The Issue Whether a letter of the Department of Health dated January 15, 2002, violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Westside (Petitioner) is an acute care general hospital licensed by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, pursuant to Part I of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Westside is located at 8201 West Broward Boulevard, Plantation, Florida. Westside's location is in Trauma Service Area ("TSA") 18 comprised exclusively of Broward County as established by Section 395.402(3)(a)18., Florida Statutes. The Department, created pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, is the state agency charged with primary responsibility for the planning and establishment of a statewide inclusive trauma system. See Section 395.40(3), Florida Statutes (2001). See also Rule 64E-2.021, Florida Administrative Code. "'Trauma agency' means a department-approved agency established and operated by one or more counties . . . for the purpose of administering an inclusive regional trauma system." Section 395.4001(10), Florida Statutes. The Broward County Trauma Agency ("BCTA") is the local trauma agency established by processes and procedures established, in turn, by rule of the Department. Section 395.401, Florida Statutes. It is the Department-approved trauma agency in TSA 18. Each local trauma agency, such as the BCTA, is directed by Section 395.401(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to "develop and submit to the department plans for local and regional trauma service systems." The plans must include certain components outlined in the statute. Among them are "the number and location of needed state approved trauma centers based on local needs, population, and location and distribution of resources." Section 395.401(1)(b)4., Florida Statutes. The statute also calls for periodic updates of the plans: After the submission of the initial trauma system plan, each trauma agency shall, every 5th year, submit to the department for approval an updated plan that identifies the changes, if any, to be made in the regional trauma system. Section 395.401(1)(n), Florida Statutes. The Broward County Trauma Agency Plan that had been in effect "a little bit longer" than since 1995 or 1996, was updated and submitted for approval to the state in 2001. (Deposition of Danz, p. 6.) Although it may have been somewhat delayed (the record is not clear about the precise amount of time between the approval of the plan in effect prior to the update and the update's approval), the timing of the submission was intended to accord with the statutory requirement that updates be reviewed by the BCTA and submitted for approval "every five years." (Id.) The plan in effect at the time of an update approval process that took place largely in the year 2001 stated: State trauma center planning has resulted in an estimated need for four (4) trauma centers in Broward County. For the purposes of network development this plan envisions the initial establishment of three (3) Level II facilities with additional facilities being placed on line as need and funding requires. Each center will act as the primary receiving facility for a designated geographical catchment area (see maps d1 and d2). (Exhibit 20, Part D, p. 4.) The updated plan, denominated Broward County Trauma Plan 2001 (also referred to as the "2001 Plan" or the "Plan"), made a change to the above language. The 2001 Plan states: The establishment of three (3) facilities (two Level I Adult and Pediatric Centers and one Level II Adult Center) each as the primary receiving facility for a designated geographical catchment area, has been determined to be the correct compliment for the County's current need. (Exhibit 6, p. 50.) George Danz is the chief of operations for the Broward County Medical Examiner's Office. He is also the Director of the BCTA. Director Danz outlined "[i]n a nutshell" (Deposition of Danz, p. 7), the process for approval of the updated trauma plan for TSA 18, Broward County Trauma Plan 2001, as follows: (Id.) The process is fairly lengthy. First of all, the [BCTA] goes through the plan and looks at what areas we need to make revisions and changes to and so forth. We make those changes. We then have a Trauma Advisory Committee. We take those changes to the Trauma Advisory Committee for their recommendations and approval. We then are required by state law to notify all of the hospitals and EMS providers in Broward County that revisions are being drafted. We have to provide public notice, advertise that the changes are being made. We have to have a formal public hearing before the Broward County Commissioners. We have that hearing, and if it's approved by the Board of County Commissioners, we then submit the plan to the State of Florida. The State reviews the plan. If they have any changes that they want us to make to the plan, they let us know. They make the change that the state requires and then the state finally provides us with an approval or denial of the plan. In keeping with the process outlined by him, Director Danz sent a memorandum to "Broward County Hospital Administrators" and "Trauma Care Providers" on January 26, 2001. (Exhibit 1.) The memorandum informed the administrators and providers of trauma care that the BCTA with the aid of the Trauma Advisory Committee and the Regional Health Planning Council, Inc., had updated the Broward County Trauma Plan in accordance with law. The memorandum further advised that the Broward County Commission had directed that notice be given that the updates to the plan would be considered at a public hearing to be held on February 27, 2001. In the meantime, the Broward County Trauma Advisory Committee on February 14, 2001, approved an updated trauma plan for TSA 18. Less than two weeks later, as announced in Director Danz's earlier memorandum to hospital administrators and trauma providers, the 2001 Plan was presented to the Broward County Commission at a public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously at the hearing held as scheduled February 27, 2001, to approve the 2001 Plan. On April 30, 2001, Director Danz submitted the 2001 Plan to the Department. In response, the Department, on May 24, 2001, wrote to Director Danz announcing the conclusion of its "review for completeness of the Broward County Trauma Agency Plan Update that was received May 2, 2001." (Exhibit 3.) Although the Department found the 2001 Plan to include a majority of required elements, it found six "to be missing or incomplete." (Id.) These six elements were listed in the May 24, 2001, letter from the Department to the BCTA Director. On June 26, 2001, Director Danz sent a letter to Program Administrator Frederick A. Williams at the Department's Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The letter outlined how each of the six deficient elements had been addressed by BCTA. The letter was received June 29, 2001, by the Department. Twelve days later, on July 11, 2001, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Chief Charles Bement wrote Director Danz: We have completed the review of the Broward County Trauma Agency Plan Update submitted to this office on May 2, 2001, with the changes and additions we had requested in our letter to you May 24, 2001. We are pleased to inform you that your plan update is approved effective as of the date of this letter. (Exhibit 5.) Although the 2001 Plan provided for only three trauma centers in Broward County, and there were already three existing centers, with the plan having been approved for more than two months, on September 26, 2001, Michael Joseph, the Chief Executive Officer of Westside executed a "STATE-APPROVED TRAUMA CENTER LETTER OF INTENT." (Exhibit 17). The letter expressed Westside's "interest in becoming a State-Approved Trauma Center (SATC) or State-Approved Pediatric Trauma Referral Center (SAPTRC), or in upgrading the trauma care services already being provided." (Id.) CEO Joseph's letter was not out of step with the latest thinking of the Department. It crossed in the mail with a letter from the Department dated September 28, 2001. This letter, under signature of Bureau Chief Bement to Director Danz and the BCTA reflected the Department's conclusion that the Broward County Trauma Plan 2001 (although previously approved by the Department) conflicted with a rule of the Department of Health. Accordingly, the letter announced Department action: amendment of the 2001 Plan to bring it into compliance with the rule. The letter stated: It has recently come to my attention that the trauma services system plan approved by the Bureau for the Broward County Trauma Agency conflicts with the provisions of Fla. Admin. Code R. 64E-2.022(3). The plan recommends three state approved trauma centers or pediatric trauma referral centers for trauma service area 18 while the Administrative Code provides for four. The Legislature has assigned responsibility for determining the number of trauma centers allocated to each trauma service area to the Department of Health. See [s.] 395.402(3)(b), Fla. Stat. The Department has allocated, by rule, four centers for your area (sic) therefore, the trauma services systems plan for Broward County Trauma Agency is amended in accordance with the law to provide for four centers. (Exhibit 7, emphasis supplied.) On the same day of the Department's letter announcing the amendment of the 2001 Plan, a memorandum was issued by M. Susan McDivitt, R.N., the Department's Executive Community Health Nursing Director. Bearing a subject line of "Letter of Intent for State Approved Trauma Centers," and dated September 28, 2001, the memorandum informed specific parties of the notice of amendment to the Broward County Trauma Plan. Ms. McDivitt's memo refers to the amendment as one that "provides for four state approved trauma centers or state approved pediatric trauma referral centers for Broward County, as outlined in the [rule]." Exhibit 16. The memorandum goes on, As you may know, [s.] 395.4025(2), Florida Statutes, provides that in order to be considered for approval as a trauma center an applicant must certify that its operation would be consistent with the trauma agency plan. Prior to this amendment, no acute care general hospital in Broward County could make that certification as the trauma agency plan only provided for three centers and Broward County has three centers. The above- referenced notification [by amending the 2001 Plan to provide for four trauma centers] has addressed that situation. (Id.) The following Monday, the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services stamped as received on October 1, 2001, Westside's letter of intent. Two weeks later, on October 15, 2001, the Office of the County Attorney for Broward County responded to the September 28, 2001, letter in writing. This written communication requested reconsideration of the action reflected in the Department's September 28 letter, that is, the amendment of the 2001 Plan to provide for four state-approved trauma centers rather than three. As part of the basis for reconsideration, the County Attorney's office wrote: [s.] 395.401(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department must approve or disapprove a trauma plan within one hundred twenty (120) days of submission. Here, the Department approved the plan (which was submitted May 2, 2001) on July 11, 2001. There does not appear to be any statutory authority for the Department of Health to unilaterally "amend" a trauma plan once approved. Moreover, the Department's action here was taken after the 120 day window of consideration had closed, and more importantly, after the Department had already determined that the plan was consistent with Rule 64E-2.-22(3). (Exhibit 8.) On October 23, 2001, Bureau Chief Bement issued a memorandum to Nursing Director McDivitt. It details reasons "[t]here should be three trauma centers in Broward County. " (Exhibit 9.) By letter dated November 5, 2001, Art Clawson, Director of the Division of Emergency Medical Services and Community Health Resources in the Department, notified the Broward County Attorney's Office that Bureau Chief Bement's letter of September 28 amending the 2001 Plan constituted agency action that provided a point of entry into administrative proceedings. The letter further advised that formal administrative proceedings could be initiated within 21 days of receipt of the November 5 letter. On November 29, 2001, NBHD filed a petition for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was assigned DOH Case No. 02-0131-FOI-HSEM. In the case, NBHD challenged the authority of the State of Florida to amend the Broward County Trauma Plan 2001 as done in the Department's September 28 letter. Westside moved to intervene in the proceeding. While NBHD's case pended at the Department, Division Director Clawson wrote the letter which contains the statements that Westside seeks to have determined in this proceeding to violate Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The letter, written January 15, 2002, states, in pertinent part, Be advised that this correspondence is the official withdrawal by the Department of Health of its amendment of the Broward County Trauma Agency (BCTA) plan. More specifically, the Department withdraws its letter of September 28th 2001 to the BCTA. Likewise, the Department withdraws its Notice of final agency action of November 5th, 2001. It has been determined that the Department lacked the authority to unilaterally amend the BCTA plan after it had been approved by the Department on July 11th, 2001. (Exhibit 11.) No part of this letter has been promulgated as a rule through the procedures in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The effect of the January 15, 2002, letter is to render Westside's letter of intent submitted for a new state-approved trauma center in Broward County inconsistent with the requirement of Section 395.4025(2) that "[i]n order to be considered by the department, a hospital [that submits a letter of intent] . . . must certify that its intent . . . is consistent with the trauma services plan of the local or regional trauma agency, as approved by the department, " On January 24, 2002, the Department issued a final order in DOH Case No. 02-01310FOI-HSEM denying the petition of NBHD challenging the Department's September 28 action of amending the Plan. The basis of the denial is that the relief requested by NBHD had been obtained as the result of the January 15, 2002, letter. Westside now seeks a determination that the January 15, 2002, letter is an agency statement in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, that is, an unpromulgated rule. Such a determination will reinstate the Department's letter of September 28 and its amendment to the 2001 Plan to provide for four (4) trauma centers in TSA 18. The restoration of the amendment, in turn, will open the door to the potential of Department approval of the fourth trauma center in Broward County that Westside hopes to operate as expressed in its letter of intent. North Broward Hospital District, the operator of two trauma centers in Broward County, opposes such a determination because it could lead to approval of a fourth trauma center in Broward County. Approval of a fourth trauma center would have an impact on the currently approved trauma centers, including those of NBHD because the number of patients seen by the existing trauma centers would be reduced. As Dr. Lottenberg testified in his deposition, "[I]n order to effectively have a proficient trauma center, you need to have about 1,000 severely injured patient per trauma center per year. Currently[,] all three trauma centers [in Broward County] are operating somewhat under that number." (Lottenberg, pgs. 26- 27.) Approval of a fourth trauma center would reduce the existing provider's number of severely injured patients when, in Dr. Lottenberg's opinion, the trauma center's in Broward County need more patients to ensure proficiency rather than less.
Findings Of Fact Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Petitioner, seeks, via a variance, approval of an intensive care/coronary care unit (ICU/CCU) in excess of the 5,000 square foot requirement of the 1973 Life Safety Code, which has been adopted and is enforce by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent herein), pursuant to Rule 10D-28.79, Florida Administrative Code. The unit size in question is approximately 11,540 square feet, which is, of course, approximately twice the size of the ICU/CCU unit size permitted by the 1973 Life Safety Code. The Respondent disapproved the Petitioner's request for a variance based inter alia on the fact that the Petitioner's plans, as presented, exceeded the 5,000 square foot requirement by approximately 6,000 square feet and due to the fact that the number of feet from the patient beds to the exits was in excess of the 50 feet exit requirement set forth in the 1973 Life Safety Code. Rudolph Nudo, Petitioner's Director of Engineering for approximately thirteen years, studied the plans presented for approval by Respondent and has been involved in the variance request from the outset. During January of 1978, Petitioner engaged the architectural firm of Ellerbe and Associates to arrive at a design that would be efficient both in terms of space utilization and in terms of cost efficiency. Based on its studies, Ellerbe decided upon a triangular design. The working drawings, plans and specifications were submitted to the City of Jacksonville for approval, which approval has been granted. The City of Jacksonville`s code is patterned largely from the 1973 Life Safety Code. During a meeting with the Respondent's agents during August of 1978, Respondent's officials voiced concern about the excessive square feet contained in the ICU/CCU unit and, based therein, formally submitted a letter of denial to Petitioner based on the excessive square feet. Presently, exterior construction has commenced on the proposed unit and Petitioner is now awaiting approval of its interior construction plans. Petitioner has indicated its desire to comply fully with all other requirements in terms of the necessary time/ratings for the fireproofing of walls, et cetera. In terms of other safety precautions, the Petitioner regularly conducts safety inspections and fire drills. Petitioner has not been cited for any safety infractions by the Respondent. Don Benson, the architect employed by Ellerbe and Associates assigned to this project, has been engaged in the design of medical facilities since approximately 1964. The plans, as submitted, have space to accommodate approximately twenty-four beds for coronary and intensive care patients. As stated, the design is triangular and the monitoring station is semi-circular. (See Petitioner's Exhibit A.) The burn factor for the wall is rated by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for a period of up to two hours. The facility as planned is a one-story unit and is designed for easy ingress and egress to other adjacent units. Dr. Kay E. Gilmore, M.D., a cardiologist who has specialized in heart and vascular diseases for approximately seven years, was a member of the Petitioner's in-house committee charged with studying and implementing the design for the proposed ICU/CCU unit. Prior to submittal of the proposal, Dr. Gilmore visited various sites to study other ICU units which were operational. Dr. Gilmore, as did other witnesses, noted that in ICU units, a primary concern is that of complete visualization and monitoring of patients at all times. Dr. H. Azcuy, M.D., who has been engaged in the practice of pulmonary medicine since approximately 1964, is Petitioner's Director of Respiratory Therapy. Dr. Azcuy is a member of the Critical Care design unit committee and has been instrumental with the planning for the proposed facility. Dr. Azcuy remarked that most patients which he treats have respiratory problems and that all patients in the intensive care unit are prohibited from smoking due to the presence of oxygen in the critical care units. Vernon Wallace, Petitioner's biomedical engineer, is in charge of the procurement and maintenance of all patient care equipment at the facility. Recognizing that fire hazards are potential problems in all hospitals, Messr. Wallace testified that all equipment purchased by Petitioner is of high-level workmanship, most of which operates on very low voltage, thereby reducing the likelihood of fires. Messr. Wallace testified that during his tenure with Petitioner, no fire has occurred at the hospital nor has it been necessary to evacuate patients for any reason. Mary Nikoden, an R.N. for approximately thirty-three years and Petitioner's Director of Nursing for the past ten years, has been employed in many phases of patient care at hospitals and nursing homes. Ms. Nikoden testified that patients are interchanged regularly from the intensive care units to the critical care units as patient load fluctuates. She cited one problem, i.e., the movement of patients from the ICU/CCU units which is hampered due to the bulky equipment and the necessity to constantly monitor intensive and critical care patients. She opined that if the units were combined, patient care would be enhanced due to the fact that similarly trained employees work in both units. She also pointed out that the proposed design would increase patient care due to the fact that patients can be observed at all times and access will be increased and/or enhanced if the proposed design is approved. Karen Cornelius, a registered nurse who holds a master's degree in nursing, has been employed at Memorial Hospital since approximately September of 1976. From 1964 through 1967 she was employed at Cornell University Hospital and from 1967 through 1970 she was head nurse in charge of the surgery and intensive care units at Cornell. She was employed at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta from 1970 through 1973, and from 1973 through 1975 she trained personnel in the intensive care and coronary care units at Grady Memorial Hospital. Ms. Cornelius was involved in the input and the design of the room sizes for the proposed unit. According to Ms. Cornelius, one of the basic reasons for the proposed design is to maximize the use of the staffs from the intensive care and coronary care units who are regularly interchanged and cross-coordinated. Ms. Cornelius has visited and compared other area hospital intensive care and coronary care units and is of the opinion that the proposed plan is far superior due to the easy patient visibility and the ability to constantly monitor patients' vital signs. During the year of 1978, Petitioner submitted a request for an equivalency (waiver) from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, which approval was granted in early March, 1979, with certain recommendations and conditions respecting exit requirements; the necessity to increase the frequency of fire drills, installation of adequate fire extinguishers and smoke exhaust systems and single-story construction (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). John T. Ludwig, an electrical engineer who holds a Ph.D. in engineering, has had vast experience in various engineering positions. Messr. Ludwig received his Ph.D. in 1954 and relocated to Pinellas County during 1966. Since 1971, he has been employed by the Respondent in the Bureau of Health Facilities, where he is now in charge of the review of plans for nursing homes and hospitals. Messr. Ludwig concluded that the Petitioner's plans as proposed were unsafe due to the "failure to consider fire safety and the undue risks of harm which would result to patients' lives if the proposed plans here approved." Among Messr. Ludwig's concerns were the facts that intensive care and coronary care patients differ with respect to the type of life support equipment necessary to maintain proper patient care; potential problems which might result due to the distance between patient suites and exits; corridor problems (the storing of combustibles in the hallways) and the inability to visualize patients from the central nursing station due to the triangular design. Max C. Karrer, M.D., is an associate of Memorial Hospital who specializes in obstetrics and gynecology. Dr. Karrer is a member of the committee charged with investigating the concept for the proposed critical care/intensive care unit. As a member of this committee, Dr. Karrer visited intensive care and critical care units of Hollywood, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the University of Maryland Trauma Center; Machua General Hospital and a hospital in Cambridge, England. Dr. Karrer concluded that the proposed plan was one of the better plans he had observed because, among other things, personnel use would be maximized; better use could be made of patient beds; better care would result based on the number of dollars spent and the utilization of and the interchange of staffs from the intensive care and coronary care units. Additionally, he noted that the proposed plan made possible the ability to constantly visualize patients and was by far the best designed intensive care unit he had seen. During the examination of Dr. Karrer, it was brought out that the hospital dispenses medication on the unit-dosage system and all stored linens in the proposed unit was of the fire-retardant type. Thus, he concluded that the likelihood of a fire was remote in this unit since no combustibles are stored in the corridors as charged by Respondent's agents. Ben F. Britt, a registered architect licensed to practice in Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida, has practiced architecture for approximately fifteen years and is presently the Medical Facilities' architect for Area I in Florida. This area has approximately eighty-four hospitals and more than ninety nursing homes. Messr. Britt testified that the spread of fire was the primary reason that the Life Safety Code of 1973 restricted the area for an intensive care or coronary care unit to 5,000 square feet. He also cited the problem respecting the transfer of patients who necessarily had attached to their person monitoring equipment which could not be easily moved from one location to another. Messr. Rudolph Nudo was recalled to emphasize the fact that the Petitioner reviewed all safety codes when the subject design was implemented and that there were no linens stored which were not of the fire retardant type; that inasmuch as the Petitioner dispenses medication on the unit system, no boxes are stored in the hallways which could be the source of a potential fire hazard. Messr. Nudo also testified that the Petitioner would install the necessary exits to comply with all codes which the Respondent enforces. He testified that the additional size was justified in this case based on the additional safety features which were present in the design and the type of equipment utilized. Messr. Benson was recalled to emphasize the fact that the proposed unit consists of single rooms which were the optimum in coronary care units and that the trend in intensive care and coronary care units is toward centralization of such units.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner herein petitioned the Division of Administrative Hearings seeking a determination of the validity of proposed Rule 100-86.008, Florida Administrative Code, in accordance with Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has demonstrated its standing to participate in the formal hearing to consider the validity of Rule 100- 86.008, Florida Administrative Code. The parties stipulated that to determine standing, no proof of the facts with regard to standing as alleged within the original Petition would be required and that these might be taken as admitted. Petitioner is a non-profit corporation organized and maintained for the benefit of the 220 governmental- investor-owned- and nonprofit hospitals which comprise its membership and all of Petitioner's 220 members are hospitals subject to the verification requirements of Section 395.031, Florida Statutes and the Proposed Rule. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' (DHRS') contention that Petitioner cannot show injury in fact since only 31 hospitals are currently verified and only 30 more are expected to seek verification within the next biennium is without merit. In the first placed that latter 30 applicants figure is determined to be arbitrary and capricious elsewhere within this order. DHRS also suggests that even if all of the 31 already verified trauma centers were members of Petitioners which they are not, this figure cannot constitute a "substantial number" as discussed in Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982) of a membership as high as 220. This suggestion begs the question. DHRS thereby illogically assumes that in every case, the more members a Petitioner represents, the less standing to represent them Petitioner has. DHRS' last contention that Petitioner cannot show standing in fact because the trauma center verification program is voluntary in nature is also without merit. To accept DHRS' position that there is no standing since the program is voluntary in nature and no hospital is forced or required to apply for verification would, carried to its reasonable end, mean that no hospital would ever have standing to challenge the Proposed Rule even though the Proposed Rule clearly affects those hospital members of Petitioner who will soon face biennial recertification or reclassification plus other members who may hereafter desire initial certification. Petitioner has standing to bring this challenge. The Economic Impact Statement supports this finding as does the prior participation of Petitioner in the rule-making process. The challenge to the subject rule as offered by Petitioner was timely made. The parties by stipulation have waived the time limitations set forth in Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The thrust of Petitioner's allegations are that Proposed Rule 100- 86.008 is arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis in fact and constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by imposing higher verification fees upon hospitals which desire verification of their emergency rooms as trauma centers than are reasonably needed or authorized under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Furthers Petitioner claims that the Economic Impact Statement for this proposed rule is inadequate and unfair and has "impaired the correctness of the rule adoption proceedings," primarily upon the allegation that there is no relationship of fee by proposed rule to the statutory authorization and purpose. Petitioner challenges an amendment to Rule 10D-86.008 which seeks to increase the cost of the verification fee which must be paid by each hospital emergency room applicant for every initial verification, for any reclassification and for continued verification every two years as a "trauma center. Using strike-throughs for the deletions and underlining for the additions, the proposed rule seeks to amend current Rule 10D-86.08 as follows: 10D-86.008 Fees. The Department shall charge fees to each applicant hospital. The fee shall be submitted with each application. All such fees will be used solely to defray the cost of the verification program. The following fee schedule shall apply to initials reclassification and continued verification applications: (a) Level I ... 3,000.00 $11,000.00 (b) Level II ... 2,000.00 $11,000.00 (c) Level III ... 1,500.00 $11,000.00 Statutory authorization for the existing and for the proposed rule is found in Section 395.031, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: * * * (3) Any hospital licensed in the state that desires to be verified as a trauma center shall submit to the department a request for verification as a trauma center. * * * (5) Biennially thereafter- the department shall review the trauma center to verify its compliance with the standards set forth by subsection (6). The department shall notify the hospital of such verification. If the department finds that the trauma center does not comply with those standards the department shall within 30 days, notify the hospital of its findings. Within 30 days after receiving such findings the hospital may request a hearing in which to contest the findings of the department. The hearing shall be held in accordance with chapter 120. If a hospital does not desire to contest the findings of the department but desires to continue its verification as a trauma center, the hospital shall be given 90 days in which to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (6). After verification of compliance with those standards- the department shall continue the verification of the hospital as a trauma center or verify a reclassification of the trauma center pursuant to the standards set forth in subsection (6). * * * (7) The cost of verification shall be borne by the applicant, based on a fee schedule set by the department not to exceed the cost of verification. (Emphasis supplied.) The trauma center verification program (see Chapter 100- 86, Florida Administrative Code) establishes procedures and fees to verify that facilities and services-of licensed hospitals that apply for trauma center verification meet current standards of the American College of Surgeons. DHRS is the only state agency with any responsibility for verification of trauma centers. A hospital may offer the same services as are offered by a bona fide trauma center without being verified but it may not hold itself out as a trauma center without being verified by DHRS. Upon this limited basis, the program is voluntary as to the hospitals applying and is administered by DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section. The Emergency Medical Services Section (EMS) is divided into two subsections. One is "Regulatory Services" in which all licensing functions other than trauma center verification are placed and includes such diverse matters as licensing of ambulance services, non-emergency transportation services, emergency medical technicians and paramedics. The licensing of trauma centers is logistically placed within "Program Development," which subsection administers certain grants and which has as its principal function general planning activities pursuant to EMS' statutory responsibility to produce a state plan for emergency medical services. DHRS characterizes the categories of trauma center as follows: a Level I Trauma Center" is the top level and requires a surgeon in the emergency room 24 hours per day as well as a demonstrated commitment to research and training in the area. A "Level II Trauma Center" is quite similar to the Level I center except that it does not have the mandatory commitment to trauma research and training. A "Level III Trauma Center" is largely found in rural areas where the population base is insufficient to support a Level I or Level II trauma center, but represents a maximum commitment to trauma center service based on available resources. Although only a single application form is utilized, it may be logically inferred that the category or level" of verification sought by the applicant to be verified will affect the size, scope, detail, and supporting documentation of its initial application and likewise will affect the scope of the agency procedure leading either to verification or denial of the initial application of each applicants and to any reclassification or continued verification of a previously verified trauma center. This inference was apparently codified in the existing rules by charging application fees graduated by level of verification requested. It is recognized by DHRS that the three respective levels have different configurations of services, equipment, and general effort towards the treatment of trauma and that a Level I application is "significant" in comparison to the other levels. Nonetheless, the proposed rule amendment seeks to establish only the same fee amount or "cost of verifying" the application for all applicants regardless of level of verification requested. When the original trauma center verification program fees were promulgated (Rule 100-86.08), on-site visits (live inspections by an accreditation or verification team) to applicants' trauma centers and program overhead were not calculated into the fees as established because on-site visits were not originally contemplated by the verification program as a whole. When the original trauma center verification program fees were promulgated, it was anticipated that 65 or 70 trauma centers would apply for verification over the first biennium. This estimate was based on a survey of all licensed hospitals. However, in the first year, only 15 trauma centers applied for verification. However, the trauma center verification process, as planned into the next biennium, (1985-1987) now contemplates application and document reviews plus on-site visits as direct costs and overall program overhead as indirect costs. The new proposed fee schedule within Proposed Rule 10D- 86.008 was derived by using anticipated expenses for the 1935- 1987 biennium as a base. DHRS anticipated the total amount needed for the trauma center verification program and program compliance as $329,904. This figure lumps together salaries, expenses and travel for employees of DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section within the trauma center verification program, physician review of applications, trauma center on-site visits, legal expenses for denial hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1) and (2), Florida statutes, and expenses of contracting with a medical records consultant and medical director. DHRS candidly admits that these expenses have been calculated into the new proposed fee schedule and maintains that these expenses should be calculated into any fee schedule established. Petitioner's view is that it is only the costs attributable to the actual processing of individual applications which may properly be included as a "cost of verification ... borne by the applicant" pursuant to Section 395.031(7), Florida statutes, and asserts that inclusion of any other costs is arbitrary, capricious, excessive, and not statutorily justified. By its proposed findings of fact as well as by the direct evidence of all of its witnesses, DHRS acknowledges that it has considered the cost of compliance 1/ in devising the non-graduated fee schedule within the Proposed Rule. In calculating the proposed fee schedule, DHRS divided the total amount needed for program operation and compliance (the $329,904 previously referenced) by the estimated number of trauma centers (the 15 per year based on the first year's experience multiplied by 2 for the two-year biennium horizon) to yield a verification fee per trauma center of $10,996.80. The agency then rounded this amount to $11,000 per anticipated applicant for the 1985-1987 biennium, and thus the non-graduated fee in the Proposed Rule was devised. This method does not bear any logical or rational relationship to the size, scope, detail and supporting documentation of the applications as they vary among Levels I, II, and III. Nor can it be said that this method takes into consideration any of the logical or rational differences inherent in the paperwork processing and physician review as it differs by level applied for, or in the type of projected on-site compliance review of the physical plants of applicants for the differing levels. Moreover, although it may be appropriate to begin with the assumption that 15 is a representative idea of the number of initial applications that may require processing in each year, there is simply no documentation or rationale provided by the agency to determine whether the number of initial applications will diminish or increase as the finite number of potentially verifiable hospitals is approached. Therefore, this divisor figure of 15 x 2 borders on mere estimation or speculation and is not statutorily justified. It is not saved by an intention without guarantee of a biennial review of the rule. Unless it somehow embraces a rational projected calculation of reclassifications from one level to another and biennial reviews for compliance with the verification standards, the 15 x 2 figure is further skewed. Since there is testimony that EMS can only hope to do 6 annual on-site reviews at random (presumably encompassing all three categories) , the (15 x 2 30) divisor remains askew, arbitrary, capricious and unjustified. It is interesting that DHRS acknowledges, to a point at least that the 11,0O0 fee schedule figure is inaccurate. Specifically, despite DHRS' rounding up to the nearest thousand dollar amount so as to reach $11,000, it is DHRS' position that its procedure for establishing the non-graduated fee schedule actually underestimates or understates the amount required to fund the verification program. Neither rounding "up" versus rounding "down" nor rounding to the nearest even $1,000 as opposed to the nearest dollar amount was specifically raised as an issue by the parties. However, since it is partly through DHRS' contention that it has actually understated the amount required to fund the verification program that DHRS attempts to parry Petitioner's assertion that DHRS is seeking to cause trauma center verification applicants to bear the cost of the entire trauma center program instead of merely requiring applicants to bear the cost of the single application verification function of that program, some assessment of this "rounding" methodology is in order. DHRS has not demonstrated any specific reason to "round" in this manner, nor how "rounding" relates, if at ally to understatement of fees needed or how it relates, if at ally to precise calculation of the funding amounts actually required. It is easy to appreciate that $11,000 looks better in a printed, codified rule and is easier to administer than an odd number but even those shallow rationales have not been advanced by those rule drafters who testified. Even if one could accept the reasoning that because of the high amounts of fixed costs for the improved verification program DHRS is somehow justified in spreading the cost of the entire verification program equally among all applicants instead of graduating the fees by level, there remains the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Lawn an accepted expert in the area of accounting matters in state government, that the Statement of Justification does not identify which costs are fixed and which costs are variable and does not determine the relevant range of activity which affects allocation of fees to the number of applicants. Thus, the conclusion must still be reached that the $11,000 fee is unreasonable, without rational basis in fact, and without statutory justification. As calculated by Larry Jordan, EMS Administrator, and as reflected in the Statement of Justification prepared by Terry Davis, Program Analyst within the EMS Section, Programs Subsection, and supervisor of the trauma center verification Program, part of the $329,904 figure reflects salaries, expenses, and travel. That portion for salaries is represented as $187,995. Supposedly, the relevant portion of six individual employees' actual salaries was a component. On the other hand, full time equivalents (FTEs) were devised according to the percentage of time Larry Jordan would or could permit these EMS Section employees to devote to the trauma center verification program. FTEs derived in the context of rational experience or mathematical certainty may constitute a portion of a valid formula for fixing a fee schedule but that cannot be said to have occurred with regard to this Proposed Rule. The methodology employed for calculating these particular FTEs lumps a lot of "guesstimating" and conjecture with very little viable quantification of time allotments. Jordan determined, on the basis of what he described as "an educated guess" after review of a staff roster with Terry Davis that although 7.8 FTEs were required for program compliance only 2.5 FTEs could be allotted to the trauma center verification program. It is largely upon the basis of all of DHRS' witnesses' evidence in connection with this FTE computation that the determination must be reached that when agency personnel refer to the calculation of "costs of compliance" they do not mean merely biennial review pursuant to Section 395.031(5) to ensure that subsection (6) statutory standards continue to be met by a hospital once it has been verified as a trauma center. Inclusion of those types of compliance cost figures in the verification program is clearly authorized by the statute. No, rather, the DHRS drafters use the word "compliance" with the implied meaning of encompassing all of the operations of the EMS Section relative in any respect to trauma center matters. In line with its position that the proposed fee schedule is understated, DHRS suggested at hearing that contrary to the Statement of Justification, actual experience has shown that a slightly higher amount of employee time is devoted to the trauma center verification program than is reflected by the 2.5 FTE figure: 2.5 FTEs (allowed) as opposed to 2.73 FTEs (actual) which Mr. Caldwell calculated at hearing would result in a $12,556.79 fee per application for the 1986-1988 biennium. This is not the biennium originally calculated for the rule or projected in its published Statement of Justification. As serious as this is; confession of an originally inaccurate FTE computation figure and inaccurate Statement of Justification is problematic in light of the total lack of logic and rationality with regard to the method of arriving at either the original 2.5 or the recalculated 2.73 FTE figure. The time sampling study does not render 2.73 FTEs rational. 2/ Mr. Jordan, who could not even describe the process of application approval or rejection is credited in the original FTE calculation for the Statement of Justification with 20 percent of his time and salary component devoted to the verification program. Jaime Caldwell Program Development Supervisor, also could not describe the process of application approval or rejection and his testimony reflects that rather than the 40 percent credited in the original FTE calculation for his time and salary component for direct supervisory responsibility over trauma center verification matters, he, Caldwell was equally at ease assessing his own time and salary component as either 35 percent or between 3 and 5 percent. The change and range assigned by Mr. Caldwell is as unsupported as the initial 40 percent assessment made by Jordan and Davis together in April 1985. (Davis actually denied having significant input to the initial assessment). This discrepancy and range are not explainable reconcilable, or justified on the basis of Mr. Caldwell's vague testimony concerning a recent time sampling based on the overall trauma center program which embraces far more than just the trauma center verification process and procedures. 3/ Of those who testified, only Terry Davis had a working knowledge of the existing process by which a trauma center verification application is initially approved or denied. He personally handles all applications from the time one is received until it is approved or denied. Using the maximum amount of time estimated by Mr. Davis, it has taken roughly 12 hours of his time spread over the 60 days provided by statute to process each of the applications received. Davis also denied that Jordan's estimate of his (Davis') time at 100 percent for the verification program was accurate. Davis confirms that the involvement of both Jordan and Caldwell has been infrequent. No witness could delineate with any certainty what, if any, involvement a secretary, a word processor, and Mr. Jordan's personal secretary did in relation to actually processing trauma center verification applications. Although Mr. Davis volunteered someone must do his typing during the application process, this record exhibits no justification for assigning percentages of 60 percent, 20 percent, and 10 percent respectively of each of these clerical employees' time to the verification program for purposes of arriving at an FTE component. These figures appear to have sprung directly from "up front" line item budgeting based on position assignments which by actual testimony are directly contrary to experience that these positions do not participate directly or to any meaningful degree in the verification process. Based on this evidence, and also upon the tacit admission of both Caldwell and Davis that the FTEs reflect EMS employees' percentage of time in the trauma center program as a whole, the methodology employed to obtain the FTE figures must be deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. As calculated by Larry Jordan and as reflected in the Statement of Justification prepared by Terry Davis, expenses and travel were also calculated using FTEs and the percentage of trauma center verification program time for each employee was multiplied by the relevant object category in the Legislative Budget Request: Standards for New Positions 1985-1987. This figure is skewed by the 2.5 FTE figure for all of the reasons already discussed and is likewise arbitrary and capricious. It is also arguable, but not conclusively demonstrated, that this figure is skewed arbitrary, and capricious in anticipated travel and expenses by duplication of some costs and expenses as regards the physician and medical records consultant to be assigned to on-site reviews. See infra. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Physician Review of Applications," a figure of eight applications per year was selected based on anticipation that since there are 8 trauma centers in Jacksonville, Florida and the present trauma center verification program's Medical Director, Dr. Raymond Alexander resides in Jacksonville and is employed at a Level I trauma center there potential conflicts of interest exist if any of these entities become applicants for any of the three levels of verification and that if any did, the agency would have to contract with a different physician for review of these eight applications at $200 per application reviewed. It was also anticipated that due to fluctuations in workload and the desire of Dr. Alexander that some Level I applications elsewhere in the state receive a backup application review by another physician, these situations might also require contracting with physicians other than Dr. Alexander. Although DHRS' motives are commendable at first glance it strains credibility that out of 15 per year (total 30) eight (total 16) will come from the finite "Jacksonville 8" number or arrive at a peak workload period. There is no evidence of record what criteria besides Dr. Alexander's request will be used to decide which Level I applicants will get dual reviews and there is a suggestion that there is going to be duplication of effort on these applications for the purpose of avoiding even the appearance of conflict. There is no evidence of record to show how reclassification or continued verification reviews or on-site reviews, if any, work into this figure either. Nonetheless, the parties appear to accept this figure of 16 spread over the biennium. If the figure of 16 is accepted, a remainder of 14 applications (based on DHRS' questionably anticipated 30 applications for the biennium horizon) remain for Dr. Alexander's review. DHRS assigned a 50 percent time allotment (based on Dr. Alexander's annual $42,600 contract) to its Statement of Justification. Incongruously, Dr. Alexander's contract itemizes 15 percent of his time for the combined duties of listing other physicians willing to review applications and his own time reviewing these applications. Petitioner desires the inference to be drawn that either Dr. Alexander is being paid slightly more than $3,000 per application review ($42,600 divided by 14) as compared to $200 per review by other physicians or that the 15 percent figure should be used instead of the 50 percent time/salary component. Neither inference is fully supported by the record as a whole nor by mathematics. However, even assigning the deference due to the discretion afforded an agency in the exercise of its rulemaking authority, that quality of deference will not withstand Larry Jordan's characterization of this 50 percent figure as coming from the attachment at the "front end" of an arbitrary percentage. Although submission of subsequent reports by Dr. Alexander supposedly justify that 50 percent figure as being paid from the trauma center verification activities budget, these reports are not before the undersigned, and Mr. Jordan admits that no analysis was done to establish this 50 percent figure in relation to time/salary solely related to verification. Therefore, the use of this figure of 50 percent is at least arbitrary and capricious in that there is nothing to substantiate what it means with regard to actual medical director duties concerning verification. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Trauma Center Site Visits", Larry Jordan determined that an on- site visit for each application is necessary in order to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 395.031(5) that DHRS ensure that the statutory standards set forth in Section 395.031(6) are maintained by trauma centers subsequent to their initial verification. This is permissible discretion within the agency administering the statute. Upgrading its methods of meeting its statutory mandate is a laudable goal of the executive branch and ought not to be violated except where it can be clearly shown that the method exceeds the statutory mandate. That has not been shown here with regard to establishing on-site reviews for the future. Jordan decided to phase in on-site visits commencing with 6 per year. Nothing in this decision to start with 6 a year first has been demonstrated to be arbitrary, capricious, or outside the statutory mandate. However, the dollar amount is another matter. The dollar amount for this upgraded procedure was taken from information from the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals who conduct similar hospital site visits for accreditation purposes of entire hospitals. Relative to the on- site inspection fee cost calculation contained in the Statement of Justification which is set forth as $54,736 (including a medical records consultant figure discussed infra.) there is no clear indication of whether this figure is based on a prognosis of entire hospital review as with the model accreditation team or upon review of just the emergency room. Trauma is a life-threatening injury a/k/a surgical disease. Since availability of surgeons, surgery rooms, and anesthesiologists as opposed to emergency room physicians is crucial to trauma center qualification it is conveivable that more than just emergency rooms will be inspected but there is insufficient indication even by job description of exactly who will be assigned to the team, what the on-site reviews will cover, what the team duties will entail or how the balance of the $54,736 figure relates to these items. Past agency experience with a single on-site review using existing agency personnel resulted in total expenses of $400.00. The agency also regularly meets the Section 395.006(3)(a) directive to inspect whole hospitals at a cost of not more than $12.00 per bed. By contrast with this information- EMS' component of cost for on-site review of trauma centers is arbitrary, capricious, excessive, and not statutorily justified. In the Statement of Justifications with respect to "Legal Expenses for Denial Hearings," Larry Jordan estimated that $6,000 was a minimal amount that would-be needed for denial hearings. Although testimony is clear that there had never been a denial hearing or even a denial of a trauma center application, provision for such hearings is clearly set out in Section 395.031(4) and (5), and it is naive in the extreme to assume that in meeting its statutory mandate, the agency will never deny any initial applications reclassification- or continued verification application or that of those denied none will ever seek a hearing in accord with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is, however, no rationale within the record for why the figure of $6,000 was arbitrarily selected. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Medical Records Consultant Contract," it was determined that such a position is necessary to the trauma center verification program and would be paid approximately $16,000 per year. The asserted justification for a medical records consultant is to support the proposed six on-site visits per year. This purpose is plausible and reasonable within the discretion normally afforded agencies and supportable by the laudable goal to upgrade the method of meeting this agency's statutory mandate already discussed, but DHRS has neither legislative nor budgetary authorization for the medical records consultant position and this renders speculative its inclusion at this time in the calculations for the fee schedule rule. Even recognizing that sometimes an indication that the position can be supported by outside fees is a necessary prerequisite to getting an agency position authorized, inclusion of this speculative cost in this fee schedule is not justified by the statute which requires that the verification program fees to applicants not exceed its cost. Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that an undesignated amount of time of various employees utilized in calculating the FTE function was devoted to legislation, rules drafting, grant disbursal, and meetings of the EMS Advisory Council not directly related to the trauma center verification program and that these elements included within the FTE calculation have skewed the fee need calculations and rendered the fee excessive and not statutorily justified. The record does not support DHRS' contention that the fee increase is necessary to cover its operation deficit or that the cash deficit discussed in the Statement of Justification applies to the verification program alone. It is Petitioner's view that DHRS, in fact performing two distinct functions concerning trauma centers, one of which may be designated "the trauma center program" encompassing every activity of DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section relative to trauma center matters (including preparation of a statewide medical services program, drafting, analysis, and lobbying of legislation, public education, service in connection with the mandate of the EMS Advisory Council, preparation, negotiation, and litigation concerning promulgation of this and other rules, and non-specific administrative time) and the other function being the "trauma center verification program" pursuant to which applications filed with the EMS Section are received and approved or denied. Petitioner further contends that it is only costs attributable to the latter function, the cost of processing individual applications of hospitals for trauma center verification which may properly be included as a "cost of verification borne by the applicant" pursuant to Section 395.031(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner seems to suggest that only the 12 hours of Mr. Davis' time multiplied by the number of projected applications should be calculated into the proposed fee. Petitioner's view is too narrow in regard to the full mandate of the statute. The trauma center verification program cannot operate in a vacuum and except as set out in previous findings of fact Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any elements used in the agency's calculations are not integral parts of the verification program. However, for all the reasons set forth in the preceding findings of fact it is clear that an excessive, arbitrary and capricous calculation of components have rendered the rule itself arbitrary and capricious and its fee schedule excessive to the point of being confiscatory. As such, the fee schedule embodied in the Proposed Rule exceeds the statutory mandate of Sub-Section (7). The foregoing findings are not altered by Respondent's negotiating during the rule making process a $9,000 reduction from an originally anticipated $20,0OO ungraduated fee by the deletion of two additional plans to upgrade the trauma center verification program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the Stipulation and Joint Petition, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioners are the natural parents of Onazjah Cutley (“Onazjah”) and are the “claimants,” as defined in section 766.302(3), Florida Statutes. 1 All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2019 versions, none of which have materially changed since 2019. Onazjah suffered a “birth-related neurological injury” (“Injury”), as defined in section 766.302(2), on or about December 2, 2019. The Injury solely and proximately caused Onazjah’s medical condition, which resulted in her death on December 14, 2019. At birth, Onazjah weighed 3,165 grams. Stephen W. Tobia, M.D., rendered obstetrical services in the delivery of Onazjah and, at all material times, was a “participating physician,” as defined in section 766.302(7). Health First’s Holmes Regional Medical Center, in Melbourne, Florida, is the “hospital,” as defined in section 766.302(6), where Onazjah was born. On September 22, 2020, Petitioners filed a Petition seeking compensation from NICA, pursuant to section 766.305, Florida Statutes. The Petition is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, including all attachments. Any reference to NICA made within that document encompasses, where appropriate, the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (“Plan”).
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is in substantial compliance with the requirements in section 395.4025, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, has the critical elements required for a trauma center, so that Respondent must find Petitioner's Level II Trauma Center Application acceptable for approval, which would make Petitioner eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order (i) deeming JSCH's Application acceptable, verifying that the hospital is in substantial compliance with the requirements in section 395.4025, and (iii) approving JSCH to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center until the 2014-16 application cycle is concluded with finality vis-à- vis TSA 19. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of February, 2016.
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.
The Issue Whether, when the patient J.B. presented to the Emergency Department of Munroe Regional Medical Center (MRMC) on May 22, 1995, he then had an "emergency medical condition," as defined by Section 395.002(8)(a) F.S. Whether, when the patient J.B. presented to the Emergency Department of Munroe Regional Medical Center (MRMC) on May 22, 1995, MRMC provided to the patient appropriate "emergency services and care," including an appropriate "medical screening, examination and evaluation," as defined by Section 395.002(9) F.S., and as required by Section 395.1041 F.S., and if not, how shall MRMC be disciplined?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, J.B. was a 42 year old male employee of an Ocala music store. In that capacity, he had been moving pianos for years. As a result, he had experienced neck, shoulder and back pain off and on for years. The pain and stiffness was worst upon awaking in the mornings and frequently required two days' bed rest before he could return to work. In the week preceding Monday, May 22, 1995, J.B.'s neck and shoulder pain had intensified. On Friday, May 19, 1995, J.B. went to a walk-in clinic, CARE-ONE, because his primary care physician was out of town. He was examined by a physician; x-rays were taken; he was issued a soft cervical collar; and he was prescribed a muscle relaxer and pain medication, both of which are "scheduled" drugs. The CARE-ONE physician also advised him to see a neurosurgeon for further evaluation and treatment. Despite his use of the prescribed drugs, J.B.'s pain intensified further over the weekend, to the point he was weeping and vomiting on occasion. He also had new pain in his left arm. At all times material, Respondent MRMC in Ocala, Florida, was licensed as a Class I general hospital with an emergency department. MRMC's emergency department handles upwards of 40,000 patient visits annually. At 8:15 a.m. on Monday, May 22, 1995, J.B.'s wife, L.B., took him to the MRMC emergency department. The term, "triage", generally refers to a means of sorting and prioritization of patients based on a superficial initial examination to determine how rapidly they will be seen in a mixture of patients who have differentiated complaints. Emergency department Board-certified physicians established MRMC's medical triage protocols in 1989. In so doing, MRMC has melded the concept of initial patient evaluation and "triage" into one process, and has authorized registered nurses, among other health care professionals, to perform both functions. MRMC's emergency department staff numbers 75 FTEs at all times, plus physician and physician assistant components. Physicians are available on the premises 24 hours a day for any consultation that may be required. At all times material, Geraldine Sweeney was an MRMC Clinical III Emergency Department Triage Nurse. As such, she maintains 24 hours of continuing education units per years (twice the number required to maintain her R.N. license). She also regularly participates in in-service training in emergency department nursing. These courses regularly include neurological topics and she has encountered and assessed numerous neurological cases over her 16 years in MRMC's emergency department, six of them as triage nurse since MRMC established its dedicated triage system in 1989. Ms. Sweeney has both an associate of arts and an associate of science degree in nursing; is a fully licensed Registered Nurse; and has never had any disciplinary action taken against her license. She was accepted as an expert in hospital emergency nursing. At formal hearing, J.B. did not remember being seen by any health care professional at MRMC on May 22, 1995. His wife, L.B., was attending to registration procedures with an MRMC admittance clerk in a different room and was not present when J.B. was assessed at MRMC's emergency department on that date, but she knew he was taken to a different room by a female hospital employee whom L.B. presumed to be a nurse. Geraldine Sweeney, R.N., did not recognize J.B. at formal hearing. She has "triaged" at least 1,000 patients since May 22, 1995. However, despite these three witnesses' lapses in memory or lack of opportunity to observe and/or lack of independent recollection, MRMC's documentation for May 22, 1995, in Ms. Sweeney's handwriting and bearing her signature, shows that Ms. Sweeney is the only MRMC health care professional who performed its initial, and only, assessment of J.B. at MRMC on May 22, 1995. Ms. Sweeney's contemporaneous documentation of her examination of J.B. shows he arrived at MRMC's emergency department at 8:15 a.m. and was "triaged" at 8:15 a.m. She wrote down that subjectively, he presented with a "history of neck problems with spasms; now has pain into left arm; seen at CARE-ONE Friday; had x-rays; given valium and lortab; advised for neurosurgeon." His objective vital signs were recorded by Ms. Sweeney as, "temperature 36.4 C., pulse 62, respiration 20, blood pressure 130/75." No weight was recorded. The only other significant objective triage data Ms. Sweeney recorded was, "Wearing soft collar; ambulates well; grips equal." Ms. Sweeney classified J.B. according to MRMC's physician-established protocols as "Class I, not requiring immediate attention," and he was released from the MRMC emergency department at 8:25 a.m., just ten minutes after his arrival. At that time, he was provided with a written list of other treatment locations to which he could go, including CARE-ONE again, and his personal physician. This list did not name any other hospital emergency department. Richard S. Slevinski, M.D., is Board-certified in emergency medicine and is director of the emergency department at Baptist Hospital in Pensacola, Florida, which includes a Level II Trauma Center. He was accepted as an expert in emergency and general medicine. Dr. Slevinski and Nurse Sweeney testified that a loss of function is a significant phenomenon that should have been recorded in a proper evaluation. Ms. Sweeney testified that if J.B. had identified loss of function as a symptom to her or if she had discovered a loss of function during her examination, she would have noted that and followed up with additional tests, but J.B. did not subjectively describe loss of function and she did not objectively observe any loss of function. Dr. Slevinski and Nurse Sweeney testified that a change in function or location of pain, increase in intensity of pain or recent onset of pain are subjective indicators that should be recorded if related by the patient during an examination and evaluation. Ms. Sweeney testified that she would have recorded any of these subjective symptoms if J.B. had related them to her, but he did not. Nurse Sweeney also testified that none of the objective vital signs she recorded during her examination of J.B. on May 22, 1995 indicated severe or intense pain. This was corroborated by neurosurgeon Dr. Barry Kaplan. (See Finding of Fact 32) I accept Dr. Slevinski's expert opinion that as a medical physician, he has found that if a service was provided in an emergency department it should be documented, and that it is the duty of the emergency department professional who performs patient screenings, examinations and evaluations to inquire adequately of a patient to find out what is going on with him or her and to make a chart so that later someone else can read the chart and see what the examiner did, and I reasonably infer from this expert testimony that, absent some strong evidence to the contrary, if a service has not been documented, the service has not been performed. This analysis, however, does not support a finding that J.B. actually told Nurse Sweeney on May 22, 1995 that his overall pain or his left arm pain was newly onset, that his pain had intensified, or that his pain was more localized in his left arm. J.B. has described his pain as chronic or recurring over a long period of time in testimony and when he saw Dr. Kaplan, a neurosurgeon, on June 1, 1995 (see Findings of Fact 27, 29), and J.B. can remember nothing about what he told Nurse Sweeney on May 22, 1995. Therefore, this is a situation in which Nurse Sweeney's testimony about what J.B. did not tell her is unrefuted, rather than the classic situation, described by Dr. Slevinski, in which a patient testifies as to what symptoms he told a health care professional and the chart shows the health care professional failed to record what the patient said. However, upon the evidence as a whole, it is found that no full neurological evaluation of J.B. was done by anyone at MRMC; that Nurse Sweeney did not individually feel each of his fingers to ascertain if he had sensation and similar temperature in each; and that she did not administer any muscle resistance tests. Rather, she had J.B. perform a "grip test". This "grip test" is performed by having the patient lift and cross his arms and reach out to the examiner. It tests whether the patient is able to maneuver both his own hands forward and grab onto the examiner's fingers with equal pressure, thereby indicating lack of loss of arm function. The test permits skin to skin contact so that any loss of sensation in the patient's hands or any change or inequality of skin temperature in the patient's hands or digits can be noted by the examiner. Upon her education, training, and experience, Nurse Sweeney thereby determined that J.B.'s grips were equal and his skin was a normal temperature, indicating no loss of function, sensation, or failure in circulation. Dr. Slevinski testified that, if J.B. had presented his CARE-ONE x- rays to her, Ms. Sweeney should have had the CARE-ONE x-rays read by a qualified physician, preferably a neurologist. Ms. Sweeney denied that J.B. brought his x-rays with him to MRMC, stating that if he had done so, she would have recorded that on the assessment form and would have had them read by a qualified physician instead of just recording, "had x-rays," which she had meant to show that J.B. had had x-rays taken the Friday before at CARE-ONE. J.B.'s testimony is clear on this single point to the effect that he had his wife take him to get the CARE-ONE x-rays and had them with him at MRMC. Marion Community Hospital documented that J.B. had the CARE-ONE x-rays with him at that facility at 9:23 a.m. (See Findings of Fact 24-25) This is corroborative of J.B.'s testimony on this issue. I therefore find that Ms. Sweeney overlooked those available CARE- ONE x-rays as part of her evaluation of J.B. Dr. Slevinski opined that MRMC, through Nurse Sweeney, did not provide an adequate medical screening examination for J.B.'s presenting complaint on May 22, 1995 because he was not given an appropriately sophisticated neurologic assessment or examination of the involved extremity (left arm) by a physician, preferably a neurologist; because the CARE-ONE x-rays J.B. brought with him were not reviewed by a qualified person; and because his pain was not stabilized. Specifically, Dr. Slevinski faulted Ms. Sweeney's use of a "grips" examination instead of an examination of J.B.'s status of sensation, strength of fingers, or reflex capabilities. He opined that Ms. Sweeney's examination, as documented, was insufficient to rule out that J.B. had a condition that was going to cause him further damage. It was Dr. Slevinski's opinion that "triage", as generally understood by the community of health care professionals, without more, cannot constitute an adequate or appropriate medical screening, examination, and evaluation. In Dr. Slevinski's view, severe pain alone qualifies as an emergent or emergency condition until an adequate examination proves that it is not. However, Dr. Slevinski conceded that pain is highly subjective and is only an "emergency medical condition" if the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in serious jeopardy to the patient's health, serious impairment to his bodily functions or serious dysfunction to his bodily organs or parts. Upon further questioning, Dr. Slevinski opined that in general, a medical screening examination or evaluation need not always be done by a physician; that it can be done by a nurse or even a psychological case worker in the appropriate circumstances; and that in some, but not necessarily all patient presentations, there is no reason a triage nurse, within the scope of her license, if authorized to do so by the hospital, cannot perform a medical screening examination simultaneously with triage, although that is not his preference and although that was not appropriate in this case or in all cases. Dr. Slevinski commented also that a failure to correctly diagnose and treat after an appropriate screening, examination, or assessment might subject a hospital or individual health care provider to civil liability but would not violate Chapter 395 F.S. After J.B., still in pain, had been returned from the examining room, that is, only after Nurse Sweeney had already finished her evaluation of him and determined that he did not have an emergency medical condition requiring further emergency treatment and care, and while J.B. was standing beside L.B. facing the administrative clerk in the registration area of the MRMC emergency department, L.B. handed her insurance card to the clerk. The clerk then told L.B. that J.B. could not be treated at MRMC because he did not have either a referral from his primary treating physician or a life-threatening condition. An argument ensued, and L.B. demanded to know where else she could get treatment for J.B. She then drove J.B. directly to Marion Community Hospital's emergency department upon the suggestion of MRMC's admissions clerk. J.B. was clocked-in at 9:23 a.m. at the emergency department of Marion Community Hospital a/k/a "Columbia" or "HCA", where he was kept for about five hours. He was examined by an in-house neurologist who performed a limited "hands on" physical examination and a neurological examination. His vital signs were taken. He was injected intramuscularly with 30 milligrams of toradol, a "scheduled" pain killer. He was observed and re-evaluated after several hours. Additional x-rays were taken and reviewed by a radiologist who also reviewed the CARE-ONE x-rays J.B. had brought with him. J.B.'s valium and lortab prescriptions were refilled. He was released from Marion's emergency department with instructions to call and schedule an MRI and also to see his own physician and a neurosurgeon. The only medical "treatment" J.B. received at Marion was for pain. The final result after Marion's extensive and expensive screening examination and evaluation was the same as had occurred at MRMC: that he was released because he had no emergency medical condition requiring further emergency medical treatment in that facility at that time. Barry Kaplan, M.D., is the Board-certified neurosurgeon who eventually performed successful surgery on J.B. Dr. Kaplan first saw J.B. in his office on July 1, 1995. The length of this visit is not clear on the record. J.B.'s general description to him was that of chronic pain. Apparently J.B. had gone back to work for part of the time between May 22, 1995 and seeing Dr. Kaplan on June 1, 1995. On June 1, 1995, Dr. Kaplan did a complete neurologic examination, which included testing J.B.'s muscle actions against resistance. He also felt all of J.B.'s fingers, individually, while asking about sensation in each. These tests revealed only mild weakness or dysfunction in the bicep muscle of J.B.'s left arm and only mild numbness or dysfunction in his left arm. Dr. Kaplan also reviewed an MRI taken of J.B. on May 31, 1995 which demonstrated a chronic arthritic condition of J.B.'s neck, with bone spurs pressing the nerves running to his left arm and spinal cord, which resulted in J.B.'s pain. In Dr. Kaplan's opinion as an expert in neurosurgery and general medicine, J.B.'s condition on June 1, 1995, could not have developed measurably within the time elapsed since his visit to the MRMC emergency department on May 22, 1995 or even within the last month, because on June 1, 1995, J.B. had no acute symptoms of sufficient severity that he then had immediate need of treatment, nor was there any reasonable expectation that lack of treatment could be expected to result in serious jeopardy to his health, serious impairment to his bodily functions or serious dysfunction to his bodily organs or parts. On June 1, 1995, Dr. Kaplan believed that J.B.'s condition could be left alone for another four to six months before any permanent injury would occur to his spinal cord, but due to J.B.'s intense and chronic pain and relative youth, he recommended elective surgical removal of certain discs. Dr. Kaplan did the recommended elective surgery at J.B.'s request on July 12, 1995 at MRMC. J.B. has been pain-free since recovery. Dr. Kaplan's opinion also was that none of the objective vital signs recorded by Nurse Sweeney on May 22, 1995 would be consistent with severe pain. Although he was aware that Nurse Sweeney did not record giving a numbness test, weakness test, or reviewing x-rays on May 22, 1995, Dr. Kaplan also opined that, "Unless somebody has quadriparesis or complete dysfunction of a part from a cervical disc problem, then it is not an emergent condition . . . . Unless they have severe weakness or numbness to go along with the pain, there's no indication for emergency intervention." Dr. Kaplan's opinion also was that no serious jeopardy could have been incurred by J.B. not receiving further emergency services and treatment beyond MRMC's initial assessment on May 22, 1995. No health care witness set a minimum time necessary to conduct an appropriate examination. All indicated that the time involved and appropriate tests varied from case to case.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint herein. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway No. 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Thomas D. Watry, Esquire 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
