly. In addition, the 31 new beds would enable Riverside to better compete for private pay patients. Given the expected utilization of the new beds, the proposed project will be to the financial benefit of the applicant. The pro forma bears this out. It projects 75.11% occupancy for the 31 new beds in the second year of operation (July, 1994, to June, 1995). (This projection does not include expected "observation bed days.") A profit of $2,477,199 for the 31 beds is projected for the second year of operation (not counting any portion of the preexisting intercompany interest or management fees).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order denying the Riverside application for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of January, 1992.
