The Issue Whether proposed rules 64J-2.010, 64J-2.012, 64J-2.013, and 64J-2.016 of the Florida Administrative Code (“the Proposed Rules”) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Background on Trauma Centers A “trauma center” is “a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or [a] pediatric trauma center ” § 395.4001(14), Fla. Stat. Trauma centers must have a wide array of resources at their disposal at all times. For example, a trauma center must have approximately 30 specialists such as trauma surgeons, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthesiologists. A trauma center must also have specially trained nurses, advanced imaging and diagnostic equipment, dedicated operating rooms, a blood bank, specialized nursing units, and a helipad. Many of the personnel working in trauma centers have special training. Trauma surgeons have one or two additional years of critical care training followed by another year of training in emergency surgery or acute care surgery. Trauma center nurses typically have three additional years of training/education. In short, a trauma center is a hospital that has made a substantial investment in order to have the resources and personnel capable of caring for trauma patients. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.001(15) defines a “trauma patient” as “any person who has incurred a physical injury or wound caused by trauma and who has accessed an emergency medical services system.” Trauma injuries commonly occur as a result of motor vehicle accidents, falls from height, gunshot wounds, and stab wounds. See § 395.4001(18), Fla. Stat. (defining a “trauma victim” as “any person who has incurred a single or multisystem injury due to blunt or penetrating means or burns and who requires immediate medical intervention or treatment.”); Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.001(12) (defining “trauma” as “a blunt, penetrating or burn injury caused by external force or violence.”). Trauma injuries are a leading cause of death for those ranging in age from 1 to 45. Hospitals with emergency departments (i.e., acute care hospitals) are capable of treating patients on an emergency basis. However, they would not necessarily have constant access to all of the resources mentioned above. In addition, acute care hospitals have not gone through the statutory process of being approved by the Department to operate as a trauma center. § 395.4001(14), Fla. Stat. (defining a “trauma center” as “a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or pediatric trauma center, or is designated by the department as a Level II trauma center pursuant to s. 395.4025(14).”). See also § 395.401(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[i]t is unlawful for any hospital or other facility to hold itself out as a trauma center unless it has been so verified or designated pursuant to s. 395.4025(14).”).3/ In general, a patient in danger of imminent death from a trauma injury is likely to have a better chance of survival if he or she is treated in a trauma center as opposed to an acute care hospital. The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the laws governing the regulation of trauma centers. See § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. (noting “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to place primary responsibility for the planning and establishment of a statewide inclusive trauma system with the department. The department shall undertake the implementation of a statewide inclusive trauma system as funding is available.”); § 395.401(2), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall adopt by rule, standards for verification of trauma centers based on national guidelines . . . .”); § 395.4015(1), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall establish a state trauma system plan.”); § 395.402(2), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall review the existing trauma system and determine whether it is effective in providing trauma care uniformly throughout the state.”). Of particular relevance to the instant case is the legislative mandate that the Department shall adopt rules governing the number of trauma centers that can be operated in Florida. See § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area.”). Those rules (see, e.g., rule 64J-2.010) determine how many trauma centers can be in a particular trauma service area (“TSA”). The Legislature has assigned each county in Florida to a TSA, and there are currently 19 TSAs in Florida. See § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. With regard to Petitioners, Shands Jacksonville operates a Level I trauma center in TSA 5, which consists of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties. Tampa General operates a Level I trauma center in TSA 10, which consists of Hillsborough County. Lee Memorial operates a Level II trauma center in TSA 15, which consists of Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties. Bayfront Health operates a Level II trauma center in TSA 9, which consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. St. Joseph’s Hospital operates a Level II trauma center and a pediatric trauma center in TSA 10, which consists of Hillsborough County. As for the intervenors, JFK Medical Center is a licensed acute care hospital that has submitted a letter of intent to the Department so that it can apply to operate a Level II trauma center in TSA 17, which consists of Palm Beach County. Orange Park operates a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 5, and Jackson South operates a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 19, which consists of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The meaning of the term “provisional trauma center” will be explained below. The Statutory Scheme Governing Trauma Centers As noted above, each of Florida’s 67 counties has been assigned to one of 19 TSAs, and the 19 TSAs play an important role in the location of trauma centers throughout the state. See § 395.4025(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[f]or purposes of developing a system of trauma centers, the department shall use the 19 trauma service areas established in s. 395.402. Within each service area and based on the state trauma system plan, the local or regional trauma services system plan, and recommendations of the local or regional trauma agency, the department shall establish the approximate number of trauma centers needed to ensure reasonable access to high-quality trauma services.”); § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (providing that the Department “shall allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each [TSA].”). The Florida Legislature has mandated that every TSA “should have at least one Level I or Level II trauma center.” § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. However, there is a state-wide, statutory cap of 44 trauma centers. § 395.402(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]here shall be no more than a total of 44 trauma centers in the state.”). Hospitals seeking approval to operate trauma centers must complete a rigorous review process, and that process begins with a potential applicant submitting a letter of intent to the Department by October 1 of a particular year. See § 395.4025(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he department shall annually notify each acute care general hospital and each local and each regional trauma agency in the state that the department is accepting letters of intent from hospitals that are interested in becoming trauma centers. In order to be considered by the department, a hospital that operates within the geographic area of a local or regional trauma agency must certify that its intent to operate as a trauma center is consistent with the trauma services plan of the local or regional trauma agency, as approved by the department, if such agency exists. Letters of intent must be postmarked no later than midnight October 1.”). By submitting a letter of intent, a hospital does not become obligated to subsequently file a fully fledged trauma center application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(a) (providing that “[t]he letter of intent is non-binding, but preserves the hospital’s right to complete its application by the required due date if an available position, as provided in Rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA.”). “By October 15, the department shall send to all hospitals that submitted a letter of intent an application package that will provide the hospitals with instructions for submitting information to the department for selection as a trauma center.” § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Applications from hospitals seeking to operate trauma centers must be received by the Department by the close of business on April 1 of the following year. Once the Department receives a trauma center application, it conducts “a provisional review of each application for the purpose of determining that the hospital’s application is complete and that the hospital has the critical elements required for a trauma center.” § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The Department’s provisional review includes, but is not limited to, an examination of whether an applicant has: the equipment and facilities necessary to provide trauma services; (b) personnel in sufficient numbers and with proper qualifications to provide trauma services; and (c) an effective quality assurance process. See § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. “After April 30, any hospital that submitted an application found acceptable by the department based on provisional review shall be eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center.” § 395.4025(3), Fla. Stat. A hospital that has been approved to operate as a provisional trauma center can immediately begin providing care to trauma victims. From an operational perspective, there is no difference between a provisional trauma center and one that is fully verified. Between May 1 and October 1 of the year following the filing of the letter of intent, the Department conducts an in- depth evaluation of all the applicants that were deemed eligible to operate as provisional trauma centers. § 395.4025(4), Fla. Stat. Then, between October 1 of the year following the filing of the letter of intent and June 1 of the next year, a review team of out-of-state experts assembled by the Department makes “onsite visits to all provisional trauma centers.” The out-of-state experts utilize a survey instrument developed by the Department that includes “objective criteria and guidelines for reviewers based on existing trauma center standards such that all trauma centers are assessed equally.” § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. That survey instrument also includes “a uniform rating system that will be used by reviewers to indicate the degree of compliance of each trauma center with specific standards, and to indicate the quality of care provided by each trauma center as determined through an audit of patient charts.” § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. Even if a hospital satisfies all of the requirements to operate a trauma center, there must be a need for a trauma center in the relevant TSA. See § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. (providing that “hospitals being considered as provisional trauma centers shall meet all the requirements of a trauma center and shall be located in a trauma service area that has a need for such a trauma center.”). (emphasis added). The Department, based on recommendations from the review team, selects trauma centers by July 1 of the second year following the filing of the letter of intent. § 395.4025(6), Fla. Stat. Following this initial approval, “[e]ach trauma center shall be granted a 7-year approval period during which time it must continue to maintain trauma center standards and acceptable patient outcomes as determined by department rule.” Id. An approval, “unless sooner suspended or revoked, automatically expires 7 years after the date of issuance and is renewable upon application for renewal as prescribed by rule of the department.” Id. Also, “[n]otwithstanding any provision of chapter 381, a hospital licensed under ss. 395.001-395.3025 that operates a trauma center may not terminate or substantially reduce the availability of trauma service without providing at least 180 days’ notice [to the Department] of its intent to terminate such services.” § 395.4025(8), Fla. Stat. There are currently 33 approved trauma centers in Florida. Unless the statewide cap of 44 in section 395.402(4)(c) is amended or removed, the Department can only approve 11 more trauma center applicants. Assessment of Need for Trauma Centers under the Current Rules The Department must annually assess Florida’s trauma system, including the number and level of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area. See § 395.402(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (requiring the Department to “[r]eview the number and level of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area to provide a statewide integrated trauma system.”); § 395.402(3), Fla. Stat. (mandating that the Department must consider the following during its annual reviews: recommendations of regional trauma agencies; stakeholder recommendations; the geographic composition of an area; historical patterns of patient referral and transfer in an area; inventories of available trauma care resources; population growth characteristics; transportation capabilities; medically appropriate ground and air travel times; recommendations of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force; the actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center; and other appropriate criteria). As noted above, the Legislature has empowered the Department to adopt rules governing the procedures and process by which it will determine which applicants will be selected for designation as trauma centers. See § 395.4025(13), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he department may adopt, by rule, the procedures and process by which it will select trauma centers. Such procedures and process must be used in annually selecting trauma centers and must be consistent with subsections (1)-(8) except in those situations in which it is in the best interest of, and mutually agreed to by, all applicants within a service area and the department to reduce the timeframes.”). The rules governing trauma centers are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64J-2 (collectively referred to as “the Current Rules”). With regard to the instant case, rule 64J-2.010 is particularly relevant and details how Level I and Level II trauma centers will be allocated among the 19 TSAs. On an annual basis beginning on or before August 30, the Department implements the process set forth in rule 64J- 2.010 by conducting the annual assessment mentioned above and assigning a score to each TSA. The process in rule 64J-2.010 begins by evaluating each TSA pursuant to the following criteria: (a) population; median transport times; (c) community support; (d) severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals; (e) Level I trauma centers; and (f) number of severely injured patients. For each of the aforementioned criteria, points are assigned to each TSA based on data from the annual assessment. The point scales associated with each criterion are designed to measure the need in each TSA for trauma center services. For example, a TSA with a population of less than 600,000 would receive 2 points, and a TSA with a population of greater than 2,400,000 would receive 10 points. TSAs with populations between those two extremes would receive 4, 6, or 8 points. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.010(1)(a)1. As for median transport time, a TSA with a median transport time of less than 10 minutes would receive 0 points. In contrast, if the median transport time in a TSA was greater than 41 minutes, then that TSA would receive 4 points. TSAs with median transport times between those two extremes would receive 1, 2, or 3 points. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J- 2.010(1)(a)2. After a TSA’s total score is determined, the Department compares that score to the scale in rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) which provides that: The following scoring system shall be used to allocate trauma centers within the TSAs: TSAs with a score of 5 points or less shall be allocated 1 trauma center. TSAs with a score of 6 to 10 points shall be allocated 2 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of 11 to 15 points shall be allocated 3 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of more than 15 points shall be allocated 4 trauma centers. In the Current Rules, rule 64J-2.010(3) contains a table setting forth the results based upon the March 24, 2014, Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment. For example, the table in rule 64J-2.010(3) indicates that TSA 1 consisting of Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties has a need for one trauma center. In contrast, the table indicates that TSA 19 consisting of Dade and Monroe Counties has a need for three trauma centers. The Department Changes Its Interpretation of “Need” In October of 2014, Orange Park filed a letter of intent indicating its desire to operate a trauma center in TSA 5. Because the Current Rules indicated that there was no need for an additional trauma center in TSA 5, the Department rejected Orange Park’s letter of intent. That action was consistent with a determination that the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 establishes the maximum number of trauma centers that are needed in a particular TSA. In 2015, Orange Park submitted another letter of intent to operate a trauma center in TSA 5. The Department accepted that letter of intent even though the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 for TSA 5 had not changed. That action was consistent with a determination that the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 establishes the minimum number of trauma centers that are needed in a particular TSA. After the Department approved Orange Park’s application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 5, Shands Jacksonville challenged that decision, and Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins issued a Recommended Order on January 27, 2017, concluding that Orange Park’s application must be denied. In the process of doing so, ALJ Watkins also concluded that “[t]he Department’s policy of accepting letters of intent and trauma center applications irrespective of need as established in rule 64J-2.010, constitutes an unadopted rule and is contrary to its validly adopted rules and statute.” Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., d/b/a UF Health Jacksonville v. Dep’t of Health and Orange Park Med. Ctr., Inc., DOAH Case No. 16-3369 (Recommended Order Jan. 27, 2017). Through the Proposed Rules, the Department is seeking to formalize its new interpretation of the term “need” as meaning the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA. Assessment of Need under the Proposed Rules During the final hearing in this matter, Department employees described the Department’s impetus for changing its determination of how the term “need” as that term is used in chapter 395, part II, should be interpreted. For instance, the Department’s mission is to promote, protect, and improve the health of those living and visiting Florida. Because approximately 31 percent of severely injured patients were treated at acute care hospitals rather than trauma centers in 2013, the Department believes that there are an insufficient number of trauma centers in Florida. Also, as one or more trauma centers are added to a particular TSA, the Department observed that the number of trauma centers “needed” in that TSA under rule 64J-2.010 would decrease. This decrease would occur because median transport times and the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals would decrease with the addition of trauma centers to that TSA. Accordingly, the Department deems the formula in rule 64J-2.010 to be a “diminishing” formula. As explained by Sue Dick, the Department’s Interim Division Director for the Division of Emergency Preparedness and Community Support (and former Chief of the Tallahassee, Florida Fire Department): [W]e saw the numbers required in a certain trauma service area diminishing because care was better. That’s what led us to go, wait a minute, that can’t be a maximum number because we are going to end up at a point where we say a maximum number is zero. So that’s when we started to look at the allocation and say, what we are really determining is how many more should they have to ensure that all patients are reaching median transport time in less than 10 minutes and very few patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals. That’s what led to the logic behind revisiting this rule and this formula. On September 1, 2016, the Department proposed a series of amendments to rules 64J-2.010, 64J-2.012, 64J-2.013, and 64J- 2.016. The Proposed Rules would implement the Department’s new policy of deeming the calculations pursuant to rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) to represent the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA rather than the maximum number of trauma centers allowed in that TSA. For instance, the Proposed Rules’ version of rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) would amend the current version of rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) to read as follows: “[t]he following scoring system shall be used to determine the minimum number of allocate trauma centers needed within the TSAs. Also, the Proposed Rules would add a subsection (4) to rule 64J-2.010, which would state that “[t]he allocation of trauma centers, as described in subsections (1) through (3) of this rule, is the minimum allocation needed and shall not affect existing verified trauma centers seeking renewal of their verification status pursuant to subsection 395.4025(6), F.S., . . . .” (emphasis added). The Proposed Rules would amend rule 64J-2.012(1)(a) to read as follows: “[t]he letter of intent is non-binding, but preserves the hospital’s right to complete its application by the required due date if, subject to the trauma center limit in paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S., an available position, is open as provided in Rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA.” As a result, there would no longer be TSA-specific caps in rule 64J-2.010, and the statewide cap of 44 trauma centers in section 395.402(4)(c) would be the only numeric cap on trauma centers. The same result would flow from the Proposed Rules’ amendment to rule 64J-2.013(7): The department shall make a final determination on whether to approve or deny a hospital’s extension request only after the provisional review of all other trauma center applications in the hospital’s TSA are completed, and it has been determined that the number of trauma centers and Provisional Ttrauma Ccenters, in the hospital’s TSA is less than or equal to the allocated number of trauma centers allowed by paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S. positions available for that TSA. Finally, subsection (12) of rule 64J-2.013 would become subsection (11) and be amended as follows: A hospital receiving an extension greater than 12 months shall have its extension denied or terminated if the number of trauma centers and or Provisional Ttrauma Ccenters in the hospital’s TSA equals or is greater than the number of trauma centers provided in paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S available positions allocated to the TSA, resulting in the denial of its application and the department will inform the applicant of its right to a Section 120.57, F.S., hearing regarding this denial. Because the Proposed Rules would result in the calculations pursuant to rule 64J-2.010(1)(b) representing the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA rather than the maximum number of trauma centers allowed in that TSA, the Department could conceivably approve every applicant in that TSA so long as the statutory cap of 44 trauma centers in section 395.402(4)(c) would not be exceeded. The Proposed Rules also establish a tie-breaker system if the sum of provisional trauma centers found eligible for selection by the Department and the number of existing trauma centers would exceed the statutory limit established in section 395.402(4)(c). The tie-breaking criteria would consider the following: (a) whether the TSA in question already has a Level I or Level II trauma center; (b) the level of service that the applicants propose to provide; (c) the number of severely injured patients treated by the applicants; and (d) approval by a Department-approved trauma agency plan. Chief Dick testified that the Department would exercise discretion to ensure that a TSA that already had the minimum number of trauma centers under the Proposed Rules would not receive an additional trauma center if the statutory cap of 44 would be met or exceeded and another TSA lacked the statutory minimum of one: Q: Now, I want to explore a little bit one of the answers that you gave to Mr. Reynolds regarding how the [Proposed Rules] would work in conjunction with the statutory cap of 44 and the requirement for assignment of a trauma center to each TSA. Let me ask you a hypothetical. If there [are] 43, when you get to the point when there [are] 43 trauma centers that are opened around the state but there is still not one in Collier County, how does it work at that point as a potential new applicant comes in? A: If they are not in Collier County, they won’t be verified. We have a statutory obligation to meet the minimum of one per TSA, so – at a statutory cap of 44. So logic would state then as part of that 44, it includes one per TSA. So if there are 43 and there are none in TSA 17, we would have to reserve that spot until such point as there is one at a minimum in TSA 17, which is Collier, I believe. Q: Would that likewise be the approach if you have a TSA where the methodology calculates there is a need for four, but there [are] only three that are opened, how would it work then? A: I think it would be responsible of the Department, as we view the results of this allocation methodology as setting a minimum need to ensure reasonable access to care, that we would withhold spots until such point as that minimum is met per TSA. So if we are at 42 and there is still not one in TSA 17, which we just spoke to, but in addition there is another TSA that has one but through our methodology, we really think they need a minimum of two, I believe it’s within the Department’s authority to withhold that second one as well. However, Chief Dick acknowledged in subsequent testimony that the discretion she relies upon does not originate from a statute or a rule: Q: I think we had put forth that there’s been some testimony concerning the hypothetical, the what if there’s more applications received by the Department in a cycle than there are statewide slots? So in other words, you’ve got enough applications that its’s going to pop you over the [statutory cap of] 44. Do you understand my hypothetical? ALJ: We are still talking about the [Current Rules]? Q: Under [the Proposed Rules]. ALJ: [Proposed Rules]. Okay. Q: Thank you. A: I understand what you are saying. Q: And would you agree that there’s nothing in the [Proposed Rules] that tells you what happens in that circumstance, if the number received in all of the TSAs will put you over the statewide number? A: There’s nothing in the proposed rule that states that if we receive more applications than there are available spots statewide, what we will do. Q: Correct. There’s no criteria or standards? A: No, those procedures are not outlined in the rule, no. Q: Similarly, there’s nothing in [the Proposed Rules] that would preclude that all of the open positions statewide could be in one TSA or two TSAs to the exclusion of others; there’s nothing that prevents that from occurring? A: Well, I think there is something that prevents that from occurring, and the first thing being that – the first thing we would look at is to ensure there is at least one trauma center in each TSA so we would be able to reserve that. And the other thing I think is where it speaks to a trauma service area, trauma service area that has a need, we would interpret that to mean a minimum need as determined by our allocation methodology. So I would say that if there are – if it were an issue of we were going to go over the 44 and there was a TSA that still did not meet their minimum as we’ve outlined in our proposed rule, that it would be within our prerogative of the Department to hold a spot for that TSA to meet that minimum. Q: When you say it would be within your prerogative, there is nothing in the statute that outlines that procedure you just discussed, that you would hold one in your back pocket and say, I need that one for Collier County? A: No. Q: There’s nothing in [the Proposed Rules] that says that? A: No, there’s been a number of hypotheticals presented, and I just don’t think you can craft a rule that would address every hypothetical. So, no, there’s nothing that speaks specifically to that, what our specific process would be under those specific circumstances. * * * Q: I understand. [The Proposed Rules set] a minimum and all – my only question is, there [are] no standards or criteria in [the Proposed Rules] that would identify how many above the minimum should be approved; the Department’s position is it would approve as many as are applied for, if they meet all the standards? A: And have the endorsement of the regional trauma agency, yes. The Potential Utility Associated with Adopting the Proposed Rules All parties have proceeded under the reasonable assumption that adoption of the Proposed Rules would lead to more trauma centers in Florida. The Department and Intervenors’ primary argument in support of the Proposed Rules is that more trauma centers will result in: (a) increased access to the specialized care available at trauma centers; and (b) less time needed to transport trauma patients to trauma centers. Undertriage occurs when a severely injured patient in need of trauma care is treated by an acute care hospital. In that circumstance, the patient does not receive the benefit of being admitted to a facility dedicated to treating severely injured patients. The January 6, 2016, Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment by the Department indicates that approximately 31 percent of severely injured patients in Florida received care in an acute care hospital rather than a trauma center in 2013. Dr. Mark McKenney, an expert in surgical care and trauma care, characterized undertriage as an access to care problem that could threaten one’s life: I don’t think that any of us would feel good to have a third of us, when we have a life- threatening injury, end up in a hospital that doesn’t have a trauma team, doesn’t have trauma nurses, doesn’t have a trauma intensive care unit, doesn’t have an operating room immediately available, doesn’t have a surgeon in the hospital 24/7 who can take care of this, and doesn’t have subspecialists who routinely take care of the traumatically injured patients. A third is just too high a number. With regard to transport times, trauma care professionals refer to a generally accepted clinical principle for rendering treatment known as “the Golden Hour.” Within one hour after a person is injured, all of the following should occur: (a) emergency personnel are notified, arrive at the injury scene, evaluate the patient, and transport the patient to a trauma center; and (b) the trauma center starts resuscitation; conducts another evaluation of the patient; and performs a life-saving procedure. According to the Department and Intervenors, the increased access to trauma centers and the decreased transport times associated with adoption of the Proposed Rules will save lives.4/ Petitioners’ response to that line of reasoning is that an increase in the number of trauma centers will lead to a decrease in the quality of care rendered to trauma patients. A trauma center needs to treat a certain number of severely injured patients in order for its personnel to remain proficient and for the trauma center’s quality of care to remain high. During the final hearing, Petitioners presented persuasive testimony that “practice makes perfect” with regard to the treatment of trauma patients. For instance, Dr. Steven Epstein, an expert in trauma surgery, credibly testified that trauma injuries require a different level of expertise and that experience acquired through treating less severe injuries does not necessarily translate to the treatment of trauma patients: If you have a set number of patients and you put another trauma center geographically close, what happens is that you will cut the number of patients going to each place, each trauma center. And expertise in the general surgery world, as well as the trauma world, is based on volume. Let me start with the general surgery world and then move toward trauma. We know that in general surgery, residencies right now, they are focusing on different areas of surgery: breast surgery, colorectal surgery, laparoscopic surgery, so that people become experts in these areas. The idea of the general surgeon is going away. The same thing occurs with trauma surgery. Only the expertise there is learned during a fellowship and then with practice. If you take, for instance, a gunshot, the anatomy, any general surgeon can take out a gallbladder, but not any general surgeon can handle a gunshot to the abdomen. The anatomy changes. It’s a much different case. So people who have done this on a regular basis have some idea how to do this. The – what I call the voyeur, you bring in a general surgeon to do some trauma because we don’t have enough trauma surgeons, doesn’t have this same expertise. And you wind up as really – it’s a patient problem. We are talking about it as a problem with hospitals, but this is a patient problem. If the doctor doesn’t know how to treat the patient, then the patient suffers. And I think in the end, that’s what happens when you dilute an expertise. And trauma, with the addition of all these hospitals, winds up diluting an expertise. * * * We, meaning the doctors at our hospital and several other hospitals, have always made an assumption we practice, we practice, we practice, and we get better. If you don’t have the patients – because they call it the practice of medicine. If you don’t have the patients to practice with, you are not going to maintain your expertise. And I use the example, for instance, of a gunshot. But we do blunt trauma where people are in auto accidents, they are in shock, how to get them out of shock. There’s this whole sequence of events that takes place. Nursing, how to take care of these patients. It’s quite complex and I firmly believe that dilution of this knowledge is very detrimental in the end to the patient.5/ In addition, an increase in trauma centers would make it more difficult for a trauma center to acquire and retain the trauma center personnel that must be constantly on site. Dr. Epstein testified that trauma surgeons are already a scarce resource, and that scarcity will only be exacerbated with the addition of more trauma centers. Also, Mark Valler, an expert in trauma center and acute care medical staff administration, credibly testified about how the addition of 10 or 11 trauma centers in Florida would impact an existing trauma center’s ability to retain its staff: But I am concerned that 10 or 11 opening statewide, there are going to be advertisements for trauma surgeons, for neurosurgeons, for trauma orthopedic doctors all over the place. People are going to be recruiting like crazy, and they are going to be recruiting in the state of Florida because the physicians already have a Florida state license, so there is going to be a huge, huge recruiting effort if all those centers actually get approved at one time. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented during the final hearing indicating that any recent openings of new trauma centers have resulted in existing trauma centers experiencing declines in patient volume that would negatively impact quality of care. Accordingly, Chief Dick testified that it would be irresponsible for the Department to not facilitate better access to trauma care when the Department has received no evidence that quality of care had suffered. During the final hearing, Petitioners frequently mentioned the theoretical possibility that adoption of the Proposed Rules could lead to an inordinate number of trauma centers opening in a single TSA. Given the substantial amount of resources needed to open and maintain a trauma center, it is unlikely that a rational hospital administrator would seek to open a trauma center in a particular TSA unless the volume of trauma patients would enable it to operate profitably. Nevertheless, the testimony and the evidence leads to an inference that adoption of the Proposed Rules would likely lead to more trauma centers in well-served TSAs and no increase for TSAs in need of more trauma care. The following testimony from Mark Richardson, an expert in healthcare facility and services planning, illustrates this point: Q: There’s been some suggestion, I think you may have heard this during your deposition, that there may be free market forces that would operate to prevent some of these adverse results that you are describing. Do you have an opinion as to whether free market factors would help to prevent the maldistribution or other issues that you described as being bad consequences? A: I do have an opinion. I think if you look in terms of the folks, whoever have applied via a letter of intent for the development of the additional trauma centers, those centers are not located in areas where there currently are longer transport times. Those centers basically are located in basically metropolitan areas where there are already appears to be good reasonable access to care. Basically it’s adding new programs where there’s already a pretty good network of care provided. * * * My point here is that if you look in terms of where these folks are, they are basically in the Jacksonville area; they are basically in the Miami-Dade, south Florida area; they are in the Orlando area; or they are in the Palm Beach and Broward area, where there already are a number of existing transplant programs, where, for example, specific to the median transport time, there’s no problem in those areas. This is not the Panhandle where there is a problem in terms of transport times. This is not north Florida in terms of north Florida area where portions of the area may have some problems. This is basically adding incremental trauma center capacity to locales where there already is adequate care. It is certainly possible that Petitioners’ fears about lower quality of care could be realized if there is nothing other than the statutory cap to prevent hospitals from opening an unlimited number of trauma centers in TSAs encompassing large metropolitan areas. After considering all of the evidence and testimony, the undersigned is of the opinion that it would be impossible to draft a set of rules that would satisfy the concerns/interests of all the relevant stakeholders.6/ The disagreement over the merit of the Proposed Rules boils down to striking a balance between “practice makes perfect” and providing the earliest opportunity for definitive care. In relation to each other, the Current Rules put more emphasis on “practice makes perfect,” and the Proposed Rules emphasize providing more access to care.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
The Issue Whether the application filed on April 1, 2016, by Orange Park Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Orange Park Medical Center (Orange Park), to operate as a Level II trauma center met the applicable statutory and rule criteria to receive provisional approval? Whether the Department of Health’s (Department) approval of the application was based upon an unadopted rule?
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes (2016). The Department’s mandate is to “promote, protect and improve the health of all people in the state,” and it has primary responsibility for evaluating provisional trauma center applications submitted by acute care hospitals. §§ 381.001, 395.40(3), and 395.401(c), Fla. Stat. A "trauma center" is a "hospital that has been verified by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in section 395.4025 and has been approved by the Department to operate as a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or pediatric trauma center." § 395.4001(14), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, UF Health Jacksonville, operates a licensed 695-bed hospital and a Level I trauma center in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. UF Health Jacksonville's Level I trauma center is in TSA 5. The number of trauma patients treated by UF Health Jacksonville has declined sharply since the Department authorized Orange Park to operate as a trauma center. UF Health Jacksonville projects an annual loss of 320 to 540 trauma cases as a result of Orange Park's operation of a trauma center. Orange Park is a 317-bed acute-care hospital located in TSA 5, Clay County, Florida. Orange Park provides a wide range of services, including inpatient pediatric care, open-heart surgery, and a comprehensive stroke program. Orange Park is also a teaching hospital with residency programs in internal medicine and family practice. It provides behavioral health services and is the only Baker Act receiving facility in Clay County. Orange Park applied for provisional approval to operate a Level II trauma center in TSA 5. Pursuant to the application decision that is the subject of this litigation, Orange Park has operated as a provisional Level II trauma center since May 2016. Subsequent to the initiation of this proceeding, Orange Park worked with the Department to purportedly complete the in-depth review of its application and has scheduled a final verification survey. The Trauma Center Application and Review Process Chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes, codifies the process and substantive standards for licensing trauma centers in Florida. As noted, the Department has primary responsibility for administering the trauma center statute, including licensing trauma centers pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64J-2. The Legislature has capped at 44 the total number of trauma centers that may operate in Florida at a given time. Pursuant to section 395.402(4)(b), the Department has adopted rule 64J-2.010(3), which currently allocates one trauma center to TSA 5, which consists of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns counties. Section 395.4025(2) establishes a 21-month process a hospital must follow to obtain verification--i.e., final approval--as a trauma center, and the Department has, by rule, established additional procedures governing the selection of trauma centers. During this multi-stage process, there are discrete decision points at which the Department must take action on a hospital's application to become licensed as a trauma center. The first stage of the trauma center review and approval process--which is the stage at issue in this proceeding--is the provisional review stage. This stage commences when the Department receives a hospital's application to be licensed as a trauma center. § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. At the provisional review stage, the Department determines whether the hospital has the critical elements required for the level of trauma center for which the hospital has applied. Id. The provisional review stage culminates with the Department announcing its decision that the application is acceptable, or denying the application. If the proposed decision is to deny the application, the applicant is entitled to challenge that decision; if the proposed decision is to find the application acceptable, other hospitals must be given an opportunity to "protest," or challenge, that decision. Section 395.4025(7) requires challenges to the Department's trauma center licensure decisions to be conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57. Procedural History and the Processing of Orange Park's Application On or before October 1, 2015, Orange Park filed a letter of intent to establish a new Level II trauma center in TSA 5. Thereafter, on or before April 1, 2016, Orange Park filed an application with the Department to become a Level II trauma center. Consistent with statute, the Department sent the application for review by out-of-state reviewers. On or about April 14, 2016, the Department set forth a list of omitted items that prevented Orange Park's application from being deemed complete. Critical elements missing from Orange Park's application included proof of adequate and up-to- date training of several trauma surgeons and emergency room physicians. In particular, reviewers selected by the Department noted that Orange Park failed to meet the following requirements: at least one qualified trauma surgeon to be on backup trauma call at all times to provide trauma service care; documentation that the medical director shall approve all trauma-related patient care protocols before implementation; a minimum of five qualified trauma surgeons, assigned to the trauma service, with at least two trauma surgeons available to provide primary and backup trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center when summoned; evidence that an orthopedic surgeon is available to arrive promptly at the trauma center when summoned; all specialists are board-certified or actively participating in the certification process and granted medical staff privileges by the hospital to care for adult and pediatric patients; at least one scrub nurse technician and one circulating registered nurse in the operating room and post- anesthesia recovery; at least eight hours of continuing education every two years for the rehabilitation unit; a radiologist, board-certified or actively participating in the certification process and granted privileges by the hospital to provide radiological services for adult and pediatric patients, on trauma call and can arrive promptly at the trauma center when summoned; adequate quarterly reporting to the Department of Health; and adequate in-hospital trauma registry minimum data set. The Department made Orange Park's lengthy trauma application available to UF Health Jacksonville through a public records request. Cynthia Gerdik, who holds a Ph.D. in nursing, spent over 40 hours reviewing Orange Park's application on behalf of UF Health Jacksonville. Like the outside reviewers used by the Department, Dr. Gerdik found several discrepancies related to qualifications and training of trauma surgeons and personnel proposed to serve Orange Park's trauma center. Specifically, Dr. Gerdik's review found that one trauma surgeon's advanced trauma life support (ATLS) certification had expired on June 27, 2016, and that an emergency department physician's ATLS certification had expired on June 29, 2016. Orange Park’s witness, Keri Deaton, testified that Orange Park retained documentation that the certifications were renewed but never provided the documentation to the Department. At hearing, it was revealed that one of the physicians, who had ostensibly missing education requirements, had been married and was the same person identified by a different last name in the application. After April 14, 2016, Orange Park supplemented its application, and the Department deemed the application complete. Section 395.4001(10) defines “provisional trauma center” as follows: “Provisional trauma center” means a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a provisional Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or pediatric trauma center. (emphasis added). Notwithstanding her criticisms of the Orange Park application, Dr. Gerdik conceded that Orange Park’s application met the required trauma program standards. At hearing, Ms. Gerdik testified: Q. Did you form an opinion that the Orange Park application met the minimum criteria for critical elements? A. Yes, sir. I did testify to that. Q. Did you also conclude that they were in substantial compliance with all critical elements set forth in 150-9? A. Correct. (Tr. 492-93). With the exception of need, as evidenced by an available allocation slot determined pursuant to rule 64J- 2.010(3) as discussed below, the Orange Park application is in substantial compliance with the statutory and rule requirements for provisional approval. On April 28, 2016, the Department sent a letter to Orange Park indicating that the Department intended to approve Orange Park's application. The same letter informed Orange Park that it may open its trauma center immediately and "begin to operate as a Provisional Level II trauma center beginning May 1, 2016." The Department informed emergency responders to alter their trauma transport protocols, effective that same date, so that trauma patients that would have otherwise been seen at UF Health Jacksonville or another trauma provider could instead be sent to Orange Park for trauma services. Beginning on May 1, 2016, and throughout the course of this administrative proceeding, Orange Park has operated a provisional Level II trauma center. UF Health Jacksonville timely filed a petition challenging the provisional approval of Orange Park's application. The Department referred UF Health Jacksonville’s petition to DOAH so that a fact-finding hearing could be conducted to resolve the question of whether Orange Park's application should be provisionally approved to operate a trauma center. After UF Health Jacksonville's petition was transferred to DOAH and the instant proceeding begun, the Department continued to process Orange Park's application through the in-depth review phase. During the in-depth review stage, the Department informed Orange Park of five additional deficiencies that needed to be corrected in order to be approved. Orange Park participated in the Department's in-depth review of its application by submitting responses to the Department's listed deficiencies. On or before September 30, 2016, Orange Park received a letter from the Department indicating that the in-depth review stage was complete, and the verification site survey had been scheduled. The Department never published its decision that the in-depth review was complete and, until this activity was revealed at the final hearing, never notified UF Health Jacksonville of its action. The Department and Orange Park also worked to arrange the verification site survey, now scheduled for some time in February 2017. The Department's Consideration of Need When Reviewing Orange Park's Application The Department's existing rule 64J-2.010 is titled "Allocation of Trauma Centers Among Trauma Service Areas." The rule allocates the maximum number of trauma centers needed in each of 19 trauma service areas. See Id. Rule 64J-2.010(3) allocates a need for only one trauma center in TSA 5. Rule 64J-2.010 references an Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment, dated March 14, 2014. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.010(3). That assessment contains most of the data relevant to assess "points," the sum of which determines the number of trauma programs needed in a trauma service area. When data relevant to population, transport times, the number of severely injured patients, where they are served, and the presence of UF Health Jacksonville's existing Level I trauma center were scored and tallied, a total of five points was found for TSA 5. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.010(1)(b)1. This number of points led to the allocation of just one program needed for TSA 5. The 2014 Assessment incorporated into rule 64J-2.010 makes no reference to community support for an additional trauma center in TSA 5, or anywhere else in the state. The 2014 Assessment does not contain any information that could result in the award of an additional point for TSA 5 due to community support. Thus, at all times relevant to the consideration of Orange Park's application, rule 64J-2.010 allocated a need for just one trauma center in TSA 5, and UF Health Jacksonville's long-standing Level I trauma center fills that need. No party disputed the allocation for just one trauma center in TSA 5 under the current version of rule 64J-2.010. Pursuant to the Department's existing trauma application processing rule, the lack of an available slot for an additional trauma program in TSA 5 should have caused the rejection of Orange Park's letter of intent and application. The Department's existing rule 64J-2.012(1)(a) provides as follows: The department shall accept a letter of intent, DH Form 1840, January 2010, “Trauma Center Letter of Intent”, which is incorporated by reference and available from the department, as defined by subsection 64J-2.001(4), F.A.C., postmarked no earlier than September 1 and no later than midnight, October 1, from any acute care general or pediatric hospital. The letter of intent is non-binding, but preserves the hospital’s right to complete its application by the required due date if an available position, as provided in Rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA. If the hospital does not submit a completed application or does not request an extension to complete its application by April 1 of the following year, in accordance with Rule 64J-2.013, F.A.C., the hospital’s letter of intent is void; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(a)1/(emphasis added). Though the Department made proposals to amend rule 64J-2.010 on several occasions, no amendments have been made to rule 64J-2.010 since July 29, 2014. At all times relevant to this proceeding, rule 64J- 2.010 allocated a need for only one trauma center in TSA 5, and rule 64J-2.012(1)(a) only permitted the filing of a provisional trauma center application "if an available position, as provided in rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA." Prior to 2015, the Department's practice was to reject a letter of intent when there was no allocated need available for an additional trauma center in the relevant TSA under rule 64J-2.010. This practice was consistent with the requirements of rule 64J-2.012(1)(a). In October of 2014, pursuant to its prior practice, the Department rejected Orange Park's letter of intent because there was no need for an additional program allocated in TSA 5. However, the Department changed its practice beginning in 2015, at which time it began accepting letters of intent and applications regardless of whether any need for an additional trauma center was allocated to the TSA under rule 64J-2.010. In October 2015, the Department accepted Orange Park's letter of intent pursuant to its new practice, despite the lack of any allocated need for an additional trauma center in TSA 5. As noted above, Orange Park was approved to operate a provisional trauma center beginning May 1, 2016. On September 1, 2016, many months after the Department's preliminary decision to approve Orange Park's provisional application, and many months after this proceeding was initiated, the Department proposed amendments to rules 64J-2.010 and 64J-2.012. See Fla. Admin. Reg., Sept. 1, 2016, Vol. 42, No. 171. The Department offered no testimony or evidence to demonstrate why it was not feasible or practicable to adopt the Department's new policies into rules before applying them. If adopted, those new amendments would alter the Department's consideration of the number of trauma centers allocated in rule 64J-2.010. However, those proposals have been challenged and are the subject of separate administrative proceedings. See Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., d/b/a UF Health Jacksonville v. Dep’t of Health, DOAH Case Nos. 16- 5837RP, 16-5838RP, 16-5839RP, 16-5840RP, and 16-5841RP. The Department's recently proposed changes to its trauma allocation and trauma application processing rules have not been adopted and are not presumed to be valid or invalid. See § 120.56(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The Department's newly proposed amendments to its trauma rules reveal the unadopted rule that the Department began to implement in 2015, when it accepted Orange Park's letter of intent, despite the lack of an available slot allocated for an additional trauma center. Pursuant to rule amendments that the Department now proposes to codify, but which presently constitute unadopted rules, the Department will now accept and process applications to operate as provisional trauma centers, regardless of any allocated need set forth in rule 64J-2.010. UF Health Jacksonville has alleged that the Department's approval of Orange Park cannot be sustained because the approval violates the Department's own rules and governing statutes, but also because the approval is based upon an unadopted rule–-a new policy that would allow the approval of provisional trauma centers regardless of any need allocated in rule 64J-2.010. Ms. Colston acknowledged that no statute changed in 2014 or 2015 to inspire the Department to change its practice. However, she indicated that the Department's position was evolving due to consideration of a recent Recommended Order stemming from litigation over a trauma center application. That Order, The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida, d/b/a Jackson South Community Hospital v. Department of Health, Case. No. 15-3171 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 29, 2016), was rejected as moot in a Final Order issued by the Department on July 7, 2016. Nevertheless, Ms. Colston cited the rejected Order as the basis for the Department's new interpretation of rule 64J-2.012 and processing of provisional trauma applications in the absence of an allocated need: Q: I did read the language correctly? Is that what the existing rule required when Orange Park was approved? A: I would start with our full reading of the rule, which says that we shall accept the letter of intent. We, again, looked at these rules and we looked at the statute, and we have some "shall" language in both the statute and the rule that tells us what we shall do that's interpreted by the Department in general and by me as something that we shall do. So we shall accept the provisional application, we shall receive the letter of intent. And then the other part that would have inspired us to act the way we did was a ruling that said that we are required to accept these--that we shall accept and shall act and shall do these things at the risk of being sued. So that was a consideration that the Department was also taking into-– under consideration when we did these actions. Furthermore, I mean, there's been some discussion about need. But what we've seen and what was upheld especially in the latest lawsuit was that need is not determined on the front end during the provisional review and during the letter of intent process. So all of these things contributed to the Department's decision. Q: I may have mislead [sic] you with the timing of my question. I thought I understood you to say the policy processes that are announced in the September changes did not come into fruition in the Department's mind, become a firm way of doing things until they were proposed in September, is that true? A: No. (Tr. 420-421). Ms. Colston had difficulty explaining the Department's position regarding its interpretation and compliance with existing versions of rule 64J-2.010 and rule 64J-2.012. Ms. Colston offered conflicting testimony regarding whether the Department was operating under the process set forth in the Department's newly proposed rule: Q: Okay. Did that process described in the newly proposed rule, was that in place as a process that the Department would use when Orange Park was approved in late April 2016? A: We can't function under an unadopted rule. So we would have been functioning under the current rule. (Tr. 418). At hearing, Ms. Colston confirmed that the Department considers "preliminary" and "provisional" reviews required by Florida law to be synonymous. She further testified that the Department makes three separate decision points during its review of trauma center applications: provisional status; in- depth review; and then final verification. Ms. Colston then testified that the availability of allocated need (pursuant to rule 64J-2.010) is now only dispositive at the final stage of review-–the verification stage which follows site reviews and inspections. According to Ms. Colston, the Department now takes the position (and took the position during its review of Orange Park's application) that the availability of an allocated TSA slot is only applicable at the final verification stage. Ms. Colston acknowledged that the establishment of a provisional trauma center involves millions of dollars of investment in equipment, staff, and expertise. When asked if it was reasonable to interpret Department rules in a way that would allow the operation of provisional trauma centers only to be told, at the final stage of review, that the lack of an available allocation “slot” prevents the trauma program's final verification, Ms. Colston admitted that the interpretation was not reasonable. By approving Orange Park's provisional application in the absence of an available slot allocated by rule 64J-2.010, the Department failed to follow its own rules and precedent. Its new interpretation constitutes a generally applicable, unadopted rule that the Department is only now attempting to codify. The Department's new "interpretation" of its existing rule is unsupported by the facts adduced at hearing and is, as admitted by the Department's representative, not reasonable. But for the Department's reliance on an unadopted rule, the Department would have never processed Orange Park's application, nor permitted Orange Park to operate as a provisional trauma center. Impact of Orange Park's Trauma Center on UF Health Jacksonville High volumes of patients with high injury severity are necessary for trauma centers to improve and maintain quality through educational opportunities to their trauma staff. Trauma nurses require a year and a half to two years of experience with severely injured patients to enable them to be a primary nurse in a trauma critical care unit. Reduced volumes of trauma cases cause a trauma center to have fewer educational opportunities to enable trauma nurses to gain experience. UF Health Jacksonville is a teaching hospital that trains nurses and trauma surgeons. The decline in trauma volumes caused by Orange Park's operation as a trauma center has reduced training opportunities at UF Health Jacksonville. The opening of Orange Park's trauma center has caused the average injury severity score (ISS) for trauma patients to decrease at UF Health Jacksonville, thereby reducing the educational opportunities for UF Health Jacksonville's trauma nurses to treat the most severely injured patients. During the first three months after Orange Park opened its trauma center in 2016, UF Health Jacksonville's volume of its most severely injured patients decreased by 17 percent. Overall, UF Health Jacksonville projects an annual loss of 320 to 540 trauma cases caused by Orange Park's operation of a trauma center. UF Health Jacksonville projects that a contribution margin loss of approximately $3.5 million to $5.9 million annually will be caused by Orange Park's operation of a trauma center.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order denying Orange Park's Application to operate a provisional trauma center in TSA 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2017.
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 Whether the Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Shands operates an 852-bed hospital and Level I trauma center in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Its business address is 1600 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Florida. Shands treats about 2,500 trauma patients each year. Shands is located within trauma service area (TSA) 4, which is comprised of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, and Union counties. St. Joseph’s is a regional tertiary hospital and has served the Tampa area for 75 years and has approximately 800 licensed acute care beds. St. Joseph offers a broad array of acute care services including tertiary health care, serves as a comprehensive regional stroke center, and has been repeatedly recognized as a Consumers Choice hospital. St. Joseph operates a Level II trauma center and a Level I pediatric trauma center. St. Joseph is located in TSA 10, consisting of a single county, Hillsborough. Tampa General is a major tertiary hospital that is designated by the state as a Level I trauma center. Tampa General also serves as a teaching hospital for the University of South Florida, College of Medicine ("USF"). Tampa General is located in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, TSA 10. Bayfront is a 480-bed tertiary hospital located in Pinellas County, Florida. In addition to serving as a teaching hospital, Bayfront is designated as a Level II trauma center pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes. It is located in TSA 9, composed of Pinellas and Pasco counties. The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, is an entity which governs and operates the Jackson Health System, including the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital. It is in TSA 19, consisting of Dade and Monroe counties. The Florida Department of Health is the state agency authorized to verify and regulate trauma centers in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.001 et seq. The Division of Emergency Medical Operations, Office of Trauma, oversees the Department's responsibilities with respect to the statewide trauma system. Osceola is a licensed acute care general hospital, located at 700 West Oak Street, Kissimmee, Florida. Osceola provides a wide array of high quality health services to the residents and visitors within its service area. It is located in TSA 8, consisting of Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Sumter counties. The Florida Trauma System For purposes of organizing a statewide network of trauma services, the Florida Legislature directed the Department to undertake the implementation of a statewide inclusive trauma system as funding is available. § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. The need for a trauma system is premised on the basic principle that a trauma victim who is timely transported and triaged to receive specialized trauma care will have a better clinical outcome. § 395.40(2), Fla. Stat. A trauma victim's injuries are evaluated and assigned an Injury Severity Score ("ISS"). § 395.4001(5), Fla. Stat. Patients with ISS scores of nine or greater are considered trauma patients. § 395.402(1), Fla. Stat. Trauma experts speak in terms of "a Golden Hour," a clinical rule of thumb that postulates no more than 60 minutes should elapse from the occurrence of an injury to the beginning of definitive treatment. There is, however, no current consensus on what constitutes the "Golden Hour" for transport times. A 1990 Department study recommended travel time of 25-35 minutes as the outside range for optimal outcomes. A 1999 Department study favored a goal of 30 minutes transport time by ground, and a 50-mile radius by helicopter. By contrast, a 2005 study conducted for the Department used 85 minutes "total evacuation time" as "acceptable." A trauma center is a hospital that has a collection of resources and personnel who are charged with taking care of trauma patients. They are recognized by the community as a resource for care of severely injured patients. The International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) methodology, considered with discharged patient data from the Agency for Health Care Administration database, was used by DOH to determine severely injured patients. An ICISS score is the product of the survival risk ratios (i.e., the probabilities of survival) calculated for each traumatic injury a single patient suffers. Level I trauma centers are generally larger and busier and treat more patients than Level II centers. Level I trauma centers are required to engage in education and research. Trauma centers are required to have several types of physician specialists at the ready at all times. For instance, with respect to surgical services, a Level I trauma center must have a minimum of five qualified trauma surgeons, assigned to the trauma service, with at least two trauma surgeons available to provide primary (in-hospital) and backup trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center when summoned. Further, in addition to having at least one neurosurgeon to provide in-hospital trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center, a Level I provider must also have surgeons available to arrive promptly at the trauma center in 11 other specialties, including (but not limited to) hand surgery, oral/maxillofacial surgery, cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngologic surgery and plastic surgery. Level II trauma centers must comply with similar physician specialist standards. Little if any credible evidence was presented in the present case to suggest that the ability to hire qualified clinical staff, technicians, specialty physicians and other personnel would be severely impacted if the Proposed Rule is implemented. Rather, the existing trauma centers lamented the possibility of reduced case loads which could make it more difficult to retain proficiency. Invalidation of Former Rule 64J-2.010 In 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), the Department of Health's predecessor, promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010, titled "Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area," (hereinafter referred to as the “Former Rule”). The Department of Health assumed administration of the Former Rule in 1996, when the Legislature split HRS into two new agencies, the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Families. The Former Rule regulated the number of trauma centers that could be established in Florida. The Former Rule divided the state into TSAs as set forth in section 395.402(4), and for each TSA, announced the number of trauma center "positions" available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature amended section 395.402 to require the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system, and to provide a report to the Governor and Legislature no later than February 1, 2005 (the 2005 Assessment). The scope of the assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. One objective of the assessment was to consider aligning trauma service areas within the trauma region boundaries as established in section 395.4015(1). It required the Department to establish trauma regions that cover all geographic areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the Regional Domestic Security Task Forces (“RDSTF”) established under section 943.0312. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature added a provision that gave the Department the option to use something other than the trauma service areas codified in section 395.402(4) upon completion of the 2005 Assessment. See § 395.402(2), Fla. Stat. ("Trauma service areas as defined in this section are to be utilized until the Department of Health completes" the 2005 Assessment.) § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. ("Until the department completes the February 2005 assessment, the assignment of counties shall remain as established in this section."). As part of the 2004 amendments to the trauma statute, the Legislature also required the Department to conduct "subsequent annual reviews" of Florida's trauma system. In conducting such annual assessments, the Legislature required the Department to consider a non-exhaustive list of criteria set forth in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Further, the Legislature required the Department to annually thereafter review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas. The Department timely submitted its 2005 Assessment to the Legislature on February 1, 2005. With respect to its review of the trauma service areas, the 2005 Assessment recommended against the continued use of the 19 trauma service areas. The 2005 Assessment instead suggested that it may be feasible for the existing trauma service areas to be modified to fit the seven RDSTF regions to facilitate regional planning. Following receipt of the 2005 Assessment, the Department took no action to amend the Former Rule and adopt the recommendations of the 2005 Assessment. As a result, in June 2011, several existing trauma centers challenged the validity of the Former Rule pursuant to sections 120.56(1) and (3). See Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. et al. v. Dep't of Health, DOAH Case Nos. 11-2602RX, 11-2603RX, 11-2746RX, 11-2796RX (Fla. Div. Admin. Hear., Sept. 23, 2011). On September 23, 2011, an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered a final order holding that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The administrative law judge concluded that the Former Rule was invalid because it contravened the laws it purportedly implemented, including section 395.402. The judge found: The authority granted by section 395.402 for the use of the [nineteen] identified TSAs existed only until February 2005. After that time, the Department was required to consider the findings of the 2005 Assessment, as well as the recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plan. Thus, section 395.402 can no longer service as a valid basis for the Rule. However, as set forth below, the authority to utilize the 19 TSAs was not rescinded; rather, the mandated requirement to use only the TSAs was rescinded. The Department was required to review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas, taking into consideration the factors set forth in paragraphs (2)(b)-(g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. Having done so, it was incumbent on the Department to amend its [Former] Rule to allocate the number of trauma centers determined to be needed within each designated area through systematic evaluation and application of statutory criteria. On November 30, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. See Dep't of Health v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). After noting that the Former Rule claimed to implement sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.402, the appellate court held that the Former Rule was invalid because it failed to reflect the substantial amendments to those laws that were enacted in 2004. The appellate court held: Both the pre-and post-2004 versions of the statute require the Department to establish trauma regions that "cover all geographic areas of the state." However, the 2004 amendment requires that the trauma regions both "cover all geographical areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the regional domestic security task forces established under s. 943.0312." § 395.4015(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Similarly, the rule fails to implement the 2004 amendments to section 395.402. The version of the statute in effect at the time the rule was promulgated set forth the nineteen trauma service areas reflected in the rule. [T]he 2004 version of the statute required the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system no later than February 1, 2005. It further provides that the original nineteen trauma service areas shall remain in effect until the completion of the 2005 Assessment. Bayfront, 134 So. 3d at 1019-20 (Emphasis added). It should be noted that the 2004 version of the statute does not specify at what point in time the 19 TSAs could no longer be utilized, only that they would have to be used at least until completion of the 2005 Assessment. Rule Development The Department thereafter initiated rule development workshops to commence construction of a new rule. The first workshop concerning this rule was in Tallahassee, Florida, on December 21, 2012. In January and February 2013, workshops were then held in Pensacola, Tampa, Ocala, Jacksonville, and Miami, as DOH continued working on a new rule. Each of the sessions involved input from interested persons both live and by telephone. Written comments and oral presentations by these persons were considered by the Department. After these first six workshops, held in various regions of the State to make them more accessible to more citizens, DOH then scheduled three more workshops in March 2013, to be held in areas where there were no existing trauma centers, specifically Ft. Walton Beach, Naples, and Sebring. DOH also considered the recommendations of a report issued by the American College of Surgeons (“ACS”), the lead professional group for trauma systems and trauma care in the United States. The ACS sent a consultation team to Tallahassee, Florida, to conduct a three-day site visit and hold public workshops in February 2013. The ACS ultimately issued a report entitled “Trauma System Consultation Report: State of Florida,” in May 2013. The report included as one of its recommendations the use of RDSTF regions as the TSA areas to be used in determining need for additional trauma centers. In November 2013, DOH released a draft proposed rule and a draft of its first TSA Assessment (the January TSA Assessment). The Department then conducted three additional workshops in Pensacola, Orlando, and Miami. Again, DOH solicited comments from interested persons and entered into a dialogue as to what the proposed rule should look like upon publication. On January 23, 2014, DOH conducted a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting at the Department’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. The committee consisted of seven persons: Karen Putnal, Esquire and Dr. Fred Moore--representing existing trauma centers; Steve Ecenia, Esquire and Dr. Darwin Ang-- representing new trauma centers currently under challenge; Dr. Patricia Byers--representative of the EMS Advisory Council; Jennifer Tschetter, Esquire and Dr. Ernest Block--representing DOH. The public was invited to attend the session but was not afforded an opportunity to speak. The Department considered all the input from each of the workshops, the ACS Report, and the negotiated session, as well as all the applicable items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). The Proposed Rule On February 3, 2014, the Department published Notice of Development of Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 (the "Proposed Rule") in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, Number 22. The Department's Notice cited section 395.405, as rulemaking authority for the Proposed Rule. The Notice also cited sections 395.401, 395.4015, 395.402, and 395.405 as the laws intended to be implemented by the Proposed Rule. The following day, February 4, 2014, the Department published a Notice of Correction in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, No. 23, to correct the history notes of the Proposed Rule. In the corrected Notice, the Department cited section 395.402 as its rulemaking authority in addition to section 395.405. The correction also removed reference to sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.405, as laws implemented by the Proposed Rule. Following the Department's correction, the Proposed Rule was intended only to implement section 395.402. The Proposed Rule established 19 TSAs and determined the number of trauma centers to be allocated within each TSA, based upon a scoring system established in the Proposed Rule. Under the scoring system, TSAs were awarded positive or negative points based on data in an annual Trauma Service Area Assessment relating to the following six criteria: (1) population; (2) median transport times; (3) community support; (4) severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers; (5) Level 1 trauma centers; and (6) number of severely injured patients (in each TSA). Ms. Tschetter added the last two criteria (Level I Trauma Centers and Number of Severely Injured Patients) in response to comments received at the negotiated rulemaking session. Subsequent to a final public hearing held on February 25, 2014, DOH revised its January TSA Assessment and the earlier version of the Proposed Rule. The revised TSA assessment (the “March TSA Assessment”) reflected more conservative calculations (as gleaned from input and discussions with stakeholders) and documents the statutory patient volumes for the existing Level I and Level II trauma centers in each TSA. The March TSA Assessment further recalculated the Median Transport times, including all transports from 0-10 minutes (as opposed to only those transports greater than 10 minutes) and only transports to trauma centers (as opposed to transports to all hospitals). On March 25, 2014, a Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Register. The Proposed Rule, as published on that date, is as follows: Notice of Change/Withdrawal DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division of Emergency Medical Operations RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 64J-2.010 Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area (TSA) NOTICE OF CHANGE Notice is hereby given that the following changes have been made to the proposed rule in accordance with subparagraph 120.54(3)(d)1., F.S., published in Vol. 40, No. 22, February 3, 2014 issue of the Florida Administrative Register. 64J-2.010 Allocation of Trauma Centers Aamong the Trauma Service Areas (TSAs). Level I and Level II trauma centers shall be allocated among the trauma service areas (TSAs) based upon the following: The following criteria shall be used to determine a total score for each TSA. Points shall be determined based upon data in the Trauma Service Area Assessment. Population A total population of less than 0 to 600,000 receives 2 points. A total population of 600,001 to 1,200,000 receives 4 points. A total population of 1,200,001 to 1,800,000 1,700,000 receives 6 points. d. A total population of 1,800,000 1,700,001 to 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 8 points. e. A total population greater than 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 10 points. Median Transport Times Median transport time of less than 0 to 10 minutes receives 0 points. Median transport time of 101 to 20 minutes receives 1 point. Median transport time of 21 to 30 minutes receives 2 points. Median transport time of 31 to 40 minutes receives 3 points. Median transport time of greater than 41 minutes receives 4 points. Community Support Letters of support for an additional trauma center from 250 to 50 percent of the city and county commissions located within the TSA receive 1 point. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Letters of support for an additional trauma center from more than 50 percent of the city or county commissions located within the TSA receive 2 points. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Severely Iinjured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals Not Treated In Trauma Centers Discharge of 0 to 200 patients with an International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) score of less than 0.85 (“severely injured patients”) from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 0 points. Discharge of 201 to 400 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 1 point. Discharge of 401 to 600 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 2 points. Discharge of 601 to 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 3 points. Discharge of more than 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 4 points. Level I Trauma Centers The existence of a verified Level I trauma center receives one negative point. The existence of two verified Level I trauma centers receives two negative points. The existence of three verified Level I trauma centers receives three negative points. Number of Severely Injured Patients If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives 2 points. If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives 1 point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The following scoring system shall be used to allocate trauma centers within the TSAs: TSAs with a score of 5 points or less shall be allocated 1 trauma center. TSAs with a score of 6 to 10 points shall be allocated 2 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of 11 to 15 points shall be allocated 3 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of more than 15 points shall be allocated 4 trauma centers. An assessment and scoring shall be conducted by the Department annually on or before August 30th, beginning August 30, 2015. The number of trauma centers allocated for each TSA based upon the Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment, dated March 24, 2014 January 31, 2014, which can be found at www.FLHealth.gov/licensing- and-regulation/trauma-system/_documents/trauma-area-service- assessment.pdf, is as follows: TSA Counties Trauma Centers 1 Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton 1 2 Bay, Gulf, Holmes, Washington 1 3 Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla 1 4 Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, Union 1 5 Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, St. Johns 12 6 Citrus, Hernando, Marion 2 7 Flagler, Volusia 1 8 Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter 3 9 Pasco, Pinellas 23 10 Hillsborough 1 11 Hardee, Highlands, Polk 1 12 Brevard, Indian River 1 13 DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota 2 14 Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie 1 15 Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee 12 16 Palm Beach 1 17 Collier 1 18 Broward 2 19 Dade, Monroe 3 Rulemaking Authority 395.402, 395.405 FS. Law Implemented 395.402 FS. History–New 12-10-92, Formerly 10D-66.1075, Amended 6-9-05, 12-18- 06,Formerly 64E-2.022, Amended . DOH did not incorporate the March TSA Assessment by reference in the rule. After exchanges of communications with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (“JAPC”), wherein DOH sought guidance concerning this matter, there was no directive by JAPC that such adoption by reference would be required. DOH revised the population criterion in the Proposed Rule to have even breaks in intervals of 600,000 people. The February proposed rule awarded 6 points in TSAs with a population of 1,200,001 to 1,700,000 people (i.e., a 500,000 person interval), where all other measures were based upon a 600,000 person interval. This discrepancy is corrected in the newly Proposed Rule. DOH revised the community support criterion in the Proposed Rule to no longer award a point to TSAs where 0-50% of the city and county commissions send letters of support, because this could have reflected the need for a trauma center (by awarding points to the TSA) when no letters of support were received. The Proposed Rule now awards a point to TSAs where 25-50% of the county commissions send letters of support. DOH chose twenty-five percent as the minimum necessary community support because the smallest number of city and county commissions in all of the TSAs is four, which ensures everyone has a voice. DOH revised the title of the fourth criterion from “severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers” to “severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals,” which more accurately depicts the function of the criterion. DOH revised the sixth criterion to include citations to the statutory minimum volumes for Level I and Level II trauma centers in response to a request by the staff attorney for the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. DOH also revised the rule to reference the March TSA Assessment in place of the January TSA Assessment. Finally, DOH revised the Proposed Rule’s allocation table based on the revisions to the rule and assessment. The Proposed Rule as amended allocates a total of 27 trauma centers throughout Florida’s 19 TSAs. Each TSA is still allocated at least one trauma center. The Proposed Rule allocates only Level I and Level II trauma centers, not pediatric trauma centers. The rulemaking directive in section 395.402(4) is interpreted by DOH to be limited to the allocation of Level I and Level II trauma centers. In addition, the allocation of stand-alone pediatric centers would not be feasible because pediatric trauma patients make up such a small percentage of the population and all of the Level I and II trauma centers have the ability to become pediatric trauma centers. Currently, all of the existing Level I trauma centers provide pediatric care and there are only two stand-alone pediatric centers in Florida. The Proposed Rule’s allocation of 27 trauma centers is conservative. There are currently 27 verified trauma centers in the state, including two verified trauma centers under administrative challenge. There are several elements of the Proposed Rule which Petitioners have raised as evidence of the Department’s failure to comply with its rulemaking authority. Petitioners maintain that DOH failed to consider all of the items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Each of those criteria is addressed below. (a) The recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plans submitted by regional trauma agencies-- There is only one regional trauma agency in Florida. DOH reviewed the regional agency’s plan, but it was devoid of any recommendations related to trauma center allocation within the TSAs. The regional agency did not amend its plan or submit any separate recommendations throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. (b) Stakeholder recommendations--Petitioners complain that DOH did not do enough to solicit input from everyone who would be affected by the Proposed Rule. The Department, however, obtained stakeholder testimony from 171 individuals and written comments from 166 stakeholders through the course of the 12 rule development workshops conducted around the state. The workshops were held in several cities to allow for geographic access by more residents. Over 400 people attended the workshops. The January TSA Assessment was also modified prior to its publication as a result of the stakeholder discussions at the workshops and the negotiated rulemaking session. The March TSA Assessment was further amended after its publication as a result of testimony at the public hearing for the Proposed Rule. (c) The geographical composition of an area to ensure rapid access to trauma care by patients--While Florida contains no mountains, its geography is unique to other states in that it contains several inlets, bays, jetties, and swamplands. As such, the DOH data unit examined the coastal areas versus non- coastal areas. The unit also analyzed urban versus rural areas. The unit also looked at the communities surrounding Lake Okeechobee. Ultimately, the analysis was not meaningful because the effect geography has on access to trauma centers is captured by Florida’s transport time records for emergency vehicles and helicopters. Thus, by reviewing the Emergency Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System (“EMSTARS”) database, DOH could know the actual effects of Florida’s geography on access to trauma centers. (d) Historical patterns of patient referral and transfer--This item was considered, but the January TSA Assessment does not address it because it was neither measurable nor meaningful. The data was not measurable because of limitations of data quality in the Trauma Registry. Even if the data were measureable it would not have been meaningful because it would have only illustrated the catchment areas--i.e., the geographic distribution of patients served by existing trauma centers. As recommended by the ACS, DOH’s primary focus is on the trauma system as a whole, not individual trauma centers. Moreover, transfer and referral history is not meaningful to an assessment designed to inform an allocation rule because, again, DOH does not have the authority to define where new trauma centers are developed within a TSA. See § 402.395(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (charging DOH with allocating by rule the number of trauma centers in each TSA, not trauma center location within a trauma service area). (e) Inventories of available trauma care resources, including professional medical staff--Petitioners suggest that DOH should have made a determination of existing professional medical staff, but suggest no viable means of doing so. The January TSA Assessment catalogues several trauma care resources within TSAs, including financing, trauma centers, acute care hospitals, and EMS response capabilities. The January TSA Assessment does not catalogue available professional medical staff. DOH is unaware of any database that compiles this information. DOH sent a survey to the existing trauma centers requesting information as to their resources and professional staff, however it was not useful due to the limited responses and potential for bias. The data unit also reviewed the DOH Division of Medical Quality Assurance health professional licensure database (COMPASS), however, it was not helpful because physician specialty reporting is voluntary. Similarly, the data unit reviewed AHCA’s inventory of licensed acute care hospitals and the DOH annual physician workforce survey results, but neither data source provided trauma-specific information. As such, the information was not complete and so was not included in the January TSA Assessment. (f) Population growth characteristics--In response to this criterion, the DOH data unit analyzed the potential for growth in all of the TSAs, but the January TSA Assessment did not include this analysis because it was not meaningful given DOH’s requirement to conduct the assessment annually. The January TSA Assessment does however document the population in each TSA. DOH decided that in light of the continuing change of population in Florida, the best it could do would be to make a finding as to the population in each TSA and use it--year by year--to look at the potential need for additional (or presumably fewer) trauma centers in an area. Obviously the population of an area is not directly commensurate with the number of severely injured patients that might be found. Not all areas have equal percentages of severely injured patients; urban areas would have higher percentages than rural areas, in general. Areas through which a major interstate highway runs would expect a higher percentage. There are a number of factors that could potentially affect an area’s expectation of trauma services. Inasmuch as they could not all possibly be included in an analysis, DOH defaulted to a more general view, i.e., the total population. The total population figure became the first measurement in the Proposed Rule. (g) Transportation capabilities; and (h) Medically appropriate ground and air travel times--DOH considered these two factors together and determined to cover them by way of a determination of median transport time, which was to become the second measurement in the Proposed Rule. The data unit gathered transport capability data by reviewing the COMPASS licensure database and archived paper applications to discern the number of licensed emergency medical stations, helicopters, and vehicles in each TSA. The data unit further calculated the number of ground vehicles per the population in each TSA and every 100 square miles. The January TSA Assessment included this information because it was meaningful and gathered from a reliable database. DOH considered the testimony from a number of trauma surgeons during the 12 workshops regarding transport times and learned that the medically appropriate transport time depends on the nature of injuries and individual patients, which are not always discernable at the scene of an accident. Because of this, the sooner a patient can be transported to a trauma center, the better it is for patient outcomes. In light of the patient-specific realities of establishing a medically appropriate transport time, the data team used EMSTARS to calculate the median emergency transport times in each TSA for the assessment. Granted the EMSTARS is a fairly new system under development, and it reports all 911 calls voluntarily reported (not just trauma patients), so it is not a completely accurate measure. But it is a reasonable approach based upon what is available. Also, the transport times do not reflect whether pre-hospital resources are sufficient for the patient or how far away the closest trauma center may be. It is not an absolutely perfect measurement, but it is reasonable and based on logic. (i) Recommendations of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force--Like Florida’s lone regional trauma agency, the RDSTF did not offer any input throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. However, DOH considered the testimony of numerous emergency management and law enforcement officials during the rule development process. For example, Chief Loren Mock, the Clay County fire chief and also a member of the Domestic Security Oversight Council, testified at the Jacksonville workshop. There is no evidence DOH directly contacted a RDSTF representative to solicit input. (j) The actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center--The March TSA Assessment included the annual trauma patient volume reported to the Trauma Registry by the existing trauma centers. When comparing the average patient volume reported to trauma registry from 2010- 2012 to the data unit’s calculation of the average number of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers during this same time span, the volumes reported by the trauma centers were approximately 333% greater. This large disparity prompted DOH to follow the example of many other states and use population as a proxy for the number of potential trauma patients in each TSA in its Proposed Rule. DOH found that: greater population means a greater need for health care; population is a good indicator of need for medical services; population is a reasonable proxy for patient volume; and, more people in a given area results in more trauma cases in a given area. (k) Other appropriate criteria: It was well documented in literature presented to DOH during the rulemaking process that there were a large percentage of severely injured patients in Florida not being seen by trauma centers. The data unit confirmed this by evaluating the AHCA administrative database, which identifies the injuries suffered by patients as well as the type of hospitals discharging those patients, i.e., comparing the total number of severely injured patients with the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals in each TSA. This disparity was worrisome to DOH and therefore included in the March TSA Assessment. As pointed out by Petitioners, the Department’s figures include patients who may have received treatment outside the TSA in which the injury occurred. The figures may not have contained patients who needed trauma care but could not access it for other reasons. The Proposed Rule, however, makes as complete an evaluation of the potential patient base for trauma centers as is possible. Notwithstanding complaints about how the Department addressed some of the criteria set forth in the statute, it is clear that all criteria were considered and implemented into the Proposed Rule to the extent feasible and possible. The most credible testimony at final hearing supports the Department’s process. Criticisms of the various elements within the Proposed Rule expressed by Petitioners at final hearing seemed to be based on the concept that the Proposed Rule may allow competition to existing trauma centers rather than real complaints about the elements themselves. All agree, for example, that population, transportation times, number of patients, and the existence of nearby trauma centers are important factors that should be considered. Petitioners just seemed to want those factors expressed in different (though unspecified) terms. Petitioners did enunciate certain shortcomings they felt made the Proposed Rule less than complete. St. Joseph lamented the absence of all the Department’s analysis and background for each of the proposed measurements contained in the Proposed Rule. Jackson Memorial pointed out that pediatric trauma centers were not specifically included in the Proposed Rule. Shands showed that odd or unusual results could arise from implementation of the Proposed Rule. For example, the March TSA Assessment showed a total of 216 severely injured patients in TSA 6, comprised of Marion, Citrus, and Hernando counties. The Proposed Rule called for two trauma centers in that TSA. Although the number of patients necessary to maintain a trauma center’s proficiency was disputed by various experts in the field, it is clear that 108 patients per center would be extremely low. However, the figure appearing in the March Assessment is not absolute or necessarily completely definitive of need. There are other factors concerning population and patients that may affect that figure. The Six Measurement Criteria in the Proposed Rule Petitioners also took exception to the measurement criteria in the Proposed Rule. Each of those six criterion is discussed below. Population The Proposed Rule awards from two to ten points to a TSA, depending on the TSA total population. Two points are awarded for a population of less than 600,000 and ten points are awarded for a popu1ation greater than 2.4 million. The Department used total population as a "proxy" for the actual number of trauma patients in the state rather than using the actual number of trauma victims in the state. The Proposed Rule does not define “population” or “Total Population,” nor are those terms defined in the trauma statute, but those words are subject to their normal definition. The Proposed Rule does not re-state the source of the summary Total Population data; it is already contained in the TSA Assessment. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the March TSA Assessment contains any data or analysis reflecting population by age cohort, population density, or incidence of trauma injury in relation to these factors, and the Department did not specifically conduct any analysis of the significance of any aspect of population data as it relates to the need for new trauma centers, other than determining the total population growth rate in the TSAs. Rather, DOH decided upon total population as the most reliable measure available. Traumatic injury rates and the severity of traumatic injury vary widely based on a number of factors, including whether the area is urban or rural, the population age cohort, and the infrastructure and physical characteristics or features of the geographic area. Thus, the most reasonable way to measure possible need was to look at the total population of an area and extrapolate from that basis. The Department presented no specific data or analysis to support the incremental cutoff points for the Total Population scale contained in the Proposed Rule. Rather, the Department took population as a whole because it was the most readily available, annually updateable, and understandable factor it could access. The use of population as a proxy is not without problems, however. In TSA 19, for instance, the population has increased by about thirty-eight percent in recent decades, but the number of trauma victims has declined by approximately twelve percent. As stated, the Proposed Rule as written is not inerrant. Median Transport Times The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the Median Transport Time within a TSA. “Median Transport Time” is not defined in the Proposed Rule, nor is the methodology for determining the summary “Median Transport Time” statistics set forth in the TSA Assessment and relied on in the Proposed Rule. Information concerning transport times is, however, contained within the TSA Assessment. The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule represents the average transport time for all 911 transports voluntarily reported to the state EMSTARS database. EMSTARS is a database that is under development and that collects information voluntarily provided by emergency medical transport providers throughout the state. Although not all EMS providers currently report to EMSTARS (most notably, Miami-Dade County EMS does not participate), the database is useful for research and quality improvement initiatives. The Median Transport Time set forth in the March TSA Assessment and used in the Proposed Rule includes transport time for all patients, regardless of the nature of the emergency, whether the call involved trauma, other types of injury, or illness, and regardless of whether the transport was conducted with the regular flow of traffic or required “lights and siren.” The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule includes all EMS transports of up to two hours in duration. The Median Transport Time excludes transports of patients to trauma centers operating pursuant to the initial stage of trauma center licensure known as “provisional approval.” The Department addressed “medically appropriate air or ground transport times,” as required by section 395.402(3)(h), by its generally accepted conclusion that "faster is better." Not all injured patients, however, benefit from receiving care at a trauma center. Thus, while an existing trauma center is an appropriate destination for all patients with any level of injury who live in the area of a trauma center, the trauma center’s value beyond its immediate area is as a resource for the most severely injured patients whose problems exceed the capabilities of their nearest hospital. The Department did not undertake any analysis to balance its "faster is better" approach to trauma planning against the reality that the resources necessary to provide high quality trauma care are limited, as is the number of severely injured patients. There is a general (but not universal) consensus among trauma experts that access to a trauma center within 30-50 minutes is an appropriate benchmark for access to trauma care. Other than "faster is better," the Department did not determine a medically appropriate travel time for any type of trauma or any geographic area, but recognizes the general consensus as appropriate. The Proposed Rule awards from one to four points that weigh in favor of approval of a new trauma center within a TSA if the Median Transport Time of patients transported in response to any 911 call is between 10 and 42 minutes, i.e., within but faster than the generally accepted consensus. Community Support The Proposed Rule awards from one to two points to each TSA depending on the number of letters of support written by elected city or county commissioners. The Proposed Rule allows for consideration of stakeholder recommendations by way of allowing letters of support from local governments. “Stakeholders” in the state trauma system include existing trauma centers, as well as all acute care hospitals, and pre- and post-hospital care providers, including emergency transport services, air ambulances, and emergency management planning agencies. The Department could find no better way to acknowledge support from those stakeholders, and citizens in general, than to have their elected representatives listen to their constituents and then reflect those people’s desires and comments. Severely Injured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals (non-trauma centers). The Proposed Rule addresses the number of severely injured patients, i.e., those with an ICISS score of < 0.85, discharged from hospitals other than trauma centers. The Proposed Rule does not specifically define “severely injured patient,” but it is obvious from the context in which that term is used. The summary data in the TSA Assessment labeled "number of severely injured patients” within each TSA is intended to reflect the number of severely injured patients who “didn’t get to trauma care.” The Department's numbers may include patients who received treatment at a trauma center outside of the TSA in which the injury occurred. The Department did not conduct any analysis of the "number of severely injured patients not treated at a trauma center" to determine whether the patients not treated at a trauma center received timely and appropriate care at a non-trauma center hospital with the capability to treat the patient's injuries. The number of “severely injured patients who did not get to trauma care” as reported by the Department is unlikely to reflect the actual number of patients who required care at a trauma center but did not have access, and suggests that this number is far higher than it actually is. The Department, for example (and in response to discussion with stakeholders), excluded from its analysis all patients with isolated hip fractures as well as all patients who were released from the hospital within 24 hours, which resulted in fewer severely injured patients. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the TSA Assessment considers demographics or outcomes for "severely injured patients" treated at general acute care hospitals or outcome data for these patients. The Proposed Rule does not include any method for projecting the actual demand for trauma services in the future; it is used to determine need at a single point in time (and will be done so annually). The Proposed Rule does not include any criteria or method for evaluating whether there are any capacity problems at existing trauma centers, or other barriers that impede access to trauma care. The Department intended this criterion to show a highly conservative estimate of patients who definitely need trauma care. Level I Trauma Centers With respect to “Level I Trauma Centers,” the Proposed Rule awards from negative one to negative three points to a TSA, depending on whether the TSA already has one, two, or three verified Level I trauma center(s), respectively. The Proposed Rule creates the opportunity for establishment of both additional Level I and also additional Level II trauma centers, pursuant to the allocation of need, but the Proposed Rule does not assign or subtract points for the existence of Level II trauma centers. This criterion reflects the recommendations of stakeholders at the rule workshops. It was the consensus of many stakeholders that Level I trauma centers should be protected in order to safeguard the research and teaching missions of those centers. The earlier proposal of a “halo” around existing centers, i.e., not approving a new trauma center within a certain radius of existing centers, was not incorporated into the Proposed Rule. This criterion, however, offers some protection for existing centers. Number of Severely Injured Patients The Proposed Rule awards negative two to two points based on the "number of severely injured patients" in a TSA. The criterion awards points based on the number of Severely Injured Patients which exceed the target trauma center patient volumes as provided in section 395.402(1). If the annual number of Severely Injured Patients exceeds the statutory volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA will receive two points; if it exceeds it by less than 500 the TSA receives one point; if the number of Severely Injured Patients is less than the statutory volumes by zero to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point; if it is less than the volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The Proposed Rule does not include any criterion addressing the actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center. Instead, Section 6 of the Proposed Rule substitutes the "minimum statutory capacity" of existing trauma centers for the actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The Department could not find “a meaningful” way to measure actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The most accurate way to measure capacity was a contentious topic at rule workshops, and the Department spent a good deal of time working with stakeholders on how to measure capacity in such a way that it could be included as a factor in the Proposed Rule. One suggestion as to how to measure trauma center capacity is by how often existing trauma centers actually divert trauma patients to other facilities. However, trauma centers rarely admit that they are not able to take any more patients, and this is not a realistic method to evaluate capacity. The capacity of an existing trauma center may be measured by various means, including the number of beds at the trauma center, the number of ICU beds, the number of trauma bays, number of operating rooms, as well as the frequency of and reasons for diversion. The trauma center’s clinical staff, including medical and surgical specialists, and supporting clinical personnel, are also indicators of capacity. The Department already routinely collects data reflecting trauma center capacity as part of the quarterly and annual reports that all existing trauma centers are required to submit, and by way of on-site licensure surveys. None of those means, however, provided DOH with sufficiently reliable information and data. The Proposed Rule comports with the DOH Mission to protect, promote, and improve the health of all Floridians through integrated state, county, and community efforts. While by no means perfect, the Proposed Rule is based upon logic and reason derived from an extensive analysis of all relevant factors. History of the Rule The rationale for DOH’s inclusion of those particular six criteria in the Proposed Rule can be better understood by considering some more history of the trauma rule. As stated earlier herein, in 2004 the Legislature made substantial revisions to the trauma statute and ordered the Department to complete an assessment of Florida’s trauma system. The scope of this assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. An appropriation of $300,000 was authorized for the Department to contract with a state university to perform the actions required under the amended statute. Ch. 2004-259, § 10, Laws of Florida. One proposal of the 2005 Assessment was to "[c]onsider aligning trauma service areas within [sic] the trauma region boundaries as established in" section 395.4015(1). § 395.402(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature ended the statutory mandate to use the service areas created in 1990. The obvious conclusion from the above statutory change is that the section 395.402(4) service areas could be replaced by the service areas DOH established or adopted once it had the results of the 2005 Assessment. Unlike the prior statute, there is no mandate for specific new service areas, only the option not to use the prior service areas. The 2005 Assessment included five "Recommendations": Trauma centers should be placed in Tallahassee and in Bay County, which do not currently have a trauma center . . . . It is reasonable to set, as a system goal, that 65 percent of trauma center patients will be treated at a trauma center. . . . Designation of additional trauma centers should be based on the need as determined by trauma region. Deployment of additional trauma centers should take place based, not only on the number of patients served per trauma center, but according to the concept of “trauma center capacity” which should be determined by the staffing levels of medical specialists and other healthcare professionals. . . . The data support the feasibility of transforming the Florida Trauma Services Areas so that these would coincide with the Domestic Security Task Force Regions. . . . It is reasonable to fund trauma centers with public funds, based on the unrecoverable financial burden incurred by trauma centers. The only legislative response to the 2005 Assessment was an increase in funding to trauma centers. The Legislature did not repeal the statute establishing the current 19 TSAs. Likewise, the Department has not amended the Rule to implement the recommendations contained in the 2005 Assessment until the present Proposed Rule. The Department, instead, reviewed existing statutes, interpreted section 395.4015 to mandate the establishment of a trauma system plan (which plan would include trauma regions that have boundaries coterminous with those of the regional domestic security task force boundaries). The development of the trauma system plan is distinct from the determination of need for new trauma systems addressed by the Proposed Rule.
Conclusions Competent substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Adrian Fuentes disabilities are the result of the failure to deliver him before his mother loss amniotic fluid, or up to an estimated 12 hours earlier. An earlier delivery was the standard of care expected in a case of IUGR. His permanent and severe disabilities were directly and proximately caused by the failure of SBHD employees to handle an ultrasound report expeditiously as directed and as their policy provided. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LOBBYISTS’ FEES: In compliance with s. 768.28(8), F.S., but not with Section 3 of this claim bill, Claimant's attorneys' fees are set at 25 percent. There is no lobbyist for the bill at this time. As of October 9, 2007, the attorneys reported having incurred costs of $115,246.02 for representing the Claimant. The Claimants entered into an agreement to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth in this report, I recommend that Senate Bill 60 (2008) be reported FAVORABLY. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor M. Hunter Senate Special Master cc: Senator Jeremy Ring Representative Evan Jenne Faye Blanton, Secretary of the Senate House Committee on Constitution and Civil Law Tom Thomas, House Special Master Counsel of Record
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application filed with the Department of Health (“Department”) on March 31, 2017, by Galencare Inc., d/b/a Northside Hospital (“Northside”), to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center met the applicable criteria and standards under Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64J-2.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes. The Department’s mandate is to “promote, protect and improve the health of all people in the state,” and it has a primary responsibility for evaluating provisional trauma center applications submitted by acute care hospitals. §§ 381.001 and 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. Northside is a 288-bed acute-care hospital located in TSA 9, Pinellas County, Florida. Northside provides a wide range of services, including inpatient cardiovascular and neuroscience services. Northside has developed a trauma program and submitted an application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center in March 2017. The Department’s preliminary determination to deny Northside’s application on May 1, 2017, is the subject of this proceeding. Bayfront is an acute-care hospital located in TSA 9, Pinellas County, Florida. Bayfront has been designated by the Department as a Level II trauma center. Northside’s Trauma Center Application Northside Submitted a Timely Letter of Intent In the summer of 2016, Northside received a letter from the Department notifying Northside of the opportunity to submit a letter of intent to become a trauma center. Northside timely submitted a letter of intent with the Department in September 2016. This letter indicated that Northside would seek approval from the Department to operate as a Level II trauma center. Northside was well-situated for a trauma center because of the resources and services already in place at the hospital. Moreover, Northside was prepared to open a trauma program because it already had extensive experience treating critically ill patients. After Northside submitted its letter of intent, the Department responded by sending Northside a notice accepting its letter of intent and providing information on the application process. The notice directed Northside to the Department’s trauma center application and contained instructions for the completion and submission of the application. Northside Established a Full Trauma Program after the Department Accepted its Letter of Intent Once Northside received the Department’s notice confirming acceptance of its letter of intent, it began making significant investments of resources and capital to develop its trauma program. It did so to ensure that its forthcoming application was compliant with the requirements set forth in DOH Pamphlet (DHP) 150-9 (the “Trauma Standards” or “DHP”), which is incorporated by reference in rule 64J-2.011. As part of the development of its trauma program, Northside hired Doreen Gilligan in October 2016 to serve as director of Trauma Services. The hospital also worked with Angie Chisolm to draw on resources from other approved trauma centers, such as trauma-related policies and procedures and best practices for trauma center operations. Northside’s expertise in advanced, life-saving care, including cardiovascular and neuroscience programs and its intensive care unit (“ICU”), made it a well-qualified candidate to open a new trauma center. Between October 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, Northside invested over $4 million to develop its trauma program. Northside invested $2.5 million in physical plant improvements and equipment. These improvements included: A helipad, which is properly licensed by the Department of Transportation and FAA. The helipad is operational and Northside is already receiving patients from helicopters on a daily basis in its capacity as an acute- care hospital. Two state-of-the-art trauma resuscitation bays in the emergency department (“ED”) that are in immediate proximity to the helipad. These new trauma bays can accommodate up to four trauma patients at the same time. The expansion of the ICU to include 12 beds that are specifically designated for trauma patients. The expansion of one of the operating rooms because trauma patients often require care from multiple doctors simultaneously. The purchase of new equipment, including new ICU monitors, operating room equipment, and equipment to support physician subspecialists. The purchase of a blood track machine for the emergency department. This machine dramatically reduces the amount of time it takes for patients to receive blood transfusions. The purchase of a platelet function testing machine and a thromboelastography machine. These machines help identify where a trauma patient is bleeding. These machines also play a critical role in quickly stopping bleeding – one of the key functions that every trauma center must perform. The purchase of a second computed tomography (“CT”) machine dedicated solely to the provision of radiology services needed by trauma patients. Northside invested approximately $1.7 million in physician and staff employment and recruitment. This investment has enabled Northside to do the following: Provide continuous, around-the-clock trauma surgeon coverage, 7 days a week (beginning February 16, 2017). Provide continuous, around-the-clock anesthesiology coverage. Provide hospital coverage for the required 19 physician sub-specialty groups. These physicians are able to arrive at the hospital within 30 minutes or less. Hire more than 30 additional full-time nurses to meet the staffing requirements in the Trauma Standards. These hires have allowed Northside to provide a continuous, in-house presence of operating room nurses and technicians. Hire specialized administrative staff for the trauma program, including Doreen Gilligan (Director of Trauma Services), a trauma registrar, and a performance improvement coordinator dedicated solely to ensuring Northside’s trauma patients receive high quality care. Once Northside’s trauma program becomes operational, Northside plans to hire a second trauma performance improvement coordinator. Between January and March 2017, Northside provided over 5,000 hours of trauma training to its staff, including the CEO and CFO of the hospital. The major focus of this training was the Trauma Nursing Core Course (“TNCC”) for nursing staff, which is the foundation of emergency nursing education and ensures that the nursing staff can provide high-quality care for the most severely injured patients. The hospital implemented nursing education requirements which exceeded the Trauma Standards. Some of this training included actual operational practice using simulations and mock trauma drills. Northside implemented over 200 new facility policies related to trauma during this period. Northside subsequently trained its staff on these new programs. Northside made all of these investments prior to March 31, 2017, the date on which Northside submitted its application to the Department. Northside Timely Assembled and Submitted Its Trauma Center Application and Deficiency Response to the Department Northside’s application was prepared by a core team whose mission was to ensure that the application fully complied with the Trauma Standards. The key members of that team were Peter Kennedy, chief operating officer; Doreen Gilligan, director of Trauma Services; Dr. Erik Barquist, interim trauma medical director; and Angie Chisolm, assistant vice president of Trauma Services for HCA East and West Florida Divisions. The final application submitted to the Department encompassed over 10,000 pages of information. Because the application was too voluminous for any one person to prepare alone, each of the team members played an important role in ensuring the application addressed each Trauma Standard. Preparation of the application involved thousands of staff hours and required close cooperation with the physicians, staff, and community members. Northside timely submitted its trauma center application (“Northside Application”) to the Department on March 31, 2017. After receiving the Northside Application, the Department arranged for it to be reviewed by two outside experts, Dr. Lawrence Reed and Nurse Susan Cox. Both Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox have reviewed trauma applications on behalf of the Department in the past. On April 14, 2017, the Department sent Northside a letter notifying it of the deficiencies that Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox had identified (the “Deficiency Notice”). The Department provided a checklist (Department of Health Initial Provisional Review Checklist for Northside, April 5, 2017, hereafter referred to as the “Initial Checklist”) based on the Trauma Standards with boxes marked “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether the reviewers found evidence to demonstrate that each particular Trauma Standard and subpart was met. The checklist also contained written comments from the reviewers for subparts which were checked “No.” Of the more than 350 subparts that make up the Trauma Standards, the reviewers only identified 35 about which they had concerns or additional questions. Most of the comments from the reviewers consisted of simple requests for clarification. In some cases, the reviewers asked for information that Northside had already submitted with the initial application on March 31, 2017. Northside timely responded to each deficiency identified by the Department on April 21, 2017 (the “Deficiency Response”), five business days after receipt of the Deficiency Notice. The Deficiency Response was prepared by the same team that prepared the initial application. Much like the initial application, the team’s role was to ensure that each concern was addressed and that the application demonstrated that the hospital met the Trauma Standards. The Deficiency Response included 78 supporting exhibits consisting of hundreds of pages. The Deficiency Response was divided in two sections: (1) a narrative table; and (2) supporting exhibits to the narrative table. In the narrative table, Northside addressed each Trauma Standard subpart identified in the Initial Checklist as an area not met or an area of concern. The table was organized into three columns: the first reciting the subpart language; the second copying the reviewer concern from the Initial Checklist; and the third detailing Northside’s narrative response or explanation to each comment. The Deficiency Response was also reviewed by Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox. These reviewers determined that Northside addressed and corrected the vast majority of deficiencies identified in the initial review. Only three Trauma Standard subparts were identified as remaining areas of concern: Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1), Standard V(B)(3)(d), and Standard XVIII(G). Each of these issues was identified by Dr. Reed. Neither Dr. Reed nor Nurse Cox recommended to the Department that Northside’s application be denied. On May 1, 2017, the Department informed Northside that its application was not in compliance with the applicable Trauma Standards and would be denied (“Denial Letter”). The Denial Letter did not identify which (if any) of the Standards that the Department believed that Northside had not met. Instead, the Denial Letter attached a checklist indicating concerns with only three subparts. The Department now takes the position that Northside’s application is deficient because it did not satisfy Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1), Standard V(B)(3)(d), and Standard XVIII(G), although the Department has not stated whether each one of these Standards, standing alone, would have (in its view) warranted denial of the application. The Denial Letter did not afford Northside any opportunity to address the potential issues identified with respect to the three Standards. Instead, it informed Northside that its only options were to seek an administrative hearing challenging the Department’s denial or to submit a trauma center application the following year. Northside therefore did not submit any additional documentation to the Department. Northside’s Evidence Establishes That It Satisfied Each of the Three Standards the Department Claimed Were Deficient Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1) Standard V addresses the facility requirements relating to the emergency department. It includes requirements for a trauma resuscitation area, helipad, emergency physicians, support staff, and trauma flow sheet, among other criteria. This Standard also details the required qualifications for emergency room physicians who may provide care to trauma patients. Emergency room physicians must be board certified in emergency medicine or meet stringent alternate criteria demonstrating their qualifications. There are two ways to meet the alternate criteria. The first includes attestation from the trauma medical director that there is a critical need for the physician, completion of an accredited residency training program, documentation that the physician participated in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (“ATLS”) program, 48 hours of trauma-related continuing medical education in the past three years, evidence that the physician attends at least 50 percent of the trauma performance improvement meetings, evidence of membership or attendance at regional or national trauma meetings during the past three years, and attestation by the trauma medical director and emergency department director that the physician compares favorably with other physicians on the trauma call schedule. The second way for a physician to meet the alternate criteria is by providing evidence of board certification in a primary care specialty and attestation by the emergency department director that the physician has worked as a full-time emergency physician for three of the last five years. As part of its initial application, Northside provided the Department with staffing schedules for March, April, and May 2017, which documented the physicians on staff in the emergency room during those months and the shift times they would cover. Northside also submitted substantial evidence regarding the qualifications of each of these emergency room physicians. One of these emergency room physicians was Dr. Abraham Wilks. At the time it submitted its initial application, Northside believed Dr. Wilks met both paths of the alternate criteria. In preparation for the initial application, Dr. Wilks, working with Northside, went to extraordinary lengths to secure the seven required components under the first alternate criteria path. Northside also provided evidence that Dr. Wilks qualified under the second alternate criteria path since he was board eligible for family medicine and had been working as an emergency physician for the past five years. The staffing schedules submitted with Northside’s application on March 31, 2017, showed that Dr. Wilks was scheduled to be the sole physician provider for short periods of time on a limited number of days. During his review of the initial application, Dr. Reed concluded that Dr. Wilks did not meet either of the alternative criteria because he did not complete an emergency medicine residency and was no longer board-certified in family medicine. Because Dr. Wilks did not meet these qualification requirements in Standard V(B)(3) as an emergency department physician, he could not be the sole physician provider in the emergency department. After receiving the Deficiency Notice and Initial Checklist, Northside immediately took steps to address Dr. Reed’s comments. Northside’s leadership worked with the director of the emergency department to ensure that Dr. Wilks would not be the sole physician provider in the emergency room. After April 18, 2017, Dr. Wilks never served as the sole physician provider in the emergency room. The emergency department physician staffing schedule for April and May 2017, was updated to reflect these changes (“Updated Staffing Schedule”). The other physicians listed on the staffing schedule were appropriately qualified, and the staffing schedule provided for appropriate physician coverage. In its Deficiency Response, Northside noted these operational changes regarding Dr. Wilks and specifically addressed Dr. Reed’s concerns. Northside informed the Department that “Dr. Wilks has been removed from the ED Trauma assignment and will never be the single provider in the ED, effective immediately.” Dr. Reed agreed at his deposition that if Dr. Wilks were removed from the staffing schedule, Northside would be in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1). The Deficiency Response also referenced a related exhibit, which Northside intended to be the amended staffing schedule. However, due to a clerical error, Northside’s Deficiency Response included the old staffing schedule from the initial application, which incorrectly showed Dr. Wilks as the sole provider for limited periods. The old staffing schedule contradicted the narrative explanation of Northside’s operational changes included in the Deficiency Response and was clearly submitted in error. Dr. Reed himself noted this contradiction: The response document also states that “Dr. Wilks has been removed from the ED Trauma assignment and will never be the single provider in the ED, effective immediately. However, it appears that Dr. Wilks is the only ED physician on site from 6a-8a on May 4, May 7, May 20, and May 21. Please clarify this contradiction.” The Department did not follow Dr. Reed’s recommendation. It never contacted Northside to ask why the staffing schedule listed Dr. Wilks as the sole provider for limited periods of time when Northside’s submission expressly stated that Dr. Wilks would no longer be the sole provider. Had the Department contacted Northside, it would have learned that the “old” staffing schedule had been submitted rather than the current and correct staffing schedule, i.e., the one that did not include Dr. Wilks as the sole provider. Thus, there can be no dispute that, as of April 18, 2017, (1) Northside’s operative emergency department staffing schedule was updated to reflect that Dr. Wilks would never be the sole provider; and (2) at all times, Northside’s emergency department was fully staffed by properly qualified emergency department physicians. Under these circumstances, the Department erred in taking the position that Northside did not satisfy Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1) simply because it mistakenly submitted an outdated staffing schedule to the Department in conjunction with its clear narrative explanation. Standard V(B)(3)(d) The physician qualifications included in Standard V also require that each physician maintain a current ATLS provider certification. The ATLS certification is required only of emergency department physicians and trauma surgeons because these are the physicians who treat trauma patients when they first arrive at the trauma center. One of the emergency department physicians included in Northside’s application is Dr. Joseph Nelson. Dr. Nelson also serves as the emergency department’s pre-hospital trauma care expert for the Committee of Emergency Preparedness and Readiness, meaning that he is the state’s expert on issues relating to the emergency care provided on-site before patients are brought to the hospital. Northside’s application included an extensive set of documents that established Dr. Nelson’s credentials, including the following: a compilation of Dr. Nelson’s certifications, proof of his osteopathic board certification, his Florida Department of Health medical license, his physician profile with the American Medical Association, proof of his continuing medical education hours, his letter of privileges at Northside, and his most recent ATLS certificate. Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certificate included a letter from ATLS that recognized Dr. Nelson for high scores on his written and practical tests and recommended that he apply to be an ATLS course instructor, an honor that is accorded only to doctors who attain the best performances at the training course. At the time Northside submitted its initial application, Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certification had recently expired and he was planning to take a course to renew his certification. Dr. Nelson was aware of the expiration before the submission and made a concerted effort to complete the course in advance by registering for a course in February 2017. However, the course Dr. Nelson was originally scheduled to take in February 2017 was cancelled due to a snowstorm. Because ATLS courses are in high demand and often full, Dr. Nelson was not able to immediately reschedule for a course in his region. After working with Northside and Angie Chisolm, he registered for another course to be held in Tallahassee on April 23, 2017. Northside included proof of his course registration with its initial application. In the Deficiency Notice and Initial Checklist provided by the Department, Dr. Reed noted that Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certificate had expired and acknowledged that he was scheduled to take his ATLS course on April 23, 2017. Dr. Reed asked the hospital to “provide evidence of successful completion of the ATLS course he is scheduled to take on 4/23/2017.” Dr. Reed did not ask the hospital to submit any further documentation before the certificate arrived. On multiple occasions, Northside sought clarification from the Department regarding how it should establish that Dr. Nelson was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). Before Northside submitted its initial application to the Department, it informed the Department that Dr. Nelson was registered for and planned to take the ATLS course on April 23, 2017, and asked for guidance regarding how it should establish that Dr. Nelson was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). The Department advised Northside to provide proof of registration with its initial application, and Northside did just that. Northside returned to the Department for guidance after receiving the Deficiency Notice and reminded the Department that Dr. Nelson planned to complete the ATLS course on April 23, 2017. Once again, the Department directed Northside to submit documentation of course registration and to later submit Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certificate when available. In its Deficiency Response, Northside reiterated that Dr. Nelson was registered for and scheduled to complete the ATLS certification course on April 23, 2017, just two days later. Based on the Department’s guidance, Northside also included Dr. Nelson’s ATLS course registration, which demonstrated that he was scheduled to take the course in Tallahassee on April 23, 2017, as well as email communication from the course host confirming that Dr. Nelson paid for and secured a seat at that course. Northside further indicated that it would provide evidence to the Department of Dr. Nelson’s ATLS recertification following successful completion of the course. Northside also informed the Department that if Dr. Nelson did not attend and pass the course on April 23, 2017, he would be removed from the call schedule effective May 1, 2017. Dr. Nelson successfully completed the course on April 23, 2017, and thus satisfied his ATLS requirement that day. Northside immediately confirmed with the ATLS coordinator that Dr. Nelson had passed the course and concluded that he was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). Dr. Reed’s review of Northside’s Deficiency Response stated: “Upon receipt of a copy of Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification, compliance with this standard will have been met.” Northside subsequently received Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification. It did not arrive at Northside until after May 1, 2017, due to normal delays in processing by the American College of Surgeons. At hearing, Northside presented Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification reflecting his successful completion on April 23, 2017. In sum, Dr. Nelson was ATLS-certified as of April 23, 2017, which is before the Department’s May 1, 2017, deadline. Northside also provided a litany of information to the Department with its initial application and Deficiency Response detailing Dr. Nelson’s efforts to secure his ATLS certification. Northside therefore satisfied Standard V(B)(3)(d). Standard XVIII(G) Standard XVIII addresses quality management, which is one of the core requirements of a trauma program. Since the time that Northside began building its trauma program, it has prioritized quality management. Northside began developing its trauma quality management program in early December 2016. As part of this effort, Northside developed a trauma quality management plan, which is essential for any quality management program. Following the beginning of limited trauma-related operations on February 16, 2017, Northside held its first peer review meeting on February 22, 2017, to discuss patient treatment issues. Dr. Barquist attended these meetings and minutes were kept. Northside also began to hold nursing and ancillary staff meetings, known as trauma quality management (“TQM”) meetings, during this time. The directors of each department at the hospital attended these meetings, as well as the chief operating officer and chief financial officer. The objective of these meetings was to operationalize the more than 200 trauma-specific policies and procedures put in place during the trauma program development. Any issues identified in these meetings were addressed immediately with the whole trauma staff to ensure program-wide compliance. To demonstrate compliance with this Standard, Northside submitted nearly 400 pages of documents with its initial application. These included Northside’s Trauma Performance Improvement and Patient Safety Plan, policies and procedures, and peer review minutes. As part of its application, Northside submitted the minutes of its peer review meetings at which quality management issues were discussed. Even though Northside was not receiving trauma alert patients from local emergency medical services (something it could not do prior to becoming a provisionally approved trauma center), it routinely conducted quality management activities with regard to patients in the hospital with trauma injuries. With this patient population, Northside employed its trauma improvement processes to identify areas in which there was room for improvement in care, and to determine how education, training, and equipment could be enhanced to improve care for similar patients in the future. In his review of Standard XVIII(F), Dr. Reed affirmed that Northside held quality management meetings at which the following issues were discussed: The subject matter discussed, including an analysis of all issues related to each case referred by the trauma service medical director to the trauma program manager, cases involving morbidity or mortality determining whether they were disease related or provider related and the preventability, and cases with other quality of care concerns. A summary of cases with variations not referred to the committee. A description of committee discussion of cases not requiring action, with an explanation or each decision. Any action taken to resolve problems or improve patient care and outcomes. Evidence that the committee evaluated the effectiveness of any action taken to resolve programs or improve patient care and outcomes. Northside also submitted documents addressing Standard XVIII(G). This subpart addresses a quarterly report prepared by the trauma quality management committee which must be submitted to the Department by approved trauma centers 15 days after the end of each quarter. If approved as a provisional trauma center, Northside would have submitted its first quality report to the Department on August 15, 2017. The report, which is only submitted by provisionally approved and verified trauma centers, must include information related to patient case reviews, select clinical indicators, and patient complications. The report is only made available by the Department to approved trauma centers; it is not provided to applicants. The report form is not referenced in any Department rule, the Trauma Standards, or the Department’s website. However, to establish that Northside was prepared to provide the required report once it received provisional approval, Northside obtained a copy of the template from an affiliated operating trauma center and included that template in its application. Because it was not an approved trauma center, Northside ultimately submitted a detailed template of the quality report to be submitted following approval as required. The detailed template included blank fields with the quality indicators selected by the Department and the hospital, benchmarking data points, patient complications, and case review information. The fields in the report regarding patient complications and case review information can be taken directly from the peer review minutes, which Northside submitted with its initial application and were located directly in front of its detailed template. In his review of Northside’s initial application, Dr. Reed concluded that Northside provided much of the required evidence, demonstrating “an active and effective trauma quality improvement program” and met the vast majority of subparts in this Standard. However, regarding Standard XVIII(G), Dr. Reed identified deficiencies on the basis that “[a] template of a report was submitted, but there were no cases recorded.” Dr. Reed confirmed that he reviewed the peer review minutes Northside submitted with its application. In response to Dr. Reed’s comment, Northside submitted updated templates with additional information. The quality indicator and benchmarking templates were populated with data from its trauma registry regarding the patients with traumatic injuries that the hospital had treated since February 16, 2017. In addition to these documents, which specifically addressed Standard XVIII(G), Northside also submitted more peer review minutes from subsequent meetings since the initial application, which were included directly in front of Exhibit 75. Dr. Reed ultimately concluded that Northside had not demonstrated compliance with Standard XVIII(G)(1)-(3). That conclusion, however, is unsupportable by the evidence at hearing. Dr. Reed acknowledged that Northside’s Deficiency Response provided the “quarterly data regarding the state required indicators and the additional institution-specific indicators.” The only reason he believed that Northside’s application remained deficient was that it did not “address the individual case quality review issues required in Standard XVIII.G.1-3.” This conclusion is undermined by Dr. Reed’s recognition-–as reflected in his review of Standard XVIII(F)-–that Northside was conducting case quality reviews. In his deposition, Dr. Reed agreed that Northside’s Deficiency Response “did include information regarding the number of cases and indicators and that sort of thing.” Indeed, Dr. Reed’s true concern appears to have been that Northside’s “numbers,” i.e., the number of patient cases reviewed by Northside, were “still kind of thin.” But Dr. Reed himself recognized that prior to the time that a trauma center application is provisionally approved and the trauma program begins treating trauma alert patients, a trauma program is unlikely to have a large number of patient cases to review. The Department’s view that Northside did not satisfy Standard XVIII(G) is not supported by the evidence. The section of the quality report addressing individual case reviews is simply a summary of the information contained in the hospital’s peer review minutes-–and Northside conducted the required peer review meetings. Northside demonstrated at hearing that it was capable of preparing a table summarizing its peer review cases and the corrective action taken for each case. All the information contained in the completed table was taken verbatim from the peer review minutes that Northside submitted with its initial application and Deficiency Response. If approved, Northside was prepared to submit the quarterly report as required on August 15, 2017. Thus, at worst, Northside did not copy and paste information from one place to another. To the extent possible, Northside complied with this Standard. The Department’s review of an earlier trauma center application confirms that the Department should not have determined that Northside did not satisfy Standard XVIII(G). In April 2016, the Department approved an application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center submitted by Jackson South Community Hospital. As part of its approval, the Department-- based on a review by Dr. Reed--determined that Jackson South met each of the requirements in Standard XVIII(G). However, Jackson South only submitted hospital policies, promising to prepare and submit the required quality report if approved. Jackson South did not submit any quality report or even a template of such a report. Despite submitting far less evidence demonstrating compliance, Dr. Reed did not note any deficiencies for this Standard with regard to Jackson South’s application. The Department ultimately approved the application. Dr. Reed confirmed that Northside’s quality management program was significantly more developed than the one for Jackson South Community Hospital that Dr. Reed himself had recommended be approved only two years earlier. At hearing, Chief Dick could not explain the inconsistency. In sum, the Department erred in concluding that Northside had not satisfied Standard XVIII(G) because Northside had an active and effective quality management program that involved thorough case reviews and Northside demonstrated that it was capable of submitting the required forms once its program was approved and its fully operational. Contemporaneous Emails Demonstrate That the Department Denied Northside’s Application for Reasons Having Nothing to Do with the Merits of Northside’s Program The Department’s decision to deny Northside’s application was not made in a vacuum. On April 28, 2017-–only two days before the Department sent Northside the Denial Letter-– a circuit judge in Leon County entered an order (“Injunction Order”) temporarily enjoining Northside from operating as a trauma center and enjoining the Department from permitting Northside to operate as a provisional trauma center. This injunction was based exclusively on issues of administrative law and did not in any manner address the merits of Northside’s application. In fact, the Department strongly opposed the injunction. The injunction did not prevent the Department from approving Northside’s application. The Department’s internal correspondence demonstrates that the injunction led the Department to deny Northside’s application, presumably because it was concerned about the ramifications of provisionally approving Northside’s application while the injunction was pending and Northside could not begin trauma center operations. On April 28, 2017, just hours before the Injunction Order was issued, Kate Kocevar, head of the Department’s Trauma Section, emailed Dr. Reed’s final conclusions to Chief Dick and informed her that in her opinion “Northside Hospital appears to have passed the reviewers [sic] survey and will be granted Provisional status.” Chief Dick confirmed at hearing that her initial impression based on Ms. Kocevar’s email was that Northside passed the survey. Later that day, Chief Dick received the injunction order and immediately emailed other Department personnel, “[l]ooks like the letter to Northside will not be going out on Monday as originally written.” Three days later, on May 1, 2017, the Department sent Northside the Denial Letter, notifying the hospital that its application had not met the Trauma Standards and would be denied. Given the looming injunction order, the Department’s internal correspondence, and the fact that the three alleged deficiencies are minor, at the very most, the Department’s decision to deny the application was apparently motivated by an administrative decision that it should not approve an application while the injunction was in place-–not by any genuine concerns regarding the merits of Northside’s program. Northside Has Expended, and Continues to Expend, Millions of Dollars to Maintain an Operational Trauma Program Northside has continued to maintain its trauma service capability, including retaining physicians and staff, while proceeding with its challenge of the Department’s preliminary denial. As part of its readiness efforts, Northside’s quality management program remains in place, meaning that Northside is still holding peer review and quality improvement meetings. Maintaining a continued state of readiness to initiate operations as a provisional Level II trauma center will cost Northside approximately $13 million this year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Northside met its burden of establishing that its trauma center application met the applicable standards, and awarding provisional Level II status to the applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 20th day of December, 2017.
The Issue This hearing dealt with the consideration of the adequacy of the proposals by the Petitioner and Intervenor which were offered in response to the Respondent agency's RFP inquiry about a contract for the delivery of health services. Consideration of the dispute was as envisioned by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent had determined that the Petitioner's proposal was unresponsive, and the proposal of the Intervenor was found to be acceptable. Petitioner challenged this opinion, leading to an assessment through the hearing process of the responsiveness of the proposals submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1985, the State of Florida, Department of Corrections, the Respondent in this action, issued request for proposals number 85-CO-2336-R. (A request for proposals is commonly referred to as an "RFP.") The purpose of this RFP was to obtain the assistance of a vendor or contractor in the provision and management of medical services at a newly constructed reception/medical facility located in southern Florida. Following the review of four responses to the RFP a decision was made on October 15, 1985, to award the project to Emergency Medical Services Associates, Inc., the Intervenor. In the face of this intended agency action, the Petitioner, Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on October 18, 1985. This was followed by a Formal Written Protest dated October 23, 1985, which was amended on November 7, 1985. These pleadings raise the issues which are described in this Recommended Order. In particular Respondent, through the RFP, sought the ideas of the contractors necessary for the provision of comprehensive health care services in the new facility which is known as the South Florida Reception Center. Among the specific requirements of the RFP were the supply of medical and psychological personnel physical and psychological examinations, x-ray and laboratory facilities, the provision of an infirmary and an intensive care mental health unit. The RFP called for the provision of the services for three years with an option to renew for a second three-year term upon agreement of the provider and Respondent. In addition to the Petitioner and Intervenor, two other firms submitted responses to the RFP. Those companies were Correctional Health Services, Ltd., and Prison Health Services, Inc. The price quotations given by the four responding vendors were as follows: Correctional Medical Systems, Inc. $11,084,805.00 Correctional Health Services, Ltd. 11,560,000.00 Emergency Medical Services Associates Inc. 13,687,419.00 Prison Health Services, Inc. 15,720,387.00 In issuing the RFP the Respondent had as its goal the ability to select from competitive proposals that proposal which best met the needs of the agency. This method of selection was utilized, notwithstanding the fact that health services are not required to undergo the rigors associated with the bid laws of Florida. The RFP, in its terms, had allowed the unsuccessful bidders to protest the Respondent's decision of the matter of a contract award based upon authority set forth in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Three of the four proposals submitted by the four companies were rejected by the Respondent as being nonresponsive or irregular. Petitioner's proposal was rejected in view of the Respondent's belief that the proposal failed to contain a firm fixed price. Prison Health Services' bid was depicted as being inadequate, in that it failed to offer a fixed price and to include a legally binding proposal. Correctional Health Services' proposal was deemed nonresponsive for the failure to include resumes of key personnel within that organization. These determinations of irregularity or of lack of responsiveness were based upon a facial review of the submissions by the contractors and no further steps were taken by the Respondent to make an in- depth analysis of those proposals or to compare them to other proposals prior to deciding the ultimate question of which contractor it preferred to engage in this undertaking. The proposals from the four contractors were received and opened on October 7, 1985. William Stancill, the General Services Administrator to the Respondent had reviewed the submissions by the four vendors with an eye for any failings in those documents pertaining to what he perceived to be mandatory requirements of the PEP. This assessment lead Stancill to recommend the rejection of the three vendors for lack of compliance with mandatory requirements. Having reached this conclusion, the vendors other than the Intervenor were told that their proposals were unacceptable. Again, upon the facial examination of the proposals, only that proposal of Emergency Medical Services Associates was found to be responsive. 1/ Before the proposals were received from the various contractors, Respondent held what is known as a responders' conference to discuss the terms of the RFP. In the course of this conference, an indication was given to the potential responding parties on the topic of the Respondent's desires as to a price quotation. In the RFP, paragraph 5.2 [page 28] indicates "The cost proposal will be stated in terms of a fixed price for each year of the contract and option " In the course of the proposal submitted by the Petitioner, it offered the following comments about its price: CMS' price for each year of the contract is shown based on a 5 percent yearly increase. If the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index deviates more than 2 percent from the projected 5 percent increase in a given year, CMS reserves the right to renegotiate its price with the Florida Department of Corrections for that year. This price is not fixed as contemplated by the terms of PEP, and this submission by the Petitioner fails to comply with the PEP on this subject. This failing is not cured by the testimony of Richard Turpenoff, Vice President of Financial Services for the Petitioner, when he describes personal involvement with the submission of seventy-five to a hundred health care proposals for correctional facilities and the fact that this language set forth in the present response to PEP had been used on those occasions. Nor is it beneficial to the Petitioner when it indicates that this type of language set forth in the response to the price demands of the PEP is that which has been used by health care providers throughout the industry. Petitioner's idea of reserving to itself the ability to discuss with the Respondent an equitable adjustment in the price of its services, in what the Petitioner foresees as an unlikely event that the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index were to rise drastically over the period of the contract, is in itself a departure from the terms of the PEP. The PEP does not allow for this interference with the orderly process of the contract terms through any suggested negotiations, and it does not suffice to say that those negotiations are not unilateral in nature. Further, it is insufficient rehabilitation of the response to the PEP to indicate that the Petitioner has not abandoned any of its contracts before the expiration of the terms of those agreements. In this connection, the testimony of Joseph Rowan, Executive Director of Juvenile and Criminal Justice International, an expert in health care, states that he has reviewed a large number of proposals and has seen numerous proposals with provisions similar to that set forth in the Respondent's statement on price and concludes that the provision in the proposal is a firm fixed price. That statement is rejected. It is rejected because the interpretation given to this provision on the part of the Respondent in the person of Mr. Stancill is more compelling. Stancill believes that the Petitioner's quotation is not binding and is therefore not a fixed price, and that understanding is accepted. The Petitioner's deviation from the requirement for fixed price is one which may not be considered a minor irregularity, in that it is not an item which does not have an adverse effect on the cost or performance as described in paragraph 4.7 [page 25] of the PEP. The terms of the PEP as paragraph 4.7 and Rule 13A-1.02, Florida Administrative Code, contemplate the waiver of minor irregularities in the proposals submitted by the contractors. By not submitting a fixed price, Petitioner has failed to comply with a mandatory requirement of the PEP, and its offer is unresponsive. Finally, in the last four years, the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index has exceeded 5% in each of those years and has reached as high as 8.7% in one of those years. As with the Petitioner's submittal, in examining the propriety of the submission by the Intervenor, it is the question of mandatory compliance with the RFP that is critical to the qualification of the latter proposal. To this end, the Petitioner has attempted to identify in the course of the final hearing those items within the proposal by the Intervenor which Petitioner argues constitute noncompliance in categories in which compliance is mandated. The first area of concern by the Petitioner pertains to subparagraph 5.1.2 of the RFP [page 27]. This provision relates to job descriptions and resumes of employees included within the FTE count. It says: A job description for all employees to be employed by the Contractor in the institu- tion, must be included. (Format samples are attached.) Resumes of any designated senior administrative/management or professional personnel should be included. As a minimum, the positions equivalent to senior adminis- trator, the chief health officer, and the nursing Director must be designated and a resume provided. Having considered the language of this provision, and the explanation concerning the provision as provided by Stancill, this provision is found to require the submission of job descriptions for all employees that the contractor intends to utilize in the institution. Further, it is necessary that the contractor designate by name and provide resumes for those persons holding the positions within the organization which are equivalent to the senior administrator, chief health officer and nursing director. This provision cannot be construed, as urged by the Respondent and Intervenor, to countenance the idea that only the job descriptions pertaining to positions equivalent to senior administrator, chief health officer and nursing director must be provided. In its submission, the Intervenor failed to submit job descriptions for employees in the classifications clerical assistant, medical records librarian, rehabilitative therapist ward clerk, clerk typist, pharmacy assistant and, arguably, clinical psychologist. Those job descriptions identified were provided at a later date. An additional conference was held between the Respondent and Intervenor following the Respondent's stated intention to select the Intervenor as the contractor, and in the course of this meeting, the Respondent established what it would accept in the way of the provision of services under the term medical assistant. That indication was to the effect that this job title must pertain to licensed nurses and medical technicians. In Florida, there is a specific category of licensed professional referred to as "medical assistant," found at Section 458.34, Florida Statutes, (Ch. 84-543, Laws of Florida) as it deals with assistants to physicians. The job description related to medical assistants as provided by the Intervenor more closely corresponds to the duties of licensed nurses or persons who assist those nurse practitioners, not persons who work under the direct supervision of a physician as described in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. This job description also refers to the possibility of filling positions with persons who have worked as emergency medical technicians, EMTs. While the Intervenor failed to submit the job descriptions which have been identified in the previous paragraph, and as such violated subparagraph 5.1.2 of the RFP, this noncompliance is not a failure to comport with mandatory terms of the RFP. The mandatory terms as generally described in paragraph 3.1, and as defined by the following paragraphs and subparagraphs, do not point to the idea that the failure to provide the job descriptions is mandatory and a fatal defect in the proposal. While paragraph 3.1 and its ensuing provisions do regard the provision of resumes and background information related to key personnel as being mandatory the provision of job descriptions for the personnel at issue is not a mandatory item. Finally, the omission of those job descriptions in this instance has not been found to have a bearing on cost or performance. In a related vein, the inability, in theory, to compare the job descriptions of one contractor with those of another would impair the purchaser's efforts at selecting between the proposals. However, this comparison is not needed if the other contractors have been excluded based upon noncompliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP. Indeed, the other three proposals were properly discarded for noncompliance, and no comparison has been made. In the absence of the necessity of comparing job descriptions, it was not inappropriate for the Respondent to allow for the provision of the missing job descriptions subsequent to the submission of the basic proposal or to engage in discussion about the needs under the category medical assistant following the submission of the proposal. The Petitioner next challenges the accuracy of the claims which have been made by the Intervenor reference James A. Brigham, a key person in the plans of the Intervenor in its attempts at honoring the terms of a contract with the Respondent. Brigham is the Intervenor's Director of Marketing. On page 3 of the proposal of the Intervenor, in the introductory remarks, it is stated: Mr. Brigham was formerly an executive with and helped to found and manage Correctional Medical Systems, Inc. He has worked directly with the Department of Corrections in the states of Illinois, Alabama, Georgia and Missouri. In fact, Brigham neither founded nor managed Correctional Medical Systems, Inc. Although he has offered advice in the formative years of that corporation through his affiliation with another corporate entity which was associated with Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., that experience cannot be elevated, even under the most liberal construction, to a level of founding and managing. Brigham has never been employed by Correctional Medical Systems per se and has not served in any executive capacity with that organization. The resume of Brigham, which is a part of the proposal by the Intervenor, also sets forth that Brigham served as the Executive Vice President of Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., in the years 1977-1983. (Spectrum is the other corporation previously mentioned which Brigham was associated with when advising Correctional Medical Systems.) His service as Executive Vice President lasted from 1977 through October 1, 1982. He did serve as an employee of Spectrum Emergency Care between the years 1977 and 1983. In the course of that employment, he prepared proposals and consulted with various states in the area of provision of medical care within correctional facilities. In that regard he had some contact with the states of Illinois, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama. Correctional Medical Systems was organized in 1979 to promote comprehensive medical services within correctional facilities throughout the United States. The focus of Spectrum in this regard had been primarily the provision of physician staffing in correctional facilities. It is not evident from what has been presented in the course of this hearing why these inaccurate statements were set forth in the RFP in describing Brigham's association with Correctional Medical Systems and Spectrum. On balance, having considered those statements and having reviewed the deposition of the witness Brigham on the subject of his experience, these inaccuracies within the RFP response are not found to be sufficient to recommend the rejection of this proposal. Paragraph 2.7 [page 1O] of the RFP states: The proposal shall indicate the contractor's plans to secure and maintain standards of the Commission on Corrections accreditation of the health services program, regardless of whether the entire institution may be accredited. This refers to standards established by the American Correctional Association. Petitioner claims that the Intervenor did not describe in its proposal how it intends to provide access information to the incoming prisoners pertaining to health care. As argued by the Petitioner, this is a requirement by the American Correctional Association in its standards dealing with the provision of medical care access information to prisoners. However, the RFP cannot be construed as requiring a contractor to identify how it would comply with that provision as a feature of its response to the RFP. The RFP is read to stand for the proposition that the contractor, in cooperation with the Respondent, shall make efforts to gain accreditation by the American Correctional Association and does not extend to the idea of a separate statement in its proposal of how it will provide access information to incoming prisoners. Moreover, it was established in the course of the hearing that at the point of intake of inmates into the Florida system of corrections, those inmates are routinely made aware of their right to receive medical services. At paragraph 2.1, lettered section C, [page 7] of the RFP, there is a discussion of the length of stay contemplated in the mental health unit of the facility. In particular it states: The patients in this mental health unit are expected to be successfully treated or stabi- lized within 30 to 60 days so as to permit assignment to another institution. This obligates the contractor to the establishment of a program varying in length from thirty to sixty days which will meet those requirements of successful treatment or stabilization. In preparing a budget to address this requirement, it leaves to the contractor the decision on whether the program needs to be thirty or more days. The latitude is afforded to use as few as thirty days in preparing the budget, which the intervenor did. By its terms, the RFP calls for the processing of eighty adult offenders and twenty youthful offenders per week for a total of a hundred inmates a week to be seen at reception for routine physical exams. This requirement of the RFP has been addressed in the budget statement of the Intervenor in Attachment D [page 2], described as a hundred physicals times 52 weeks or fifty-two hundred examinations. This item is separate from another item set forth on that page dealing with physical examinations which are on an annualized basis with a calculation being made that approximately five persons will be examined per day in the category of annual examinations. It has not been shown that the Intervenor budgeted for five examinations a day related to the intake function of receiving and processing inmates, when twenty per day was called for by the RFP. None of the other claims of the Petitioner set forth in the formal protest and its amendments on the subject of alleged infirmities within the Intervenor's response to proposal have been proven. The Emergency Medical Services Associates proposal had been reviewed by the evaluation committee of the Respondent which had the responsibility to make decisions on the sufficiency of such proposals and was found to be satisfactory. This determination has not been shown to be in error through proof in this hearing.
