The Issue Which certificate of need (CON) application seeking to establish a new community nursing home in Nursing Home District 3, Subdistrict 4 (Marion County), on balance, best satisfies the statutory and rule criteria for approval: Marion County Development, LLC's CON Application No. 10257; Marion County HRC, LLC's CON Application No. 10258; or CON APP Marion, LLC's CON Application No. 10256?
Findings Of Fact Numeric Need Any entity wishing to construct and operate a nursing home in Florida must obtain a CON authorizing the project. Sections 408.035 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (2015),5/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 59C-1.002, 59C-1.008, 59C- 1.010, 59C-1.030, and 59C-1.036 govern the CON review and approval process. The Agency administers the statutes and rules. The statutes and rules establish factors for determining future “numeric need” for nursing home beds and criteria to consider when approving proposals or comparatively evaluating competing proposals. Rule 59C-1.036 creates a uniform methodology for determining the future numeric need for nursing home beds. Rules 59C-1.036 and 59C-1.008 require the Agency to calculate and publish the numeric need in batching cycles beginning April and October of each year. The need methodology of rule 59C-1.036 establishes a planning horizon and requires that the Agency determine the future need by district or subdistrict. The rule also creates a formula for calculating future need. Broadly described, the calculation is based on the projected district population age 65 through 74 and age 75 and older, giving the age 75 and over population six times more weight. The need formula applies the “estimated current bed rate” for each cohort of licensed facilities in the district or subdistrict to the projected populations to the calculate the gross “numeric need” for nursing home beds. The formula subtracts the licensed and approved beds in each district or subdistrict from the calculated future need to determine the net future numeric need. In 2001, the Florida Legislature imposed a moratorium on approval of new nursing home beds. In 2014, the Legislature lifted the moratorium. The Agency calculated net numeric need for the districts and subdistricts of the State. The Agency published notice of its calculated fixed need pools (the net numeric need) on October 3, 2014, for the July 2017 planning horizon. For Marion County, which is Nursing Home District 3, Subdistrict 4, the Agency projected a need for 140 new nursing home beds. This was the catalyst for the applications involved in this proceeding. The Agency recognized that reviewing and evaluating applications after a nearly 15-year moratorium would be a challenging and important task. All of the proposed projects’ applications satisfy the applicable statutory and review criteria. The Agency determined that the proposal of Marion Development best satisfied the criteria and best served the needs of Marion County residents. Marion County Marion County is located in central Florida. Reasonable estimates put its population over the age of 64 in 2018 at 102,407 and at 105,077 in 2019. This means 35.90 percent of the population will be over 64 in 2017 and 36.50 percent of the population will be over 64 in 2018. Ten nursing homes currently operate in Marion County. Nearly all are located in and around Ocala in the central part of the county. Counting licensed and approved beds, Marion County has 19.3 nursing home beds per 1,000 people in the 65 and older cohort. Marion County nursing homes have an average occupancy level of nearly 90 percent. In addition, the Agency recently approved relocation of 184 nursing home beds from Alachua County to northern Marion County. Although witnesses for Marion Development and Marion HRC quibbled with the other applicants’ utilization projections, the evidence proves that each of the three applicants if properly operating can reasonably expect, with some in-migration which can also be reasonably expected, to reach their projected occupancy levels: Marion HRC – 87 percent in year two; Marion Development – 95 percent in year two; and CON App Marion – 88.25 percent in year two. The evidence includes occupancy of existing facilities, average lengths of stay at existing facilities, discharges of people age 64 and over from area acute care hospitals, and the absence of indications of unfilled beds. The congruity among the applicants’ utilization projections confirms the reasonableness of their individual utilization projections. On Top of the World is a large deed-restricted retirement community located in southwest Marion County. The Agency, implementing an exception to the requirement for calculated need to obtain a CON, recently approved a 120-bed nursing home known as Bridgewater Park to be located in the community. The Villages is a large senior retirement community that extends into southern Marion County, Sumter County, and Lake County. The Club at The Villages is a 60-bed nursing home located at the southern edge of Marion County in The Villages. It focuses on providing short-term rehabilitation services to patients. The Club at The Villages is the only skilled nursing facility currently located in southern Marion County. This area of Marion County has the most rapid growth and densest population of people age 64 and older in Marion County. The Changing Healthcare Business The consensus of the witnesses and the parties is that provision of and payment for healthcare services in the United States is in a period of change and uncertainty. The needs of an aging population, a drive to reduce healthcare costs, a related drive to control costs, and evolving views of the merits of institutions providing healthcare all contribute to the health care business being in flux. Creation of Medicaid Health Management Organizations is one financial change. Another is exploration of a bundled care payment plan. This involves Medicare making a single payment for bundled services from several providers, such as a hospital, doctors, and a nursing home. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be testing that approach with its Bundled Care Payment Initiative Model 3. Another change is increasing use of nursing homes to provide rehabilitation services for people that would previously have been served by a comprehensive medical rehabilitation facility, but do not need quite that intensity of service. The stay for these patients is shorter than the residential stay historically provided by nursing homes. The cost for the stay is less than would be charged by a comprehensive rehabilitation facility. Each applicant acknowledges this. “Short-term” v. “Long-term” Short-term patients are often discharged from acute care hospitals after joint surgery, stroke treatment, or cardiac treatment. These patients need temporary residential services and medical services during a shorter period of rehabilitation than the typical nursing home stay. These rehabilitation patients are likely to have more frequent and more numerous visitors than other nursing home patients. The patients are unlikely to have chronic, debilitating conditions. Often these patients and their visitors do not want to dine or otherwise mingle with other nursing home patients who have chronic, debilitating conditions. The essence of the consensus testimony about this matter is that the rehabilitation patients plan to leave and do not want to be with patients who are most likely to reside at the nursing home until death. The rehabilitation patients and their visitors also do not want to be close, especially when dining, to the unappealing infirmities that may accompany chronic, debilitating health conditions and extreme old age. CON App Marion and Marion HRC address this issue with designs that segregate dining areas, social areas, and residential quarters. These plans, where a nursing home serves but segregates both types of patients, are called hybrid models. The granted applicant and, by its proposed approval, the Agency approach the issue by dedicating a nursing home solely to the short-term rehabilitation patients. The parties and witnesses talk about short- and long- term nursing home beds. This is not a license category or description codified in statute or rule. “Nursing home bed,” “nursing service,” and “nursing home facility” are defined in sections 400.021(11), (12), and (13), Florida Statutes. Short- term and long-term beds are not defined. Yet the parties, including the Agency, and their witnesses categorized nursing home beds as short-term and long-term. The characterization short-term functions as a proxy for patients receiving rehabilitative services expected to return home within approximately 30 days or less. The characterization long-term serves as a proxy for patients expected to reside in the nursing home for many, many days, often the rest of their days. Short-term and long-term also serve as proxies for payor source and payment amounts for nursing home services and days. Medicare will pay for approximately 20 days of a Medicare patient’s stay in a nursing home. After that time period, if the patient does not have assets or insurance that will pay for the stay, Medicaid usually pays for the stay. Medicare payment is materially greater than Medicaid payment. The Applicants Marion County Development Marion County Development is a development stage company created for purposes of filing the CON application here. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Genesis Healthcare (Genesis). Genesis was formed in 1985 and operates approximately 440 skilled nursing facilities in 34 states. Nine of them are in Florida. Genesis acquired its Florida facilities as part of a merger with Sun Healthcare in December 2012. Genesis is committed to expanding its current Florida networks and developing new facilities in Florida. One of its Florida facilities is Oakhurst Center in Marion County. When Genesis acquired Oakhurst, Oakhurst was facing quality of care and operational challenges. Genesis hired a new administrator, new director of nursing, and new nursing unit managers. Since Genesis made these changes, Oakhurst has not received any substandard care deficiencies. Genesis has worked to solve problems and has plans to continue to improve the facility. Oakhurst is a 180-bed nursing home providing services to Medicare (short-term) and Medicaid (long-term) patients. Historically, Oakhurst’s Medicaid utilization has been about 62 percent. When Marion Development opens, Oakhurst will focus on serving long-term patients. Genesis will work with patients, their families, and hospital discharge planners to determine which facility best serves a patient’s needs. Marion Development reasonably expects that many of the short-term patients who would have been served at Oakhurst will choose the rehabilitation-focused facility. This will open up beds at Oakhurst allowing it to serve more long-term patients. Genesis operates short-term and long-term nursing homes. Most Genesis facilities have short-term and long-term services under one roof in hybrid facilities. Like other providers, Genesis has recognized the differing needs of various segments of the nursing home population and the trend toward providing rehabilitation services in nursing homes. In response to this, Genesis has begun developing facilities in select markets focused solely on short-term services. The facility Marion Development proposes is one. For this project, Genesis teamed up with a division of a real estate development company, Titan Development. The division is Titan Senior Living (Titan). Titan Development operates in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico. It focuses exclusively on senior living and healthcare projects. Titan is an established senior care community developer. It is developing projects in Florida. One development is a large senior living campus with independent living, assisted living, and a memory care facility located in southwestern Marion County. Marion Development’s proposed facility is part of this project. Master site development is underway. Genesis is an experienced provider of post-acute senior care services, including subspecialties like dialysis and respiratory care, and clinical programming for cardiac and stroke recovery. Genesis Rehabilitation Services and Genesis Physician Services are companies related to Genesis. Genesis Rehabilitation Services provides art therapy and rehabilitative services to over 1,700 facilities. They include Genesis skilled nursing centers and unaffiliated inpatient and outpatient facilities. The services complement the clinical care provided by physicians and nurses. Genesis Physician Services provides physicians and physician extenders, such as nurses and physicians’ assistants, to nursing homes at Genesis facilities and facilities owned by other providers. These healthcare professionals work in the Genesis facilities and have their offices in them. The company created Genesis Physician Services to oversee and support the medical directors at each facility in order to ensure high quality clinical care and uniform standards. Marion Development recognizes the changes coming in payment for healthcare services. It has committed to participating in tests of the bundled payment system. It offered to and the Agency plans to require a condition that the facility shall participate “in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Bundled Care Payment Initiative Model 3.” Marion HRC Marion HRC is also a development stage company created for purposes of pursuing the Marion County project proposed in its CON application. Samuel B. Kellett is the primary owner of Marion HRC. Mr. Kellett owns several nursing homes in Florida. Those homes contract with Clear Choice, LLC (Clear Choice), for operations. Marion HRC will contract with Clear Choice for management operations. A group of experienced nursing home administrators and health planning professionals formed Clear Choice. Clear Choice's principals and employees have significant experience in the construction, establishment, and operation of nursing homes. Mr. Kellett does also. Mr. Kellett formed SBK Capital. It handles relationships between single-purpose entities that Mr. Kellett owns which operate nursing homes. Mr. Kellett, through his various companies, originally established most of the nursing homes now operated by Clear Choice. Most are in Central Florida. Since 2013, Mr. Kellett has invested millions in renovation and expansion construction for his nursing homes. More renovations are in the works. The expansion projects typically include providing additional space, increasing the number of private rooms, and significantly enhancing gym and rehabilitation areas. The last are intended to and do attract and serve higher numbers of short-term rehabilitation patients. CON App Marion Like the others, CON App Marion is a development stage company created to file and pursue the CON application. Moshe Shiner6/ is the sole owner. Mr. Shiner owns ten nursing homes located in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. He seeks to enter the Florida market. CON App Marion plans to engage Reliant Health Care Services, Inc. (Reliant), to develop and operate its proposed nursing home. Reliant only provides administrative and financial services to nursing homes. CON App Marion also plans to use nursing home consulting and operation companies recommended by Reliant. Reportedly Mr. Shiner is familiar with Reliant because his brother is the landlord for several facilities that have administrative services agreements with Reliant. Reliant has contracts with 21 nursing homes in Florida and one in Alabama. Reliant plans to engage another consulting company, Premier Clinical Solutions, to provide clinical operations support. The evidence about the anticipated relationships is markedly short on specificity and certainty. Mr. Kestler, the principal for Premier was at first unsure if he had ever met Mr. Shiner. Later in his testimony, Mr. Kestler said that he had a “handshake deal” with Mr. Shiner to provide clinical services for CON App Marion. Premier has never done business with Mr. Shiner before or provided services to any facility that he owns. Mr. Shiner is identified as the person who will decide whether CON App Marion will engage Premier. There is no non- hearsay evidence, and no hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection, that can support a finding of fact that CON App Marion and Premier will work together.7/ The evidence that the relationship will develop as described is not persuasive. Evidence about Mr. Shiner and his involvement is scant and vague. This lack of convincing evidence about a primary player in the plans of CON App Marion permeates and weakens the persuasiveness of its case. Michael Bokor is the principal of Reliant. Mr. Bokor is an accountant. He has held financial and administrative positions in the skilled nursing industry since 1993. Mr. Bokor proposed and promoted creating a company to seek approval to establish a nursing home in Marion County to Mr. Shiner. In the past five years, Mr. Bokor developed The Villages Health and Rehab Center in Lady Lake, Florida, and Glades West Health and Rehab Center in Miramar, Florida, from preconstruction through operations. The Proposals Marion Development Marion Development proposes a facility constructed, staffed, and operated to serve short-term patients. It will be an application of Genesis’s PowerBack model. Genesis developed PowerBack to serve the increasing demand for short-term beds in facilities focused on rehabilitation and returning patients to their homes. The model is one part of a network or continuum of care ranging from the hospital through the nursing home, perhaps through home healthcare, to independent living. Genesis operates 11 PowerBack models around the country. The facility will be located on three acres of Titan’s 110-acre campus along the southern border of Marion County adjacent to The Villages. Marion Development’s facility will be accessible by golf cart from The Villages. Development of the PowerBack model reflects an industry trend toward specialization and concentration of clinical capabilities. Over 90 percent of PowerBack admissions come directly from hospitals. Hospitals encourage development of PowerBack to serve the short-term, post-acute skilled nursing population that needs more physician involvement, higher staffing levels, and different equipment than found in traditional nursing homes. Because of its focus on short-term services, Marion Development’s facility is unlikely to receive significant Medicaid revenue. Some patients may be Medicaid-eligible. But Medicare will pay for their short stay. Marion Development correctly predicts that almost all of its revenue will come from Medicare, commercial insurance or private pay. These payors all pay more than Medicaid. Marion Development does not anticipate any material revenue from Medicaid. The average length of stay in a PowerBack facility is 16 days. Hospital readmission rates for PowerBack patients are below the national average for nursing homes. The PowerBack model requires different equipment and more intensive staffing than the traditional hybrid nursing home. Consequently, data and experiences from operating PowerBack facilities, even though they are in other states, is more useful and predictive than data and experiences from hybrid nursing homes in Florida. The design of Marion Development’s proposed facility serves the facility’s specific mission. All rooms are private. This is an important design feature that facilitates patients receiving the rehabilitative care they need and assuming their responsibilities in rehabilitation with the support and assistance of their family and friends. The private rooms are also important to achieving the projected second-year occupancy since they eliminate the unused beds that would inevitably result with semi-private rooms from accommodating differences in gender and occasional medical needs for isolation. Marion Development will build a three-story facility. The two upper stories are primarily residential. The ground floor will house a bistro, rehabilitation gym, spa, movie theatre, classrooms, and a pool. There will be one service elevator and two elevators for patients, visitors, and staff. Three elevators enable employees, patients, and visitors to move between floors. Three elevators is an improvement based upon experience with earlier facilities that had two elevators. The planned construction provides adequate fire protection for patients. The rigorous code requirements enforced by the Agency during the construction approval and licensure will ensure that. Marion HRC Marion HRC proposes a 140-bed nursing home to be located in central Marion County, along the State Road 200 corridor. It will be west of most existing Marion County nursing homes, which are clustered around downtown Ocala, the location of two of Marion County’s three hospitals. It will be located between those two and the third hospital, Marion West. Marion HRC’s chief executive has experience in the Marion County Nursing Home market. That experience informed the location selection. Marion HRC proposes a traditional hybrid facility. Eighty-two of the 140 beds will be in private rooms with toilet and shower. Eight of them will be larger suites with a wall separating the sleeping and sitting areas, designed for quick conversion to semi-private rooms. The remaining 58 beds will be in 29 semi-private rooms. Marion HRC’s facility is designed around a central connecting corridor. It will have a bistro for dining, two pools, an “Alter-G” treadmill that allows management of how much weight the patient must bear while exercising, and a gym with rehabilitation equipment. Marion HRC also intends to offer outpatient rehabilitation services. Access to the facilities is designed accordingly. Marion HRC intends to serve Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and private pay patients. Medicaid patients will generate approximately 32.4 percent of Marion HRC’s patient days. This indicates that 67.6 percent will be Medicare, i.e., short-term patients. CON App Marion CON App Marion proposes a 120-bed nursing home. It hopes to build its facility in zip code 34491, southeast of Ocala near Marion County’s southern border. Zip code 34491 has the largest number of people age 65 and over of all Marion County zip codes. The surrounding zip codes do not have a similar concentration of people age 65 and over. One-half of CON App Marion’s beds are intended for short-term patients. The other half are for long-term. The rooms are in separate neighborhood pods to separate the two patient populations. The short-term neighborhood has 20 beds in 20 private rooms and 40 beds in 20 semi-private suites. The long-term neighborhood will have 20 beds in 20 private rooms and 40 beds housed in 20 semi-private suites. All patients will share a centrally located spa. Like the other applicants, CON App Marion describes its main dining area as a bistro intended to be attractive to patients and visitors. CON App Marion will offer “anytime dining” that will not limit patients to defined dining hours. Comparisons Applying Statutory and Rule Criteria 62. Sections 408.035 and 408.039 and rules 59C-1.008, 59C- 1.010 and 59C-1.035 establish the review criteria for approval of CON applications for new skilled nursing facilities. A. Section 408.035(1)(a) and Rule 1.036(4) – The need for the proposed health care facilities and health services. The applications respond to publication of a fixed need pool of 140 beds. Presumptively, the beds are needed. Each applicant presented demographic and utilization data to support its proposed location and service mix. The applicants presented evidence and argument relying upon differences in use rates, population growth, and population ages between Marion County, the entire state, and other geographic areas. These factors are accounted for in the formula that generated the projected need the applicants seek to fill. Location-specific information by zip code is more useful. Marion Development’s facility will be located in zip code 34491. It has the greatest population growth and the highest number of patients discharged to skilled nursing facilities of all Marion County zip codes. The 13 zip codes closest to the proposed location generate almost 69 percent of hospital discharges to a skilled nursing facility. The discharged patients are a category likely to need the short-term services that Marion Development plans to provide. Its plans to do so are concrete and complete. Significantly, Marion Development commits to, and the Agency intends to apply, a requirement that Marion Development locate the nursing home where it says it will. The competing applications and their witnesses confirm a growing need for short-term beds to provide rehabilitative services, especially to patients on the lower end of the age 65 and older spectrum. For example, CON App Marion proposes that 50 percent of 120 beds will serve those patients. And Marion HRC indicates that over 67 percent of its revenue will be from short-term patients. Quite significantly, the Agency applying its health care expertise has determined the need for short-term beds is growing and that it is sufficient to support a 120-bed short- term only facility. The rapid fill of The Club Health and Rehabilitation Center at The Villages confirms this judgment. The Club, providing only short-term services, is on its way to achieving a projected 90 percent occupancy within two years of opening. Marion Development’s proposal focuses on serving the needs of short-term patients. Also, its location in Titan’s planned senior development will result in a growing source of nearby patients. The growing population will also need long-term beds. Existing facilities remain available to serve those needs. In addition, the upcoming relocation of 184 beds from Alachua County increases the capacity to serve long-term patients in Marion County. Only 68 nursing home beds are available within ten miles of Marion Development’s proposed facility. With Sumter and Lake Counties’ beds added, there are 749 existing or approved beds. Of course, those beds were approved to serve the needs of those counties’ populations and should not all be relied upon as all being an alternative to a Marion County nursing home in Marion Development’s proposed location. All three of Marion HRC’s possible locations are located within ten miles of 1,648 existing or approved nursing home beds. Section 408.035(1)(b) – The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. There is no persuasive evidence that the quality of care currently available in Marion County is deficient. Utilization is high. That is what generated the projected numeric need. It is thus accounted for. There is no persuasive evidence, other than the high utilization, that nursing home services are not available in the service subdistrict. Existing nursing home beds are reasonably accessible to the population. Population growth just generates a need for more. Of the three proposals, Marion Development presents the most persuasive evidence that it will increase access to nursing home services to a specific area within the subdistrict, by adding short-term beds. The location within the planned senior care development means that Marion Development will also provide access to a future population center of likely patients. C. Section 408.035(1)(c) and Rule 1.036(e) – The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care. Persuasive evidence shows that Marion Development and Marion HRC will provide quality care. They and the entities that they rely upon have a history of providing quality services. Their planned facilities, equipment, and staff are sufficient to serve the patients proposed. The evidence of CON App Marion is not as persuasive. This is in large part due to the uncertainty of the proposed relationships with those who will or may be providing services Marion Development’s planned operator, Genesis, has an established record of providing high quality care to patients and residents at its existing facilities. It would provide high quality care at the proposed facility. Genesis’s regional teams include nurse consultants who monitor quality of care, review survey results and compliance, and provide education and training to nurses and other staff at the Genesis facilities. Marion Development relies upon its use of Genesis to ensure quality of care for the patients. Genesis measures quality of care by a number of metrics, measured in real-time. The metrics include pressure ulcers developed in the facility, falls, antipsychotic medication, urinary tract infections, hospital readmissions, and weight loss. These quality measures are reviewed on a monthly basis for each facility. The resulting data provide an accurate picture of the quality of care a facility is providing. Genesis scores the quality metrics of each facility to provide a benchmark with federal and state standards for evaluating whether a facility needs improvement. If a facility needs improvement, Genesis dedicates people and other resources to work with the facility to implement corrective plans. Genesis clinical teams make numerous visits to each facility to monitor compliance with and effective implementation of these plans. The staff at each Genesis facility ensures quality of care. The staff includes licensed nursing home administrators, directors of nursing, assistant directors of nursing, nurse practice educators, as well as the physicians associated with Genesis Physician Services. The staffing is reflected in Marion Development’s proposal. Quality of care concerns differ for short-term patients. Short-term patients are focused on receiving therapy, identifying co-morbidities, and monitoring medication so they can return to their daily lives. These patients require more registered nurses to treat their post-acute conditions. Long-term patients are focused on custodial care that requires daily nursing assistance. These patients require more certified nursing assistants to treat chronic debilitations and to provide help with tasks they cannot perform themselves. Because nursing homes in Florida have historically focused on long-term care, their facilities and staffing models are not optimized to deal with the needs and higher acuity levels of patients now being discharged from hospitals who need intensive rehabilitation and are not expected to be long-term residents. The proposed PowerBack approach is well suited to provide quality of care to short-term patients. The Marion Development application proposes extensive physician involvement through Genesis Physician Services. The Marion Development facility will have much more physician involvement than either of the other applicants. It will also offer more care from highly trained nursing staff. Marion Development offered to condition approval of its application on the high level of physician involvement described in its application. It certified: “MCD will condition the project on the provision of on-site physician and/or physician extender services 7 days a week.” The Agency intends to impose that condition. This application condition will result in physicians and physician extenders, like nurses and physicians’ assistants, being on site seven days a week. It is a critical component of Marion Development’s quality of care and linked inextricably to the ability to properly serve the needs of its targeted short-term patients. Marion Development will use Genesis Rehabilitation Services to provide rehabilitation services, including development of its PowerBack gym and support for patients with pulmonary disease. The benefits of Genesis Rehabilitation Services are an important contributor to the facility’s quality of care. Marion Development proposes and adequately budgets for equipment needed to provide the rehabilitation services its patients will need. This equipment includes a specialized pool for aqua-therapy. Marion Development emphasizes the sophistication of this pool and its rehabilitative benefits. The pool is an integral part of Marion Development’s proposal. Recognizing this, Marion Development agreed to condition “the project on the inclusion of a specialized pool for the provision of aqua-therapy.” The Agency intends to impose the condition. Of the intended operators for the three applicants, Marion HRC’s Clear Choice had the highest statistical ratings of quality for its nursing homes as measured by survey results, Medicare Star Ratings, and Gold Seal awards. CON App Marion had the lowest survey scores and a less-than-average record. The persuasive evidence, however, shows that the significance of Medicare Star Ratings is debatable. Marion HRC’s manager has a track record of providing quality of care. Clear Choice provides five clinical oversight managers for its nine facilities. For what limited value star ratings have, five out of Clear Choice’s eight Florida facilities have achieved 5-star ratings from Medicare. The preponderance of the evidence proves there is no basis to think that the quality of care that will be offered by Marion Development or Marion HRC will be anything but adequate or better. The evidence for CON App Marion is less persuasive. Its proposed operator Premier uses off-the-shelf policies and procedures. Some were last revised over a decade ago. Premier also does not track the quality and survey ratings of its facilities. An operator who does not at least track this data is in a poor position to identify, investigate, and remedy potential quality problems. CON App Marion did not prove that it can be relied upon to provide high quality care. This follows from the failure to prove with a sufficient degree of certainty that Premier will provide services, as well as the use of outdated policies and procedures. D. Section 408.035(1)(d) -- The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Marion Development’s project costs are slightly higher than those of the other two applicants. This is due to the intense clinical focus of the proposed PowerBack facility and the fact that the proposed project will have all private rooms. The private rooms are a very significant feature of Marion Development’s proposal. Schedule 2 of Marion Development’s CON application is an accurate and reasonable listing of its capital projects. Since the applicant was created solely for this project, the only project listed in Schedule 2 is the proposed nursing home. Schedule 2 includes reasonable capital expenditures for Year 1 and Year 2 of the proposed facility to account for miscellaneous capital items that may be needed once operational. Schedule 3 of Marion Development’s CON application identifies the source of the project’s funds. The $25,753,579 needed for project costs will be provided by Titan and Genesis. Titan will provide $25,253,579, nearly all of the project costs. Of this amount, $7,576,074 will come from cash on hand. Another $17,677,505 will come from non-related company financing. Genesis will provide the remaining $500,000 needed for the project. The funding sources for the proposed project are reasonable. Marion Development has shown that it will be able to provide the funds needed for this project. The proposed ratio of equity to financing is typical for new skilled nursing facilities. A bank statement from Spanish Springs Ventures, LLC, an affiliate of Titan, demonstrates $8,000,000 in cash on hand available for the project. This exceeds the proposed equity contribution. Marion Development’s application included a letter from the Bank of Texas, a commercial lender with a strong relationship with Titan and an established history of financing senior care projects. Titan’s history with the Bank of Texas includes approximately $65,000,000 in senior care projects and over $75,000,000 in other developments. The funds committed to this project and the long- standing relationship with the Bank of Texas provide a reasonable basis to conclude that Titan will be able to provide the proposed $7,576,074 in equity funding for the project and obtain the necessary financing. Genesis has the resources to support the Marion Development facility through Genesis Rehabilitation Services, Genesis Physician Services, and Genesis Respiratory Services. These entities already provide key functions at the other Genesis facilities in Florida. Marion Development’s construction costs are based in part on actual project costs of current skilled nursing facilities in Florida as well as developer input. Its projected costs are also based on a PowerBack building prototype used for other new Genesis projects. The projected site cost on Line 1 of Schedule 1 was developed in conjunction with Titan after determining how much land the project would actually need given the infrastructure already being developed as part of the 110- acre master plan. The purchase price for the land identified in Schedule 1 is accurate, reasonable, and consistent with other Titan projects in the area and includes the cost of improvements for the master site, allocated on a proportional basis. The projected costs factor in the cost of meeting all code requirements for this type of facility, as well as for road and drainage infrastructure. The real estate closing for the site has not occurred because it is unusual for a developer to purchase the land before securing regulatory approval to move forward with the project. There is no question, however, about Titan’s ability to locate the facility within the site already under development. The other applicants fault Marion Development’s application because the land costs were based upon an estimate of three acres and the prototype drawing for a PowerBack facility included in the application is sited on five acres. That prototype facility includes storm water drainage. The location of the proposed facility as part of the master-planned area eliminates the need for storm water drainage and other infrastructure requirements. The proposed site is adequate and the estimated land costs are accurate. Marion Development’s projected staffing for its facility is detailed in Schedule 6A of its CON application. These staffing projections are reasonably based on staffing at existing PowerBack facilities. PowerBack services are clinically intensive and emphasize a high level of nursing care to support the patient. The staffing level will increase as the facility’s census increases. Marion Development projects 101.20 nursing FTEs, the highest of any applicant. For example, it projects 17.43 RN FTEs at the new facility, approximately twice the number of RN FTEs proposed by either of the other applicants. Marion Development’s application also includes more dietary and administration FTEs than any other applicant. Marion Development reasonably plans to contract for physician and therapy services with Genesis Physician Services and Genesis Rehabilitation Services. Taking these services into account, Marion Development projects 175.86 total staff FTEs. Marion Development has the highest commitment of skilled nursing staff (RNs and LPNs) of any applicant. The average annual staffing salary projections in Marion Development’s application are reasonably based on rates from facilities in Hillsborough County, which are slightly higher than Marion County rates. Marion Development’s CON application contains a small accounting error regarding the number of nurse unit manager FTEs. It resulted in an overstatement of labor costs. The projected staffing costs are lower once the error is corrected. The error does not affect the reasonableness of Marion Development’s financial projections or the ability to staff the proposed facility. As found earlier, Marion Development plans to contract with Genesis Rehabilitation Services for therapy services provided patients at the proposed facility. Marion Development’s projected expense for these services is $3,252,526. This expense is reasonable given its relationship with Genesis as well as the types of services to be provided. Marion HRC reasonably projected $21.5 million costs for its nursing home project. It also proved its ability to finance those costs. Marion HRC and its related companies have an established track record of obtaining financing for multi- million dollar renovations and expansions. They also reasonably propose funding for initial operations of the proposed nursing home. Marion HRC demonstrated the availability of cash needed to fund 15 percent of its project’s cost. Marion HRC demonstrated its financial feasibility in the short-term. There is insufficient evidence to that the funds CON App Marion will need for construction and operation will be available. CON App Marion proposes 100 percent financing by Tunic Capital (Tunic). This is unusual in the healthcare business. Tunic is supposed to facilitate obtaining the bulk of the project financing from a financial institution and then provide the remaining needed assets for completion and start-up. There are no documents, such as financial statements or bank statements that establish Tunic’s ability to provide the financial support. Tunic is not a traditional lender. The evidence about Tunic’s makeup, resources, and history was limited and unpersuasive. Tunic’s representative, Zevi Kohn, was uncooperative in his deposition. He refused to answer many basic, relevant questions. Mr. Kohn identified himself as Tunic’s “Senior Vice- President involved in the underwriting process for financing for skilled nursing projects and/or acquisition.” Mr. Kohn would not provide the following basic information relevant to determining Tunic’s ability to provide capital: (1) financial statements; (2) the amount and nature of Tunic’s net assets; (3) the bank or banks that Tunic might facilitate providing CON App Marion a loan; (4) the identity of two recently constructed Florida nursing homes he claimed Tunic funded; (5) the identity of any projects Tunic had funded in Florida; (6) the identity of the person or people who decide to actually fund a project; and (7) the address of Tunic. In addition Mr. Kohn was unaware of Michael Bokor, the primary person responsible for submitting the application and executing its proposed project. The person Tunic relies upon and views as the owner of the CON App Marion proposal is Mr. Shiner. Mr. Bokor also identified Mr. Shiner as the person responsible for obtaining financing. Mr. Shiner, despite his important role in the project, never testified. There is scant persuasive or non-hearsay evidence about him, his experience, his abilities, or his resources. CON App Marion did not provide persuasive evidence of the availability of capital for construction of its facility or initial operations. Section 408.035(1)(e) -- The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. This criterion asks whether there is a gap in services within the subdistrict and to what extent an applicant closes that gap by increasing the availability of services. It includes implementation of new projects that will provide services currently unavailable to residents of the subdistrict. Marion Development’s proposal to bring a dedicated short-term acute care facility to Marion County best satisfies this criterion. Marion Development would bring more than new beds and a new facility to Marion County. It brings a facility that will serve what all parties and witnesses agree is a growing need for short-term beds. The proposed facility also provides the rehabilitative services in a less cumbersome and inefficient way. The design and staffing of the other two applicants demonstrate the tensions and difficulties created by trying to serve substantial populations of long-term and short-term patients in the same facility. They result in two dining areas, two common areas, and different traffic flows; in short the result is a facility divided to segregate two patient populations. Eliminating the segregated hybrid facility with a facility that serves one patient population enhances health care access for Marion County residents. It is a reasonable health planning decision, an effort to adapt to changing circumstances. Section 408.035(1)(f) -- The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Marion Development created its staffing model based upon experience at existing PowerBack facilities. This is more reasonable than using traditional hybrid nursing homes in Marion County as models since the treatment models and patient populations are different. Genesis developed Marion Development’s pro forma financial projections in collaboration with financial expert Darryl Wiener. It based projected managed care rates on other Genesis skilled nursing facilities in Florida with high utilizations. This was reasonable. Marion Development projects the proposed facility will capture 11.8 percent market share in year one, followed by 21.9 percent in year two. The projected utilization is reasonable. There is no facility like PowerBack in Marion County. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed facility will also capture patients less than 65 years who would otherwise not seek treatment in a traditional skilled nursing facility. Marion Development projects occupancy of 49 percent in year one and 95 percent in year two. These projections are reasonable and incorporate a reasonable assumption that some market share from Oakhurst will shift to the proposed facility as Oakhurst phases out its current short-term services. This projection is consistent with Genesis’ experience in developing a network of services in an area and should result in more capacity at Oakhurst for patients needing long-term care. As found earlier, all three applicants project similar occupancy. This congruency combined with the present high utilization of existing facilities, the projected population growth, and inevitable, if limited, in-migration from adjacent counties makes the ability of all three projects, if developed, to reach their projected occupancy levels, if properly operated, not subject to reasonable dispute. Marion Development’s financial projections demonstrate that it proposes to spend a higher percentage of net revenue on patient care and less on non-patient related costs than the other applicants. Schedule 7 of Marion Development’s application demonstrates the long-term feasibility of the proposed facility through projected revenues. The payor mix and projected revenues, as well as the underlying assumptions, are reasonable. Marion Development reasonably used data from other Genesis skilled nursing facilities in Florida and existing PowerBack facilities in other states to project payor mix and Medicare reimbursement rates (known as “RUG” rates) for the proposed facility. For its second year of operation, Marion Development projects 54.4 percent managed care patient days; 43.9 percent Medicare patient days; and 1.8 percent commercial insurance patient days. These projections are reasonable based on Genesis’ experience at existing PowerBack facilities. The other applicants’ criticism of Marion Development’s financial projections for using Hillsborough County reimbursement rates for Medicare patients and the use of prior PowerBack experience instead of Oakhurst experience to project revenue is not persuasive. The criticism fails to recognize the difference in services provided by PowerBack facilities and traditional skilled nursing homes. Oakhurst would be a poor proxy for projecting commercial and managed care revenues. Also, if Oakhurst rates were used to project revenue, that would not render Marion Development’s project infeasible. Furthermore, Marion Development’s Medicare reimbursement rate projections are reasonably based on Hillsborough County rates because the projected staffing expenses are also based on Hillsborough County data. Staffing expenses make up the majority of expenses used to calculate the Medicare reimbursement rates. Adjusting the RUG rates without also adjusting staffing expenses would be inconsistent and unreasonable. Marion Development’s Medicare reimbursement rates are slightly higher than the other applicants’ rates. This minor variance is due to the higher percentage of patients served by Marion Development’s proposed facility who need intensive rehabilitation services. The projected Medicare reimbursement rates are comparable to rates of other skilled nursing facilities in Florida that treat short-terms patients and provide services similar to Marion Development’s proposed facility. The financial projections for Marion Development’s proposed project, which include expenses based on existing PowerBack experience, are reasonable. The proposed project is financially feasible. Section 408.035(1)(g) -- The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. Any of three applicants will add another provider to the market. That will increase the number of competitors with accompanying benefits to quality and cost-effectiveness that may follow from an additional competitor. Marion Development and its short-term model emphasizing rehabilitation adds something new to the market. Marion Development’s entry in the market will provide competition to existing providers’ short-term services. Its model may encourage competition to include specialized design, equipment, and programs for short-term patients. This may promote better quality care at the existing facilities and shorter stays due to the specialized care. Section 408.035(1)(h) -- The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. The Agency’s Office of Plans and Construction (Plans and Construction) reviewed Schedule 9, Schedule 10, and the architectural plans for all the applications. The CON architectural review only looks for major deficiencies because a much more in-depth review is conducted prior to construction. The review of Plans and Construction concluded that there were no deficiencies in the applications of Marion Development and CON App Marion and that the proposed costs and methods of construction were reasonable. The evidence supports that determination. Plans and Construction determined that the type of construction Marion HRC proposes for its two-story facility is not permitted and would have to be revised. The evidence proved this to be true. Agency review of plans at the CON stage is limited and the detailed and critical review comes during the plan approval and licensing process. The problem with Marion HRC’s construction is not a fatal flaw. All facility plans evolve during the plan approval and licensing process when plans are subjected to closer, more rigorous scrutiny. But this factor weighs against Marion HRC and for the other two applicants. Of those two, Marion Development offers two features exceeding the minimum required that make it superior to CON App Marion. Marion Development provides individual controls for each patient room so patients can control their room temperature. Marion Development’s plans exceed the minimum requirements for backup power generators. The building will have a full power 72-hour generator with the ability to power the building for three days. Marion Development’s also plans to include European showers. These showers make the entire bathroom the shower. This creates more space in the bathroom and provides for greater access to patients for people assisting them. This feature also makes Marion Development’s proposal superior to the other two applicants. I. Section 408.035(1)(i) and Rule 1.030(2) - The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. None of the applicants have a history of providing care to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. They were all created to file and pursue the applications at issue. This is common. But they do have parent company or affiliated operators whose history may be considered. Genesis, affiliated with Marion Development, has a long history of providing a significant amount of Medicaid services. A large majority of residents treated in Genesis facilities are Medicaid-reimbursed. Genesis facilities in Florida provide a higher percentage of Medicaid than either Clear Choice (Marion HRC) or Reliant (CON App Marion) For fiscal year 2013-2014, Genesis’ payor mix statewide was 65.6 percent Medicaid with a high of 86.5 percent and a low of 58.6 percent. Clear Choice’s Medicaid percentage for the same period was less, 39.21 percent. In 2014, Genesis provided 255,068 Medicaid patient days, more than double the totals for Clear Choice and Reliant. The overall Medicaid average for Genesis in Florida is higher than the statewide average for all providers. Every Genesis facility in the state currently exceeds the Medicaid average for Marion County. Clear Choice facilities in Florida average 38.9 percent Medicaid care with a high of 55.2 percent and a low of 26.2 percent. The amount of Medicaid care provided by Clear Choice in Florida has decreased since 2012 from a high of 44.3 percent in 2012 to its low of 38.9 percent in 2014. In 2014, Clear Choice provided 124,558 Medicaid patient days across its eight facilities compared to Genesis’ 255,068 Medicaid patient days across nine facilities. Reliant also provides a lower level of Medicaid care in Florida than Genesis. Reliant-affiliated facilities in Florida average 60.6 percent Medicaid care with a high of 83.8 percent and a low of 27.5 percent. Clear Choice projects to provide 32.4 percent Medicaid at the proposed facility. Reliant projects it will provide 40-percent Medicaid care at its proposed facility. This is well below its historical percentage, probably due to the number of short-term beds the proposed facility will have. Marion Development, despite the record of Genesis, proposed no Medicaid days. This is a result of its dedication to short-term stays for patients needing rehabilitation services. This is a factor to be weighed but balanced with the Agency’s health planning decision to try something different. Also Genesis operates the Oakhurst facility in Marion County, a 180-bed nursing home. It provides over 62 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. That percentage may increase if short-term patients who would have gone to Oakhurst choose Marion Development instead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, render a Final Order, Approving Certificate of Need Application Number 10257 of Marion County Development, LLC, imposing the following five conditions on the CON: The proposed facility shall be located in Marion County on approximately three acres of a 110-acre tract of land adjacent to The Villages located off County Road 42 between Highway 201/35 and Federal Highway 441/27 to be controlled by Titan Senior Living with the facility accessible to The Villages by golf cart. The facility shall include and use a specialized pool for providing aqua-therapy. The operators of the facility shall provide on- site physician and/or physician extender services seven days per week. The facility shall participate in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Bundled Care Payment Initiative Model 3. The facility shall have all private rooms for the patients and residents. Denying Certificate of Need Application Number 10258 of Marion County HRC, LLC. Denying Certificate of Need Application Number 10256 of CON APP Marion, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 23rd day of June, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulations of the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Surrey and Careage each timely filed their letters of intent and applications for Certificates of Need to establish 120-bed nursing homes in Polk County in the July 1986, batching cycle. Pursuant to the nursing home need methodology rule, there is a numeric need for 168 nursing home beds in Polk County in July of 1989. A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement enter into prior to the final hearing resulted in the award of 40 beds to other applicants, thus leaving a numeric need for 128 beds for the planning horizon addressed by the applications at issue in this proceeding. No evidence of numeric need beyond that established by the nursing home need methodology rule was presented by Surrey or Careage. Health Care Associates (HCA) is owned by John A. McCoy and Stanford L. Hoye and was formed in 1977 to develop, design, build and manage skilled nursing facilities and retirement facilities throughout the country. It currently owns, operates or is developing approximately 18 skilled nursing facilities in the State of Florida, including a 120-bed nursing home in Winter Haven, known as Brandywine. All HCA licensed nursing home facilities in Florida hold a "Superior" rating. HCA has a documented history of implementing its Certificates of Need within the statutory time frame. HCA now proposes to establish a second 120-bed skilled nursing home in Winter Haven to be known as Surrey Place of Polk County. The two HCA facilities in Winter Haven will be independent and competing facilities, through there will be a shared utilization of training programs. This proposed facility is to be built in conjunction with a 60-bed personal care facility (an adult congregate living facility) which will share common services, such as administration, laundry and dietary services. The costs related to the personal care facility are not included in Surrey's Certificate of Need application. Surrey has determined that the project will be located on one of two sites in Winter Haven. Both sites are properly zoned, and Surrey already owns one of the sites. The projected total project cost for the proposed Surrey 120-bed skilled nursing home facility is $3,000,000. The costs associated with land acquisition and site development, furniture, fixtures and equipment and architectural fees appear reasonable and are in line with HCA's past experiences in developing nursing homes in Florida. The construction cost for building the facility--$2,146,000 or $48.70 per square foot--is low because HCA owns the company which will construct the facility. Construction will be done at cost and at no separate profit to HCA. The Surrey proposal results in a construction cost per bed figure of $17,883; an equipment cost per bed figure of $2,084; and an operating cost per bed figure of $20,031.75. The total project cost of $3,000,000 results in a cost per bed of $25,000. Surrey proposes to obtain financing for 87% of the total project cost, or $2,600,000, and to provide owner equity for the remaining $400,000. Meritor Savings is ready, willing and able to finance the project and Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye, the owners of HCA, have the financial ability to make the equity contribution. Surrey's facility will contain 44,000 gross square feet and will be comprised of 8 private rooms and 56 semiprivate rooms. The schematic drawing contained in the application is now somewhat outmoded compared to how HCA is currently building nursing facilities. In its newer facilities, the patient rooms have vaulted ceilings and bathing units on outside walls with cubical glass which admits more light. HCA's existing nursing home facility in Winter Haven enjoys a good reputation amongst physicians who are on the staff of Winter Haven Hospital and refer patients to that facility. At the proposed facility, Surrey intends to offer a continuum of care by providing independent living units adjacent to the nursing home. In addition to providing skilled and intermediate level nursing services, Surrey intends to offer various programs including physical therapy, speech therapy, hearing and occupational therapy, social services, recreational programs and agreements with other organizations to ensure the highest quality of discharge planning and follow-up services. While not listed in its application, Surrey intends to provide services to Alzheimer patients, though not in a separate and distinct unit. As a part of its social and recreational services, Surrey intends to provide programs such as pet therapy, creative writing, senior olympics and a grandchild program. In addition, Surrey intends to offer adult day Dare and respite care within the confines of the personal care living facility. Surrey does not intend to offer subacute care services at the proposed facility. The total staffing of 72.4 for the proposed Surrey facility includes 5.5 full-time equivalent registered nurses, 5.5 full-time equivalent licensed practical nurses and 34 full-time equivalent nurse's aides. This equates to a ratio of 1 registered nurse per 21.8 patients, 1 licensed practical nurse per 21.8 patients and 1 aide per 3.5 patients. As a means of attracting nursing staff, Surrey offers recruitment seminars at nursing schools and has associated with Polk Community College to aid in training and recruitment. All HCA facilities have accreditation programs for certified nursing assistants (CNAs), and its existing Winter Haven facility is utilized by Polk Community College for the on-site training of CNAs. In order to aid its recruitment efforts, HCA is enhancing its benefit package and also is building child day care centers as an additional benefit for staff members. These centers are also available to visitors to the nursing home. The cost of the child care centers is not included within Surrey's total project cost. HCA's director of quality assurance works with the assistant directors of nurses in each facility to design and promote continuing education programs for the professional nursing staff. HCA has a history of providing services to Medicare and Medicaid patients in its Florida facilities. Surrey proposes to devote 49% of its patient days to Medicaid patients, 15% to Medicare patients, 1% to V.A. patients and 35% to private pay patients. These calculations are based upon HCA's experience in other existing facilities. The elderly poverty rate in Polk County is 16.6%. Upon opening, Surrey proposes the following per diem charges: $53.00 for Medicaid and V.A. patients, $65.00 for Medicare patients, $90.00 for private pay patients in a private room, and $62.00 for private pay patients in a semiprivate room. In answers to interrogatories served in November of 1987, Surrey listed its projected charges as $70.00 for private pay, $76.00 for Medicare and $64.00 for Medicaid patients. The figures used in Surrey's pro forma are based upon the actual experience of HCA in developing similar facilities. The pro forma projections are based upon Surrey's expectation of a 97% occupancy rate at the end of year one and throughout year two. Other than the Administrator's salary being admittedly low, the pro forma projections appear reasonable. Surrey anticipates a net loss in the first year of operation of $349,120 and a net profit in the second year of $121,150. In terms of cash flow, Surrey projects a negative cash flow of $143,440 at the end of its first year and a positive cash flow of $326,770 at the end of its second year of operation. Surrey's proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the nursing home and long-term care components of the District VI Health Plan and the State Health Plan. Careage Investment, Inc., owned by Gene D. Lynn, has been in existence since May 1, 1962, and has developed and constructed over 250 medical complexes, hospitals, and nursing homes throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Careage currently has four operating nursing homes, with a fifth having recently been opened. These nursing homes include a 59-bed facility in Coupeville, Washington, a 99-bed facility in Tracy, California, a 232-bed facility in Phoenix, Arizona, a 114-bed facility in Oroville, California, and the new facility of 144 beds in Chico, California. Careage proposes a 120-bed skilled nursing home to be located in Lakeland. The facility will include a separate and distinct 21-bed unit for Alzheimer patients and a 10-bed subacute care unit. While Careage does not presently own property for the proposed facility, it has identified several available four-acre sites which have utilities and direct access to public streets. Its $515,000 figure proposed for land acquisition appears reasonable. The total cost of the proposed Careage project is $4,150,000. The cost of constructing the 45,500 gross square foot facility is $2,583,125 and equates to a construction cost per square foot of $56.77 and a construction cost per bed of $21,526. Careage proposes equipment costs of $420,000 or $3,500 per bed. Its operating cost per bed is $23,395. The overall project cost of $4,150,000 equates to a cost of $34,583 per bed. Careage proposes to obtain 100% financing of the total project cost at an interest rate of 10%, with the term of the loan being 30 years. Based upon Mr. Lynn's personal financial statement and Careage's past ability to obtain financing for other nursing home facilities, these expectations appear reasonable. The architect retained by Careage to design the proposed facility in Lakeland received an award from the Contemporary Long Term Care magazine in 1986 for another nursing home designed and constructed in Bakersfield, California. The proposed Lakeland facility will contain 45,500 square feet, which translates into 379 gross square feet per bed. Its patient room arrangements include two isolation rooms, 7 private rooms, 45 semiprivate rooms and a 21-bed special Alzheimer unit with 10 semiprivate rooms and one private room. The facility will be a one-story building, with aquariums visible from the reception area and the dining room. The design includes a beauty and barber shop, a chapel, a gift shop, recreation areas, a private dining room area and outside courtyards. Each patient room will have a bathroom with a sink, as well as a sink in the outer room in semiprivate rooms. Also, in semiprivate rooms, the beds will be placed on opposite head walls to allow each resident to have a view of the window when the other pulls the curtain. Each room will have its own temperature control. The facility will also have occupational and physical therapy rooms. In order to afford more patient privacy, the service areas are located away from the ancillary spaces. Careage's quality assurance program will include a utilization review committee, a safety committee, an infection control committee, a pharmaceutical committee, a resident advisory council, a community advisory council and employee advisory groups. A corporate representative visits all Careage nursing homes on an interim basis to review the day-to-day operations, facility maintenance and physical environment. As noted, Careage proposes to offer a 10-bed subacute care unit. This unit will provide services for the care of technology dependent children, many of whom are recovering from automobile accidents, severe illness, neuromuscular disease or congenital disorders. The subacute unit will also offer such services as hyperalimintation, IV infusion, morphine drip, use of Hickman catheters and other services traditionally performed in the acute care hospital setting. Alzheimer Disease is a fatal illness evidenced by a progressive deterioration of mental, motor, cognitive, physical, social and psychological processes. The problems suffered by Alzheimer patients include nutritional problems, communication problems, disorientation, loss of memory, problems with elimination and basic personal care, agitation, catastrophic reactions, wandering and problems with safety. The Careage approach in offering a separate and distinct Alzheimer unit is to provide behavioral and environmental care. When more skilled nursing care is required than behavioral or environmental care, the Alzheimer patient is then moved to another skilled bed. The separate Alzheimer unit will utilize a specially trained staff and a team approach to any required changes in treatment. The separate 21-bed unit will provide security and will have its own dining room and recreation area. The decor will be designed to promote less agitation. Careage will provide a separate outdoor exercise courtyard for its Alzheimer patients along with various activity programs, such as short reminiscent programs and music therapy. Careage will also offer family and community education programs regarding the needs and care of Alzheimer patients, and encourages the use of volunteers to help adapt the Alzheimer residents to daily living as much as possible. The advantages of providing a separate and distinct Alzheimer unit include the safety features, the ability to utilize a trained staff and a team approach to patients who may have a wide variety of symptoms, less disruption to other residents in the nursing home, and the provision of a more appropriate decor and specialized programs for the Alzheimer patient. Careage proposes to offer respite care services on a space-available basis. Adult day care services will also be offered in a separate entity adjoining the nursing home facility, but the cost associated with that is not a part of Careage's application for a Certificate of Need. Careage proposes to staff the Lakeland facility with 96 full-time equivalent positions. These include 11.9 registered nurses, 7.4 licensed practical nurses and 42.1 certified nurses aides, which equates to a ratio of 1 registered nurse per 10.1 patients, 1 licensed practical nurse per 16.2 patients, and 1 aide per 2.9 patients. Careage intends to offer three hours of nursing care per patient day for the Alzheimer's and skilled areas, and at least six hours per patient day for the subacute and Medicare-certified residents. The staffing proposed meets and exceeds the requirements of Florida regulations. In recruiting staff for its new facilities, Careage advertises in advance of opening in newspapers and periodicals and contacts are made with nursing schools. It offers a liberal fringe benefit package, competitive salaries, in-service training, continuing education assistance and child day care services in adjoining portions of the nursing home. Careage also attempts to use the elderly both as volunteers and staff members. It intends to utilize its facility as a clinical site for schools of nursing, schools of dentistry and other programs within the medical community. Gene D. Lynn, the owner of Careage, has endowed a program in rural nursing at Seattle University. In its first and second years of operation, Careage proposes a payor mix of 40% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 6% subacute, 3% VA and 47% private pay. Its philosophy with regard to care for medically underserved groups is to serve all populations, regardless of age, sex, religion, national origin or payor status. The payor mix anticipated by Careage is consistent with that being experienced in other facilities in Polk County. The patient charges proposed by Careage are based upon the experience of other providers within Polk County and Careage's own experience in its other facilities. Careage proposes a Medicaid per diem charge of $57.50, a Medicare all inclusive charge of $105.00, a private and VA per diem charge of $60.00 and a subacute charge of $125.00. The assumptions contained in the Careage financial pro forma are based partly upon the experience of existing nursing homes in Polk County and the experience of Careage in other facilities, and appear reasonable. At the end of its first-year of operation, Careage projects a net loss of $161,994.20. A net income of $127,936.61 is projected for the end of the second year of operation. The Careage proposal conforms with the goals and priorities of the District VI Health Plan's nursing home component as well as the goals and objectives of the Florida State Health Plan. Overall occupancy rates in existing nursing homes in Polk County exceed 90 percent. More than half of the Polk County nursing homes currently have waiting lists for admission. In February of 1985, Winter Haven Hospital opened 100 beds that are classified as subacute beds and are reimbursed as skilled nursing beds. For calendar year 1987, the average occupancy rate of the Winter Haven Hospital subacute unit was 65 or 66%. As of the date of the hearing, the census was 78. Higher utilization throughout the Hospital is typically experienced in the first quarter of the calendar year. While the Administrator of Winter Haven Hospital did not feel there was a need for more subacute beds in Polk County, he also felt that the Careage proposal for 10 subacute beds would have a minimal effect upon Winter Haven Hospital. According to a telephone survey, no nursing homes in Polk County currently accept ventilator dependent patients, pediatric or neonatal patients or technology dependent children. It is estimated that between 3 and 22 technology dependent children will need services in Polk County in 1989. Only five nursing homes in Polk County accept patients on IV therapy. Only one nursing home facility in Polk County has a separate and distinct unit for Alzheimer residents. It is estimated that 1,660 persons with Alzheimer Disease will require nursing home services by the year 1989. When conducting its initial review of the competing applications for nursing home beds in Polk County, as well as other counties, HRS staff attempted to compare the applicants by utilizing a "matrix" which compiled the data and information presented in the respective applications. The information initially displayed revealed numerous errors and omissions. The matrix was then revised and information was again compiled to make it an accurate tool for comparative purposes. With few exceptions, all of the data elements in the matrix are items included in the application forms. After balancing the various items, such as facility size, proposed programs, project and construction costs, per diem charges, payor mix, and levels of staffing, HRS initially determined that Careage was the superior applicant. At the final hearing, additional errors were discovered in the display of information contained in the matrix. The errors were corrected and did not change the opinion of HRS's health planning expert that Careage was the superior applicant.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Surrey to establish a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County be DENIED, and that the application of Careage be GRANTED, conditioned upon the inclusion of a 21-bed separate Alzheimer unit, a 10-bed subacute care unit and the provision of at least 40 percent of patient days to Medicaid patients. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June 1988. APPENDIX (Case NO. 87-0680) The parties' proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: SURREY 9. Last two sentences rejected. The first is irrelevant and immaterial to the project under review. The last is refuted by the greater weight of the evidence. 17-19. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 28. Rejected as argumentative and not a proper factual finding. 29,30. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. 57. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as hearsay and conclusiory. Rejected as to "methods of construction," as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. CAREAGE 2. Factually accepted, but not included as irrelevant. 15. Accepted with reservation. It is unclear from the evidence as to whether adult day care is a part of the nursing home project. Partially rejected insofar as it is argumentative and a mere recitation of testimony. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. HRS 11. Rejected. Since Surrey does not intend to use the plans submitted in the application; the net living space cannot be determined. Accepted only if the words "on paper" are added to the end of the sentence. First sentence accepted if "on paper" added. 24. Accepted but not included, as there was no way to make a similar comparison with the Surrey facility. 41. Rejected as legal argument as opposed to factual finding. 42,43. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Meyer F. Phillip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr. MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Cohen Haben & Culpepper, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. By application dated April 15, 1983, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Beverly" or "Petitioner") applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the issuance of a certificate of need for the construction of a new 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. The application was deemed by HRS to be complete effective September 15, 1983. (Pet. Ex. 1) By letter dated December 5, 1983, HRS advised Beverly that its application was denied. (Pet. Ex. 2) The letter included the following reasons for denial: The proposed project is not consistent with Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, nursing home bed need methodology. With a six month occupancy of 58.2 percent in the subdistrict of Collier County, the utilization threshold of 90 percent developed from the application of Chapter 10-5.11(e), (f), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, is not satisfied and no further bed need is demonstrated for this subdistrict. There are 97 approved but unlicensed beds in the subdistrict which, when added to the existing licensed bed supply, should effectively maintain the county-wide occupancy at a reasonable level through 1986. Further explication was contained in the State Agency Action Report which accompanied the HRS letter of December 5, 1983. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with the applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (a), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. (Pet. Ex. 3) A step-by-step application of the methodology described in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) through (h) to the facts in this case is as follows. Under the formula, bed need is determined by first looking at the poverty level in District VIII and in Collier County (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.252). The poverty level is computed by comparing the number of elderly living in poverty in the district, which is 8.61, to the number of elderly living in poverty in the State, which is 12.70, resulting in a poverty ratio of .68 (Tr.252). The bed need ratio is computed by multiplying the poverty ratio of .68 times 27 beds per thousand population 65 or older, which results in a bed need ratio of 18.3 beds per thousand residents 65 years or older (Tr.252). When the bed need ratio is applied to the 65 and over population in District VIII, the total bed need is 3,858. The bed need for the subdistrict of Collier County is 514 beds (Tr.252). The number of licensed and approved beds in the district is 4,618 and the number of licensed and approved beds in the subdistrict is 429 (Tr.252). When the need for beds is subtracted from the total number of licensed and approved beds, there is a surplus of 760 beds in District VIII, but a need for 85 beds in the subdistrict of Collier County (Tr.253). When a need for beds exists in the subdistrict but not the district as a whole, subsection (g) of the rule allows new beds to be added only if existing beds are being utilized at a 90 percent or greater occupancy rate (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.253-255). The current utilization rate for nursing home beds in Collier County is 61.1 percent (Pet. Ex. 7, Tr.255). Since the current utilization rate is less than 90 percent, no additional beds are needed in Collier County (Tr.256). Approval of the Beverly application to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island would, in the words of the applicable rule, "cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) . . . " of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (Pet. Ex. 2, 5, 6, and 7; testimony of expert witnesses Mr. Knight and Ms. Dudek.) HRS is presently considering the adoption of amendments to the nursing home need methodology provisions presently found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11 (21)(b) through (h). If the present form of the tentative amendments to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) through (h) were to be adopted and become effective soon enough to be applicable to Beverly's application in this case the result would be the same as under the current rule. Approval of Beverly's application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in HRS District VIII to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology of both the existing rule and the tentative amendments to the rule. (Testimony of expert witness Knight.) Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: (2) Policies and Priorities. In addition to the statewide criteria against which applications are evaluated, applications from District 8 will be evaluated against the following local criteria: a. * * * b. Nursing home services should be available within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District 8. (Pet. Ex. 3) HRS District VIII consists of seven counties. The current population estimate of these seven counties is 679,019. According to the most recent census information, the permanent population of Marco Island is 8,605. Four community nursing homes are located in Naples, which is also in Collier County. Typical travel time by automobile from the center of Marco Island to the center of Naples is approximately 30 to 45 minutes, depending on the season of the year. (Tr.59-60, 83, 118, and 151) In arriving at the current utilization rates for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS relied on the latest available quarterly nursing home census reports. (Pet. Ex. 7; Tr.255-256) In compiling the Collier County average occupancy rate for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS counted as existing beds all of the licensed beds of all of the community nursing homes in Collier County, which included 114 beds licensed for Gulf Drive Residence, Inc., and 120 beds for Americana Healthcare Center. (Pet. Fx. 2)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case DENYING the application of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a new community nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1984.
The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact The semi-annual census report by DHRS for District. III dated December 1, 1984, (Exhibit 23) indicated a need for 615 additional nursing home beds for the January 1985 review cycle. Although this report cautioned that changes in reporting and pending litigation or appeals could change the count of approved beds, nevertheless, most of the applicants for beds in the January 1985 batching cycle relied on this report as the basis for their applications. At the time this report was submitted, District III was subdivided into seven sub districts, and the need for each sub district was separately listed. Prior to the completion of the review of the applications in the January 1985 batching cycle, some 500 nursing home beds in District III were allocated to applicants in earlier batching cycles whose applications had been denied for lack of need, and who were in the process of appealing those denials. Many of these applications had been updated and those beds were issued by DHRS pursuant to its then-current policy of issuing beds on a first come-first served basis. As a result, only some beds were allocated to those applicants in the January 1985 batching cycle before the pool of available beds was depleted. Furthermore, rule changes became effective before the January 1985 batching cycle applications were reviewed which eliminated sub districts in District III. Largely because of the allocation of beds to applicants in earlier batching cycles, but also due to population based changes in District III, the bed need methodology, using data current at the time of the hearing and computing need to January 1988, shows there will be an excess of 342 nursing home beds in District III in 1988. (Exhibit 33) Eustis Limited Partnership The initial application of Eustis was for 8 additional beds which involved construction costs. The amended application which was considered in this hearing is for three (3) beds with costs allocated only for the equipment and furniture needed to add a bed to three existing rooms. As amended, Eustis' application is very similar to the application of Oakwood Nursing Center who was granted a CON for the addition of three (3) beds without construction costs. At the time Oakwood's CON was granted, DHRS was in the process of granting CONs for 103 beds. At the time Eustis submitted its application, all of the 615 beds initially available had been dispensed and there was no need for additional beds. At this hearing, Eustis produced no evidence to show a need for the three (3) beds for which Eustis applied. The evidence submitted by Eustis primarily showed that by simply adding a bed to three existing rooms, the cost per bed added was far less than would be the cost of constructing new facilities. Inverness Convalescent Center (ICC) ICC proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County at a cost of $3,400,000. (Exhibit 15) Citrus County has four licensed nursing homes with a total of 430 beds and an average occupancy rate of less than 90% during the last reported six-month period. (Exhibit 17)- During the last quarter of 1985, the occupancy rate in Citrus County nursing homes was the lowest of the planning areas in District III, and in the first quarter of 1986, it was second lowest. ICC contends the need formula doesn't apply to their application because they propose to serve special needs of the elderly, such as institutionalized patients, head trauma patients, etc. However, the only testimony presented indicating a need in Citrus County for such special services came from ICC owners and employees who live in New Jersey. ICC further contends that since there are less than 27 nursing home beds in Citrus County per 1,000 residents over age 65, that an additional nursing home is needed in Citrus County. However, the 27-beds per 1,000 population is but one factor considered in determining need for nursing home beds. In short, ICC presented no evidence to show that need exists in Citrus County for the proposed facility. Beverly Enterprises Beverly's application is for a CON to add 60 beds to an existing 120-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, at Suwannee Health Care Center. This facility was opened in 1983 and reached full capacity in seven to nine months. There are two nursing homes in Suwannee County; Suwannee Health Care Center, (HCC) and Advent Christian Village, Dowling Park (ACV). The latter is a church owned retirementc ~B community of 550 residents which provides a continuum of care on five levels. Although Advent Christian is not licensed as a life care community, it gives priority of admission to its 107 licensed nursing home beds to residents of the life care community. As a result, there are few vacancies available for persons living outside the retirement community. Advent - Christian has a waiting list of 32 on the active waiting list and ~20 on an inactive waiting list. People on waiting lists are told the wait is from one to five years for admission. Suwannee HCC has an occupancy rate approaching 100% and a waiting list of approximately 50. As a result, the vast majority of Suwannee County residents needing nursing home care are sent to a nursing home outside Suwannee County, usually in Gainesville, some 65 miles from Live Oak. The planning area in which Suwannee County is located, formerly sub district 1 in District III, has five nursing homes with an average occupancy rate for the last three months of 1985 and the first three months of 1986, ranging from 96.91% to 99.75%. During the first three months of 1986, the occupancy rate of three of these nursing homes was greater than 99%' one as 98.7% and the lowest, Advent Christian, was 96.91% (Exhibit 17). The patient mix at Suwannee ACC is over 80% Medicaid and approximately one-third black. The black population is about 30% of the total population in Suwannee County. Suwannee HCC has had several superior ratings (Exhibits 9, 10), takes patients in order on the waiting list regardless of whether they are Medicaid or private pay, and has a very good reputation in the area for service. DHRS personnel who approve Medicaid placement of patients, hospital employees who have the duty of placing patients in nursing homes, nursing home personnel, and private citizens with relatives in nursing homes, all confirmed the critical access problems of Suwannee County residents for local nursing home placement. Live Oak residents, for example, who need placement in a nursing home are usually sent outside Suwannee County, have their names added to waiting lists at nursing homes in Live Oak, and nursing homes closer to Live Oak than the nursing home in which they are placed, and move to the closer nursing home when a vacancy occurs. As a result, most of the vacancies at Suwannee HCC are filled by patients who were, first transferred outside Suwannee County for nursing home placement, and got on the waiting list at Suwannee HCC. There are very few patients from Suwannee County who are initially placed in a Suwannee County nursing home. Southern Medical Associates (SMA) SMA proposes to construct and operate a free standing, 60-bed, skilled nursing home in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida, at a cost of $1,692,400. (Exhibit 19) When SMA's application was submitted the computation of bed need in Suwannee County under the sub district rule in effect when the application was submitted, showed 30 beds needed in Putnam County. This calculation included 36 beds earlier approved but not yet licensed. At the time of this hearing those approved 36 beds had been revoked by reason of not beginning construction in a timely fashion. The medical consultant who reviewed these applications and prepared most of the State Agency Action reports, (Exhibit 30) initially recommended that SMA'S application be granted. The two existing nursing homes in Putnam County have an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent for the latest reported 3 month period. (Exhibit 17) 85 to 90 percent of these patients are Medicaid patients. The one nursing home in Palatka, Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, is a 65-bed nursing home with an occupancy rate in excess of 99 percent for the past year, and on the date of hearing had 18 people on the waiting list for a bed. The turnover in this nursing home is about 50 percent each year, with most vacancies resulting from the death of a patient. Two HRS employees whose job it is to determine eligibility of residents of Putnam County for Medicaid reimbursement for nursing home care, testified that they very, seldom see a patient go to Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, that over half of the patients they qualify for eligibility are sent out of the county, and of those placed in the county, almost all are placed at Lakewood Nursing Home which is located 18 miles from Palatka. The only hospital in Putnam County discharges 5 to 6 patients per month who need additional nursing care after discharge. Most of these patients are sent to nursing homes in St. Augustine, Florida, a few are sent to Lakewood, but for very few is a bed available in Palatka.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Health Quest Corporation Health Quest Corporation has been in operation for approximately 20 years and currently operates 11 nursing centers in the States of Indiana, Illinois and Florida. Its three existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton and Sarasota. It also has nursing centers under construction in Winter Park, Kendall and Sunrise, Florida, as well as four more in Indiana. Health Quest has a Certificate of Need to build a new 180-bed nursing center in Sarasota County, and that project is currently under development. Health Quest also holds Certificates of Need for nursing centers in Pembroke Pines, Duval County and Safety Harbor. The Safety Harbor approved Certificate of Need for 120 beds is in Pinellas County. Due to a revision of its development plans for Florida, Health Quest now plans to transfer or sell its CONs and sites in Pembroke Pines, Duval County and Safety Harbor. Whereas the company had formerly planned to build seven new Florida facilities simultaneously, it has now decided to build only four facilities in each generation of Florida projects. The decision to trim its development schedule is based upon Health Quest's reluctance to temporarily expand its present staff of management personnel and its refusal to compromise its quality standards for the sake of developing a larger quantity of new facilities. It is contemplated that the proposed facility in Pinellas County would be built after the completion of its nursing and retirement centers in Winter Park and Sunrise. The Letter of Intent filed with HRS noticed Health Quest's intent to request a Certificate of Need for 120 community nursing home beds in Pinellas County. However, the actual application filed with HRS, and the project being pursued in this proceeding, is for a 180-bed nursing center. HRS accepted the 180-bed application, and no party has demonstrated prejudice from the discrepancy between Health Quest's Letter of Intent and its application. The nursing center is proposed for the northern area of Pinellas County and is to be integrated with a 124-apartment assisted living residence. The nursing center will contain a specialized 60-bed unit for the care of residents suffering from organic brain syndrome, which includes Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Health Quest currently operates organic brain syndrome units at two of its Indiana nursing centers. In this unit, Health Quest proposes a nursing staff ratio of 3.5 hours per patient day. A non-supervisory nursing staff ratio of approximately 3.0 hours per patient day is proposed for the remaining 120 beds. Its proposed staffing is sufficient to provide 24-hour registered nursing coverage on each of the three proposed nursing units, and its staffing level is slightly higher than that proposed by the other applicants in this proceeding. Health Quest intends to offer sub-acute care, including hyperalimentation and intravenous treatment, respite care and vacation care and, possibly, adult day care. Therapy treatment, including physical, occupational, speech, audiology and psychosocial, will be provided through an affiliate of the Health Quest Corporation, known as Achievement Rehabilitation Corporation. Health Quest maintains a quality assurance program based on a system of peer review. Its Jacksonville and Boca Raton nursing centers hold superior licenses. Its Sarasota nursing center is not yet eligible for a superior license because it has only been open since November of 1986. It also offers orientation and staff training programs and participates in education programs in conjunction with local schools of nursing. As did many of the applicants in this proceeding, Health Quest updated its application at the hearing. The updates were based upon a survey of existing facilities in Pinellas County, which survey was not completed at the time its application was reviewed; additional beds having been approved in Pinellas County as a result of a Settlement Agreement executed subsequent to the review date of this batching cycle; the effects of inflation; and the passage of time. Also, Health Quest determined subsequent to the filing of its application to build all its resident rooms at 216 net square feet, rather than some at 216 and others at 200. Its architectural and engineering fees were increased to reflect the fact that it now contracts out more of its design tasks than it did at the time the original application was reviewed. Its equipment costs were updated because it was decided that the original estimate was unrealistically low. Health Quest estimates the total costs of the nursing home center to be $5,546,812. Health Quest did not include a set of floorplans with its application, nor did it offer any at the hearing. The one-story design of its proposed nursing center is described in narrative form in Section III.G. of its application and the tables in the application form requesting the square footage of certain areas were completed. HRS did not request floorplans or any kind of schematic drawings in its notification of omissions, and HRS deemed the Health Quest application complete. While the application form contains a space for the inclusion of "schematic/diagrammatic drawings," and it is common practice to include such drawings with a Certificate of Need application, neither the statutes governing application content nor HRS's rules specifically require the submission of floorplans or drawings. Health Quest plans a facility with 71,142 total square feet, at a cost of $30,816 per bed and a total of 395 square feet per bed. With the exception of VHA/Oxford, Health Quest projects the lowest cost per bed. The patient rooms will each encompass 216 square feet, thereby exceeding the minimum requirements for room sizes. The facility will have 18 single rooms and 81 semi-private rooms. The reasonableness of the Health Quest project completion schedule is questionable inasmuch as Table 26 calls for a one-month period from the time it contracts with an architect to HRS approval of final plans for licensure purposes. Health Quest projects that 30 percent of its patient days will be Medicaid, that 4.1 percent will be Medicare and that 65.9 percent will be private pay. The Medicaid projection is comparable to that experienced at its Jacksonville nursing home facility, but much higher than that experienced at its Boca Raton and Sarasota facilities. The total project cost of $5.5 million is comparable to other similar- sized nursing hones. While Health Quest's financial analysis and feasibility expert testified as to the reasonableness of Health Quest's pro formas, which show the project as breaking even at 54 percent occupancy at the beginning of the second year of operation, this witness had not conducted an independent analysis of the individual items upon which the pro formas were based. Instead, he relied upon the contents of the application and its updates, neither of which were prepared by him. The witness had not reviewed the 1987 or 1988 quarterly audited financial statements of Health Quest. The data reviewed was for the year ending March 31, 1986. The witness did not know whether Health Quest had money in hand to make the 10 percent equity contribution, nor whether it had $5 million assured but not in hand for conventional financing for this project. It is therefore difficult to assess the short and long-term financial feasibility of the project proposed by Health Quest. Florida Country Place Limited Partnership Florida Country Place Limited Partnership is a foreign limited partnership authorized to do business in Florida. The general partners are Scott Phillips and Kim Phillips and the limited partner is the Jack E. Phillips Trust. The managing entity will be Phillips Florida Healthcare, Inc., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida. The principals of Country Place have been involved in designing, constructing and operating nursing homes, apartment complexes and other health related facilities for over 15 years. The family now owns and operates three multilevel delivery of care facilities such as the one proposed herein. These include a 170-bed facility in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, a 109-bed facility in Wickliffe, Ohio, and a 103-bed facility in Clearwater, Florida. The long range plans of Country Place are to develop homes in clusters, currently concentrating on the central west coast area of Florida, and eventually to develop a southern headquarters. It has previously been granted Certificates of Need in Lee County and Polk County and has been recommended by HRS for a Certificate of Need in Hillsborough County. The current proposal is for the construction of a 30-bed nursing unit, consisting of 14 new community nursing home beds and the transfer of 16 existing beds, as part of a 120-unit continuum of care facility for the elderly. The facility would also contain 60 independent living apartments and 30 adult congregate living units. The 16-bed transfer from Florida Country Place's existing facility in Pinellas County would allow the conversion of triple- occupancy rooms to double occupancy, thus enhancing the living environment for the residents of that facility. The site and design of the existing facility, known as Country Place of Clearwater (and formerly known as Druid Hills), renders it impossible to eliminate the 3-bed wards through new construction of replacement bed space. While the owner of the existing nursing home in Clearwater did not join in the application filed with HRS for the current proposal, one of the general partners of both the transferor facility and the applicant is authorized by the transferor to seek the proposed transfer. HRS never sought additional or clarifying information about the transfer proposal in its omissions request, and its authorized representative deemed the application complete. Florida Country Place made some revisions in its application at the time of the hearing. The changes included a reduction in the common area space in its facility design, changes resulting from an inflation adjustment and a change in the way the common costs and expenses among the three components of the project were allocated in order to conform to HRS's allocation methodology, which was first revealed in the State Agency Action Report. Florida Country Place proposes a three-story facility designed with a residential appearance to implement the philosophy of deinstitutionalization. There are many support services and activities areas, and the exterior amenities include a pond, an exercise course, a sitting deck and a putting green. The center core is designed to encourage interaction among the residents of all the different levels of care. The 30-bed size is designed to enable more personalized care and a more family- type personal concept. The 3-story design has as its purpose minimizing the amount of travel distance for the resident at the farthest unit to the amenities of the center core and its services. The first floor will consist of independent living apartments and the second floor will be adult congregate living units and the laundry. The 30-bed nursing unit is on the smallest floor, the third and top floor, so that travel distance to the central core is the shortest while still providing the nursing home residents with the greatest amount of privacy and quiet time. The plans for the nursing home include semi-private rooms with a permanent partial partition separating the two beds so as to effectively create two private rooms. Each resident will have his or her own thermostat, window, storage space, television and telephone accommodation. The total project cost allocated to the nursing home component of the project is $1,605,113, or $53,504 per bed. This cost per bed is far greater than the other applicants propose, as is the square feet per bed of 603. Even with the higher cost per bed, construction and development costs are reasonable. Some economies of scale will be realized through the sharing of administration, common areas, maintenance and the kitchen and laundry. The design of the entire facility will conform with state regulations for mixed use facilities and will utilize energy conservation measures. Services and programs, in addition to the continuum of care concept proposed for this facility, include adult day care, respite care, intensive rehabilitative services, community involvement, care for Alzheimer's patients and subacute care. Ease of movement through the facility from less to more intensive levels of care, and vice versa, is anticipated. Numerous physical and recreational activities will be offered. The proposed staffing levels exceed the minimum required. Florida Country Place encourages the hiring of elderly workers in every area of their nursing home facilities, and it has an active recruitment program to attract sufficient qualified staff. The projected salaries are reasonable. The proposed facility will be available for pharmacology and nurse training. Florida Country Place has not yet selected a site for its proposed facility, but desires to locate in north Pinellas County, wish Dunedin or Palm Harbor being the target area. It proposes to provide 45 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. The principals' Ohio nursing home facilities do not participate in Medicaid because they believe that the reimbursement mechanism is unfair and would require a reduction in services to avoid an economic burden on private pay patients. The per diem charges proposed are at the high end of the scale of reasonableness. Private pay patient charges will be individualized based upon need and level of care required, and the charges will be revised on an ongoing basis. The proposed nursing home project can be successfully financed, and the required equity contribution is available. While the total project will have a loss in it second year of operation, it will be profitable thereafter. The nursing home component will be viable in its first year and thereafter. During 1986 and 1987, the existing Clearwater facility (formerly Druid Hills) was experiencing low occupancy, in part because of the three-bed wards and in part because of the negative reputation of the previous ownership. A public relations marketing program was instituted, and the census increased from 70 percent to 90 percent in the early part of 1988. An in-house survey revealed that key personnel were not keeping staff recruitment and development in step with the rapid census growth. At about the same time, a new staff development coordinator and new nursing staff were hired. During the training of new personnel, the HRS audit team arrived for the annual survey. The facility did not have adequate trained staff to handle the increased census and, on May 20, 1988, HRS imposed a moratorium on new admissions. At the time of the hearing, Country Place had recruited new staff for that facility, believed it was now ready to accept new admissions and had requested a resurvey by HRS. There is a structural deficiency at the existing Clearwater facility, which was built in the early 1960s and purchased by the Phillips in the early 1980s. This deficiency is currently undergoing repair, and review for a superior rating will be requested after completion of the repairs. The Forum Group, Inc. The Forum Group, Inc. is a national, publicly held company which started in 1981 and currently owns, develops and operates sixteen retirement living centers and twenty freestanding nursing homes in a number of states. Forum has sold or transferred many of its acute care, psychiatric and smaller nursing home facilities so that it can concentrate on the retirement living center concept. It currently has only one other operating facility in Florida. This facility is Park Summit, which consists of 200 independent living apartments and 35 nursing home beds. Park Summit currently has a standard rating and has only two Medicaid-approved beds. The Park Summit facility is not typical of the facility proposed for Pinellas County in that it contains no adult congregate living facility units. Some of Forum's facilities in other states hold superior license ratings, and it has never had a license denied, revoked or suspended. The 120-bed nursing home facility proposed by Forum for Pinellas County will be part of a total retirement living center containing two other levels of care--assisted living (or adult congregate living facility units) and independent apartment units. There will be 30 assisted living units and 120 to 150 independent apartment units. While a specific site has not yet been selected for the project, Forum is focusing its attention on the eastern portion of Pinellas County. The total cost of the nursing home component of Forum's proposed retirement living center is estimated to be $5,053,301. This figure is the highest for those applicants proposing 120-bed nursing homes, but is consistent with similar projects recently developed by Forum. Forum is a solvent company and has the financial resources to finance the construction and initial operation of the proposed facility. While the price of Forum stock has declined in the past year, this does not affect the intrinsic value of the company, whose cash alone exceeds its liabilities and which has a 3 to 1 ratio of assets to liabilities. The revenues and expenses projected by Forum are reasonable and are based upon Forum's corporate experience. Forum projects a positive net income in its second year of operation and thereafter, and has demonstrated the financial feasibility of the project on both a short-term and long-term basis. Forum's nursing home project will encompass approximately 49,000 square feet, with a cost per bed of $42,111. Its proposed estimate of equipment and construction costs are reasonable and consistent with other Forum projects. By combining the nursing home project with the remainder of the proposed retirement living center, Forum will realize some operating efficiencies and economies through the use of common heating and cooling, kitchens, laundry and maintenance. Forum provided single-line drawings with its original application, indicating the general arrangement of spaces for the proposed nursing home facility. While the corridor length in the drawings did exceed state requirements, a slight modification to the configuration can be made to cure this problem without exceeding the estimated project cost by more than ten percent and without exceeding the proposed total square footage of the project. Forum's project will involve a two-story structure, will be finally designed to comply with all licensure requirements and will not create a safety hazard for patients. Forum may ultimately utilize an architectural plan different than the single-line drawings submitted with its application. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy roof insulation, double glazed insulated windows and heat pumps. Forum projects a utilization of 28.5 percent Medicaid patient days, which is the lowest projection of all applicants. It projects a utilization of 66.7 percent private pay patient days, with private room rates being $110.00 per day and semi-private room rates being $85.00 per day. Its proposed design contemplates about 40 private rooms. Contrary to a statement in Forum's application, Forum no longer maintains a separate fund for indigent care. Its projected patient charges for Medicaid and Medicare are somewhat low, inasmuch as there have been increases since January of 1987. An update to account for this would create an increase in the total revenues projected by Forum. Forum's proposed staffing and salaries are consistent with Forum's other facilities, and are comparable to those proposed by the other applicants. Forum has a quality assurance program with written standards for monitoring resident care. It has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent, trained staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses and licensed practical nurses will be provided. Forum's solution to the nursing shortage is to pay higher wages with greater benefits, to provide higher quality surroundings and to utilize re-entry nurses. In the event of a nursing deficit, Forum would utilize as a source of staffing the personnel available from the home health care that will be provided to the apartment residents of the retirement living facility. Forum will offer all services required under skilled and intermediate care, as well as respite care. Forum makes its facilities available to educational institutions for community training programs. Pinellas Healthcare, Ltd./Convalescent Services, Inc. Pinellas Healthcare, Ltd. (PHL) is a Georgia Limited partnership owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Although PHL will own the proposed facility, it will be managed and operated by Convalescent Services, Inc. (CSI). CSI is also 100 percent owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. CSI was formed in 1978 for the purpose of operating extended care facilities, including nursing homes and retirement centers. It currently operates 21 nursing homes and 3 retirement centers located in 7 states. Six of the nursing homes, including one 120-bed facility in Pinellas County, and two of the retirement centers (adult congregate living facilities) are located in Florida. It also has another Certificate of Need approval to establish 120 community nursing home beds in Pinellas County. It is the Company's plan to gear its growth toward those markets where CSI already operates facilities or has a management network in place, thus allowing CSI to provide high quality care both more effectively and more efficiently than if development took place in new markets without existing resources. After receipt of its initial Certificate of Need application, HRS notified CSI that certain elements had been omitted from the proposal, and requested CSI to provide the number of registered nurses per shift and the patient bill of rights. In response thereto, CSI submitted another entire application which varied, in some respects, from the initial application filed. The revisions involved a reduction in the square footage of the proposed facility and an increase in the project costs associated with financing. HRS accepted the revised application and deemed the application complete. There was no evidence adduced to demonstrate that the revisions resulted from a review of the applications submitted by the other parties in this proceeding. The project proposed herein is a free-standing 120-bed nursing facility in Pinellas County. A site has not yet been selected. A utilization of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay is anticipated. These projections are based upon a review of historical occupancy data in Pinellas County as well as CSI's own experience in Pinellas County and at its other existing facilities. Medicaid utilization within its existing certified nursing home beds currently averages approximately 40 percent of all patient days. The nursing home would offer a comprehensive range of services, including subacute, skilled and intermediate care; respite care; hospice care; special services for patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders; physical, speech, occupational and recreational therapy; social services; case management services and counseling services. The charge for respite care will be the same as for regular admissions. CSI does not intend to segregate its Alzheimer's patients in a separate and distinct unit, and is of the philosophy that such patients do better in an integrated environment whereby the more alert patients tend to prevent the Alzheimer's sufferers from deteriorating as quickly. A "wander guard" system will be installed to monitor the Alzheimer's patients. CSI has developed a manual containing standards of nursing care for Alzheimer's patients, and its nursing personnel will be specially trained to provide services to such patients. Due to its management of an existing facility in Pinellas County, CSI has existing agreements with the providers of services and transfer agreements with area hospitals. CSI has existing affiliations with the Pinellas County School Board and St. Petersburg Junior College, and intends to enter into educational relationships with these and other institutions to ensure the continuing education of its own staff and to serve as a clinical training ground for faculty and students. CSI intends to implement numerous activity programs especially tailored to the needs of the individual residents, to encourage volunteer participation and to engage its nursing home residents in various community service projects. The proposed nursing home facility would be comprised of twelve single-bed rooms and 54 two-bed rooms. The nursing home would consist of 37,700 total gross square feet, and the total facility gross square feet per bed will be 314 feet. The one-bed rooms would consist of 159 net square feet and the double bed rooms would consist of 191 net square feet. The most energy efficient equipment available will b installed in the facility. The total project cost is estimated to be $3,900,000, or $32,500 per bed. The projected costs for construction, professional services, equipment and site preparation are consistent with its past experience. CSI's quality assurance program includes the employment of a nursing services coordinator responsible for ensuring the quality of care provided at its facilities, a quality assurance manual which contains standards covering all departments within each facility, a resident care plan, resident counsels and pre-service and in-service training for nursing personnel. Of the 21 nursing homes currently managed by CSI, 17 are located in states which utilize a superior rating system. Of those facilities eligible to receive superior licenses, CSI maintains superior ratings in over 80 percent of its beds. Only one of its 6 Florida nursing homes is eligible for a licensure rating, and that facility currently holds a standard rating. Several deficiencies have been cited against the Centerville Care Center in Tallahassee. In March 1988, HRS imposed a moratorium on admissions to that facility, partly because the minimum standards for nursing staff were not being met. That moratorium on admissions was administratively challenged by CSI and had not been finally resolved as of the time of the hearing. CSI's nursing staff proposal in the instant proceeding is on the low range of all the applicants, though the numbers and classifications of positions meet or exceed state licensing requirements. The tables in the application, as revised, were updated at the hearing to account for "skyrocketing" nursing salaries and recent salary changes in the marketplace (which also necessitated an adjustment in the Medicaid and Medicare rates), inflation, and a new Medicaid payment system adopted on January 1, 1988. The pro formas project a loss during the first year of operation and a profit during the second year of operation with a 95 percent occupancy rate. The project is to be financed through a 25 percent equity contribution provided by the general partners and a 75 percent commercial financing arrangement for a period of 30 years. This proposed method of financing is consistent with past CSI experience in Florida and elsewhere. The Kelletts have a $40 million renewable credit facility through a series of banks, with $13-$14 million currently available. The Mediplex Group, Inc. The Mediplex Group, Inc. was formed about 25 years ago, and is now, since April of 1986, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avon Products, Inc. Avon is a multi-million dollar national corporation which had $73.8 million cash on hand as of December 31, 1987. The Board of Directors of Avon has approved the instant proposed project and Avon will provide the long-term financing for this project. The applicant, through Mediplex, has the funds available to make the 10 percent equity contribution for the proposed project. Mediplex currently has approximately 18 to 22 projects in various stages of development and construction, which represent approximately $125 million. It has never defaulted or become delinquent on payments due on any of the loans associated with these projects. The applicant, Florida Convalescent Associates of Pinellas County, is a partnership of Mediplex Management of Pinellas County, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Mediplex Group, Inc. The Mediplex Group will develop and manage the facility on behalf of the partnership. Mediplex currently manages one other nursing home facility in Florida -- Manatee Springs in Bradenton. Mediplex now seeks a Certificate of Need for a 120-bed nursing home facility to be located in northern Pinellas county. It intends to offer a continuum of care, and will include respite care and adult day care among its services. It will accept Alzheimer's patients and integrate them into the system with other patients. A "wander guard" system will be utilized to protect such patients and other dementia patients from wandering. There will be no subacute care unit, per se. The facility proposed by Mediplex contains 44,722 total square feet and 369 square feet per bed. There will be 8 private rooms and 56 semi-private rooms, several multi-use rooms and two dining rooms. There will be two central bathing areas in each nursing unit. The design of the facility incorporates energy saving features. The schematic floorplans do not show toilet facilities in the kitchen, and do not indicate a quiet lounge, sunroom or chapel as represented in the Certificate of Need application. The total cost of the proposed project is estimated to be $4,550,879, or $37,924 per bed. The Mediplex philosophy of care is to bring each patient up to his or her maximum level of participation, and to accomplish this through a continuum of care policy. Each Mediplex facility must comply with policy standards which comport with the highest minimum standards of the states in which Mediplex facilities exist. Mediplex employs a national director of quality assurance who is responsible for overseeing the operations of the various facilities, as well as the quality of care offered. When new facilities are opened, key employees of other Mediplex facilities go to the new facility to assist in orientation. There will be an infection control program at the facility, and it will be Mediplex's policy to always have a registered nurse on duty in the building. Mediplex will attempt to involve residents in community activities. The hiring and training of appropriate employees will be emphasized. Recognizing that there is a shortage of nurses, Mediplex has, in the past, successfully recruited nurses from Ireland and England. An HRS survey of Mediplex's Manatee Springs nursing home facility in Bradenton, Florida, conducted in March, 1987, resulted in a finding that 6 licensing standards had not been met. This facility currently holds a standard rating. Several of its facilities in Massachusetts and Connecticut have been cited for deficiencies relating to patient care and proper infection control techniques. The proposed facility will provide 52 percent of its patient days for Medicaid residents, and has a policy of accepting any resident regardless of the source of payment. The total staff per patient day proposed by Mediplex is higher than that proposed by the other applicants. While the salaries listed in the application were consistent with Mediplex current policies, no witness called by Mediplex was familiar with salaries in Pinellas County, and thus their reasonableness was not established. A pro forma statement of revenues and expenses for the first year of operation of the proposed facility has never been submitted by Mediplex, though there was testimony that Mediplex would suffer a loss of approximately $300,000 after its first year of operation. Section 381.494(4)(e), Florida Statutes, in effect at the time the current applications were filed (as well as the current Section 381.707(2)(c)) requires a statement of the projected revenues and expenses for the first two years of operation after completion of the proposed project. The pro formas submitted by Mediplex encompass years two and three of operation, and appear to be stated in terms of current dollars. In preparing the pro formas, Mediplex relied on the average of all Mediplex Group facilities companywide, and not upon information relevant to either Pinellas County or Florida. Although Medicaid and Medicare per diems are computed by different reimbursement methodologies, Mediplex's second year per diem for Medicare and Medicaid are projected as identical. The inflation assumptions appearing on the updated pro formas were not established or substantiated. In summary, while Mediplex established that its financial projections were consistent with its experience in constructing and operating other nursing home facilities around the country, it did not establish that the projections were reasonable for a facility to be opened in Pinellas County in the year 1990. Manor Care of Florida, Inc. Manor Care of Florida, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor HealthCare Corporation, a publicly held corporation which owns and operates about 150 nursing homes in 26 or 27 states. Manor HealthCare Corporation is the fifth largest nursing home provider in the country, and has been in business for approximately 30 years. Manor Care owns and operates nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities in Florida. It currently has a 120-bed nursing home in Pinellas County, as well as approval for 60 more beds. Three of its Florida nursing homes opened within the last three years were built without a cost overrun, are operating profitably and are superior rated. Manor Care has never sold a Certificate of Need or a nursing home in Florida. Each of its five Certificates of Need received since 1981 has been timely implemented. In order to have greater control over operations, Manor Care owns and manages all its Florida nursing home facilities. Manor Care now proposes to establish a 120-bed nursing home in Northern Pinellas County at a total project cost of $4,821,150. A five acre parcel of band in Palm Harbour, just east of Highway 19, has been purchased for this purpose. The initial design of the facility was revised to reflect HRS's preliminary intention to grant a certificate of Need to Manor Care upon the condition that there be no 3-bed rooms and to comply with some of the comments contained in the HRS architectural report which accompanied the State Agency Action Report. The present facility design contains one story with four wings all connected to a common area. There will be two nurses stations, with 60-beds each. The central area of the facility contains the administrative area, the dining room, kitchen, laundry and facility support area. The facility will have 30 private rooms and 45 semi-private rooms, and will contain 46,850 gross square feet, and 390 square feet per bed. The total cost per bed is $46,850. One of the four wings will house a separate and distinct 30-bed area specially designed for Alzheimer's patients. That area will be divisioned off from the rest of the facility by double doors, and will have its own separate dining room, activity area and outdoor garden area. This design will allow patients to wander within a restricted area and reduce concern over patients leaving the facility. Manor Care has been developing dedicated Alzheimer's units within its nursing homes around the country for the past two and a half years, and currently operates 16 Alzheimer's units. Its program is geared toward treating middle stage Alzheimer's disease, which is characterized by combative behavior, incontinence, gait disturbances and eating problems. The goal of Manor Care's program is to provide a comforting environment in which residents and families can cope with the mental and physical deterioration associated with the disease. The Manor Care Alzheimer's program emphasizes five components of care: environment, specialized staffing and training (with a higher nurse to resident ratio than the rest of the facility), programming, specialized medical services through the use of consultants, and family support. The A.D.R.D.A. (Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association) has officially recognized that the most appropriate treatment and care of Alzheimer's patients is accomplished in a dedicated and separate unit. In addition to its Alzheimer's program, Manor Care intends to offer programs in the areas of respite care (a short-term nursing home stay designed to give the caregiver a rest), chaplaincy (whereby chaplains from all different faiths are recruited to serve as liaisons for the religious and spiritual needs of the residents), and an "In Touch Program" to help patients and families upon admission into the nursing home. It also provides a comprehensive corporate- wide quality assurance program which audits the services provided at all Manor Care nursing homes and provides follow-up and education for staff. The inter- disciplinary quality assurance team is comprised of professionals in nursing, rehabilitative therapy, activities, dietary and environmental services. Annual unannounced assessments are conducted in every Manor Care nursing home and action plans are developed and implemented. In addition, each facility conducts ongoing self-assessments. Manor Care uses a corporate quality assurance manual which contains standards based on federal regulations and the most stringent state regulations in the country. It provides mandatory in-service training for staff and emphasizes promotion within the company. Manor Care has a regional office in Orlando to serve its Florida nursing homes, and a regional nurse works with the Florida directors of nursing and nursing departments and acts as a quality assurance liaison to conduct mini-quality assurance reviews upon visits to the facilities. Manor Care will provide 46 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. Its proposed patient charges are reasonable, as is its projections for utilization. Its projected expenses are based upon actual experience at its existing Dunedin facility, and are reasonable. Discounts from retail purchasing are realized by Manor Care through volume purchasing. It is projected that the proposed facility would incur a first year loss of $305,500 and a second year profit of $89,000. The project will be funded by working capital and senior subordinated notes. The funds for the project are currently available. The project is financially feasible in both the short and long-term. Health Care and Retirement of America HCR currently owns and operates 127 nursing home facilities containing 16,000 beds in 19 different states. It has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities, along with 10 nursing home facilities in Florida, with 6 more in various stages of design and construction. HCR's current proposal consists of a 60-bed addition to its existing Pasadena Manor 126-bed nursing home located in southwestern Pinellas County, which is within the area designated by the local health council as the East Subdivision. Pasadena Manor, consisting of approximately 34,280 gross square feet, has been rated by HRS as a superior nursing home for several years and had no deficiencies on its most recent licensure survey. The 60-bed addition will be a two-story structure connected to the existing building by a corridor. It will have 30 beds on each floor, two nurses' stations, two dining rooms, two multi-purpose rooms, two physical therapy areas and the standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. The first floor will have a 15-bed dedicated Alzheimer's Disease wing, as well as space for adult day care. The second floor will have 30 beds, including a dedicated 10 to 15-bed subacute unit. The subacute care provided will include high tech services and ventilator care, I-V therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding and hyperalimentation. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there is a need for nursing home beds and services available to patients requiring subacute care. The 60-bed addition will contain 4 private rooms and 28 semi-private rooms. Respite care will also be offered when beds are available. Adult day care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in a nursing home. Such services aid in preventing premature nursing home admissions and promote cost containment. There is no known nursing home in Pinellas County which provides a distinct and separate care unit for patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as memory loss progresses, the need for ever-increasing personal care is required. Victims encounter more serious physical problems and exhibit symptoms such as wandering, significant weight loss, clumsiness, incontinence and antisocial behavior. Intense medical attention is required in the last stages of the disease. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for the staff. Because of behavior problems, some nursing homes avoid admitting Alzheimer patients and others control problem behavior with sedation and physical restraint. A separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient and allows the patient to maintain his cognitive capabilities for as long as possible without restraint and sedation. A separate unit provides a smaller, safer, specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the unique needs of the Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders victim. The proposed Alzheimer's special care unit will incorporate special design features, patient activities and programs and higher staffing levels to meet the unique needs of the patients. The architectural design of the addition will accommodate the tendency of Alzheimer's victims to wander and will prevent inadvertent exit from the nursing home. HCR facilities, including Pasadena Manor, are subject to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines utilized to cover all areas of operation and patient care. The level of staffing proposed for the 60-bed addition exceeds state licensure requirements, and the staffing is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. The projected salaries and benefits are reasonable. HCR's projections of a payor mix of 45 percent Medicaid, 51 percent private pay and 4 percent Medicare are reasonable. Its fill-up and occupancy projections and its projections of revenues and expenses are also reasonable. The total project cost for the 60-bed addition to Pasadena Manor is estimated to be $2,054,000. The components making up the total are reasonable and consistent with HCR's prior experience. The entire addition, including the 2,000 square feet adult day care center, consists of approximately 24,000 square feet, providing 367 square feet per bed. Construction of an addition is more efficient and cost effective than construction of a new, free-standing facility because it will not be necessary to duplicate ancillary spaces, such as laundry and administrative areas. The current operations of Pasadena Manor will benefit from improvements in services, special programs and the high level of staffing. HCR has available the financial resources necessary to accomplish the 60-bed addition to Pasadena Manor. If HCR does not finance the project internally, it has the ability to obtain financing from a commercial lender. Its pro formas for the proposed project are reasonable and are indicative of the financial feasibility of the project both immediately and in the long term. While the addition itself would show a loss the first year of operation, the total facility would show a profit the first year. The addition would show a second year profit, as would the entire Pasadena Manor facility. VHA/Oxford Senior Living Ventures The applicant is VHA/Oxford Senior Living Ventures, d/b/a Oxford- Pinellas Nursing Associates. The joint venture partners of VHA/Oxford are VHA Development Company and Oxford Development Enterprises, Inc. No copy of the joint venture agreement between these two entities was produced at the hearing, though it is apparently a 50-50 joint venture. Oxford's parent company is Oxford Development Corporation, a national real estate services company. Oxford Development Enterprises, Inc., with offices in Maitland, Florida, has developed about 2,000 apartment units and two senior living communities in Florida. VHA Development Company is one of the many subsidiaries of VHA Enterprises, Inc. VHA Enterprises also has a consulting company, a behavioral medical care company involved in substance abuse and psychiatric care, an ambulatory services company and a long term care company (VHA Long Term Care) that develops and manages nursing homes. The parent company, VHA, Inc. (Voluntary Hospitals of America) is a for-profit cooperative owned by the VHA shareholder hospitals. There are approximately 900 hospitals nationally affiliated with VHA. The applicant VHA/Oxford proposes a 120-bed nursing home in southeastern Pinellas County in affiliation with an acute care hospital, Bayfront Medical Center, which is a VHA affiliate. The proposal contemplates that the applicant VHA/Oxford will hold the real estate and lease the nursing home to Bayfront. The only revenues to be received by the joint venture would be the lease payments. Bayfront would, according to the application, engage VHA Long Term Care to manage the facility on the hospital's behalf. Although witnesses employed by VHA Long Term Care testified that the proposed facility would be managed by VHA Long Term Care on behalf of the hospital sponsor, witnesses testifying on behalf of the applicant, the joint venture, expressed some confusion as to whether the day-to-day operation of the nursing home would be the responsibility of the leasing hospital or VHA Long Term Care. VHA Long Term Care does have a quality assurance program and a staff training program that it implements at all nursing homes managed by it. At the time of the hearing, no formal relationship between Bayfront Medical Center and the applicant was established and no lease agreement with Bayfront had been prepared. Bayfront has, however, "expressed an interest in" having a relationship with a nursing home because they are having difficulty in placing patients. Some 600 to 800 patients a year discharged from Bayfront, a 518-bed acute care hospital, are discharged to nursing homes. Approximately 47 to 50 percent of the total Medicaid patients in southeast Pinellas County are treated at Bayfront Medical Center. The advantages of operating a nursing home in conjunction with a hospital include the quick and cost-effective availability of ancillary services, such as physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, respiratory therapy and other services, as well as the ability to care for patients who require a heavier degree of care. As recognized by other applicants, VHA Long Term Care recognizes that the acuity level of patients has increased as a result of DRGs. The applicant proposes to designate 30 of its 120 beds for skilled nursing care. The present proposal by VHA/Oxford contemplates, in its first phase, to establish 30 skilled beds and 90 intermediate-level care beds within the nursing home component of the project. The second phase of the project would add independent and assisted living units to the project. While VHA/Oxford states that its proposed nursing home facility would include 12 private rooms and 54 semi-private rooms, the drawings submitted in support of its application provide for only 12 private rooms and 50 semi-private rooms, thus accommodating only 112 patients. The drawings also fail to show a toilet facility in the kitchen and showers near the nurses' stations. Four of the patient rooms do not have the twenty-foot vista required by applicable regulations. The floor plan for the nursing home is square, with an enclosed courtyard, and includes two patient care units. It will have 41,380 gross square feet, or 345 square feet per bed. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $3,579,680 or $29,830 per bed. The proposed nursing home would include traditional nursing home care, physical therapy, occupational therapy and respite care. While it will accept Alzheimer's patients, its approach is to "mainstream" (or not segregate) such patients, so that the more alert patients in the facility will assume some responsibility for the confused patients and, hopefully, slow their deterioration. It is difficult to assess the financial feasibility of the proposed project. While many of its projected revenues and expenses are similar to those of the other applicants, the witnesses called upon to establish the reasonableness of the financial projections were not familiar with nursing staff salaries in Pinellas County or with current Florida Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement. The applicant proposes that over 54 percent of its patient days will be attributable to Medicaid patients. Updated Tables 7 and 8 suffer from internal inconsistencies with regard to Medicaid and Medicare charges and revenues. There was confusion as to which years the pro formas were based upon. There appears to be an inadequate number of registered nurses available to provide 24-hour nursing coverage. The opinions offered by the applicant were based upon many unsubstantiated assumptions, such as a leasing arrangement with Bayfront Medical Center, the validity of room rates, and staffing salaries. The total project costs are considerably less than the other applicants proposing 120-bed facilities. In addition, this joint venture has never financed any project. The VHA subsidiary responsible for financing its half of the project does not have any lines of credit and has never itself financed a project. Oxford Development Corporation is experiencing some financial problems, and is presently undergoing a restructuring. The President of the VHA joint venture is not familiar with Oxford's financial statements. The applicant projects no preopening expenses in its total project cost. In any event, if the assumptions made are valid, the applicant projects a first year loss of 142,714 and a second year profit of $241,967. At the time of the hearing in this proceeding, VHA/Oxford Senior Living Venture had a preliminary approval from HRS for a 120-bed nursing home facility in Hillsborough county. This proposed facility was almost identical to the facility proposed for Pinellas County. The Senior Development Manager for Oxford Development and a member of the executive committee of the joint venture testified that the Hillsborough County Certificate of Need had not been offered for sale. When confronted with a letter written by him to National Facilities Corporation stating that "VHA/Oxford has made the decision to seek a purchaser for the [Hillsborough County] CON," the witness attempted to explain the discrepancy by stating that he was offering to sell only a completed and licensed facility. This testimony is not credible. The letter, received into evidence as CSI's Exhibit 18, clearly proposes that VHA/Oxford would transfer the CON, if awarded, at the earliest possible date following final award and certification and would seek, as compensation therefore, $400,000. It defies logic to assume that a completed and licensed facility would be sold for $400,000. The letter also offered to allow the purchaser to be in control of the appeal process. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Other than its counsel, no representatives from HRS attended the three and a half week-long hearing except for the time during which the two HRS witnesses provided testimony. The opinions offered by HRS's one expert health care planner were based upon the information available to him on June 18, 1987, the date upon which the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was signed. This report encompassed a comparative review of 12 applications submitted in January of 1987 for community nursing home beds in Pinellas County and announced HRS's intent to grant four of the applications. HRS admits that the report contains errors regarding the services to be provided by some of the applicants, the licensed beds counted and the occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology, and the number of new beds sought by one applicant. At the time of the initial agency review (the SAAR) and at the time of the hearing, HRS was of the opinion that all the applicants were in substantial compliance with the State Health Plan, the District Health Plan and the applicable statutory and regulatory criteria for review of Certificate of Need applications. It was determined that all the applicants in this proceeding would increase availability and access to the services being proposed, would improve the quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of nursing home services in the area, would promote access to underserved groups, would provide quality care, would have sufficient manpower and financial resources to accomplish and operate the project, proposed reasonable costs and methods of construction, and would be financially feasible in the short and long-term. However, since HRS calculated the need for new nursing home beds in Pinellas County to be substantially less than the total number of beds for which these applicants were seeking, HRS proposed to grant only the Certificate of Need applications submitted by HCR (for 58 of the 60 beds), Mediplex (120 beds), Manor Care (120 beds) and VHA/Oxford (120 beds). These applicants were chosen because they were deemed the best overall, offering the most services and programs for patients and their projects were within the parameters of size and cost that HRS felt would be most suitable. In addition, at the time of initial review HRS was sensitive to criticism that only existing Florida entities were receiving Certificates of Need from HRS. Consequently, additional consideration was given to those applicants who had not previously done business in Florida and whose proposals were worthy. Throughout the hearing, counsel for HRS objected to evidence from any of the applicants regarding updates to their applications as they were deemed complete by HRS prior to its initial review. It was the position of the HRS counsel that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete are those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation add other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at the hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of the final hearing, changes in the marketplace regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicants' experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through market surveys conducted after the applications were deemed complete. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered. As noted above, HRS's position at the time of the hearing was the same as it was at the time of the initial review and does not take into account any information not available at the time of initial review. It was the opinion of HRS's expert in health planning as it relates to Certificate of Need review that if the initial agency review (SAAR) contained errors, at least with respect to a listing of the services or programs intended to be offered by the various applicants, this would be minimal and its initial decision would not be in error. HRS did not object to evidence concerning Manor Care's redesign of its facility because HRS had conditioned its initial approval upon two-bed rooms rather than three-bed rooms. The Need for Nursing Home Beds in Pinellas County No documentation of need other than that established by the numeric need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(1), Florida Administrative Code, was offered by any applicant. HRS normally will not approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in a service district if approval would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number calculated by use of the rule methodology. It is the appropriate application of the formula, along with the issue of the applicability of Florida Statutes, Section 381.713(4), which produced a range of expert opinion regarding the number of beds needed in Pinellas County. The range was from a low of 440 beds to a high of 860 beds needed in Pinellas County for the planning horizon of January, 1990. In its application of the numeric need formula, HRS initially determined a need for 434 new beds. Shortly before the hearing, HRS changed its opinion and found a need for 391 beds. At the hearing, HRS found a need For 440 beds. The various changes resulted from an adjustment in the number of licensed beds to include sheltered beds which were converted to community beds by Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, and to exclude beds in a Christian Science facility, and a revision of the occupancy rate utilized in the formula. The evidence supports the HRS final revisions of these two components of the formula, and establishes that the overall number of beds needed in Pinellas County for January of 1990 is 8,292. From this figure, the number of licensed beds and 90 percent of the number of approved beds must be subtracted in order to determine the net bed need. The evidence establishes that, as of December 1, 1986, there were 7,394 licensed beds in Pinellas County. The dispute in this proceeding concerns the appropriate number of approved beds to be counted. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, is silent as to the cutoff date for counting approved beds. HRS interprets the rule to use the date that the supervisor signs the State Agency Action Report as the cutoff date for counting the number of approved beds. In counting approved beds, HRS included an approved Certificate of Need for 60 beds granted to Careage (CON No. 4691). Based upon the testimony of HRS's expert health planner as to the definition of an "approved" bed, the 60 beds awarded to Careage should not have been counted as approved beds. The witness stated that in order for approved but unlicensed beds to be included in the bed need calculation, the Certificate of Need authorizing such beds must have been "received" at the time that the supervisor signed off on the State Agency Action Report. "Approved" beds to be counted were further described as those "which have been issued their Certificate of Need," those "which have received initial approval," those for which HRS "has entered into stipulated agreements," and those "which have final orders." The series of events regarding Careage's CON Number 4691 are as follows: In the January 23, 1987, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS published notice that on January 7, 1987, it had made a decision to grant a Certificate of Need to Careage to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Pinellas County. The evidence demonstrates that the "decision to grant" was simply a tentative or proposed decision, and that such a decision was internally reviewed by HRS subsequent to January 7, 1987. Indeed, the CON to Careage was not "issued" until July 30, 1987. The State Agency Action Report stating the basis for the approval of CON 4691 was not issued until August of 1987, and the CON was not actually transmitted to Careage until September of 1987. It is the practice of HRS, as apparently required by Rule 10-5.010, Florida Administrative Code, to provide its notice of intent to issue or deny a Certificate of Need through the vehicle of the State Agency Action Report. Thus, Careage had not "received initial approval," and the Careage 60-bed Certificate of Need was not received, issued, the subject of a stipulated settlement or a final order as of the date the State Agency Action Report was prepared in this proceeding, which was June 18, 1987. The 60 beds awarded to Carriage should not have been included in the inventory of "approved" beds with respect to the January, 1987, batching cycle. Certificates of Need Numbers 2379, 2976 and 2978, each for 120-bed nursing home facilities in Pinellas County, were issued by HRS prior to February 14, 1986. Each of the three CON holders had expended at least $50,000 in reliance upon their CONs prior to June 16, 1987. A petition challenging the validity of CONs 2379, 2976 and 2978 was filed with HRS on June 16, 1987. None of the beds authorized by such CONs were licensed as of June 17, 1987. According to Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes (1987), these 360 beds should not have been considered or utilized in the determination of need or included in the inventory of approved nursing home beds by HRS. HRS's rationale for including the 360 beds as "approved" beds was that the petition challenging their validity was not "effective" for purposes of Section 381.713(4) because it was dismissed by HRS as being untimely and was never referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. This interpretation of the statute was not sufficiently explicated by HRS at the hearing. It is clear from a reading of the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1986), and subsequent cases holding that later-batched applicants should have availed themselves of the proper remedy of challenging previously-issued CONS belatedly, as well as the language of Section 381.713(4), that the "initiation of proceedings" referred to in the new statute was intended to refer to petitions which HRS viewed as "untimely." Another reason for excluding the beds approved by CONS 2379, 2976 and 2978 from the inventory of approved beds for this batching cycle is the stipulation by HRS in Hillhaven, et al. v. DHRS, (DOAH Case No. 86-0132) that once Section 381.713(4) is applied in a given subdistrict, it must be similarly applied in every review cycle in that subdistrict up through and including the January, 1987, review cycle. This recognition has been applied by HRS in at least two other cases -- Forum Group , Inc. v. DHRS (DOAH Case No. 87-0722) and Manor Care, Inc., et al. v. DHRS (DOAH Case No. 87-3471). In order to accept the testimony presented by HRS that Section 381.713(4) has never been applied in Pinellas County, one would have to assume that HRS grants Certificates of Need in a vacuum and without reference to the bed need calculation rule. Without unduly lengthening this Recommended Order by a discussion of the events which led to a settlement in the case of Imperial Palms Apartments, et al. v. DHRS (DOAH Case No. 85-2639), it is found that HRS's settlement of that case was in fact based upon the recognition that Section 381.713(4) required exclusion of CONS 2379, 2976 and 2978 for purposes of need calculations under Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. (For an accurate discussion of the facts involved in the Imperial Palms proceeding, see the Recommended Order entered on October 18, 1988, by Hearing Officer Linda M. Rigot in Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Regents Park of Dade County v. DHRS, DOAH Case No. 86-1351.) Having once applied Section 381.713(4) to Pinellas County, HRS is bound to apply it in this January, 1987, review cycle. Accordingly, the 360 beds must be excluded from the inventory of approved beds. The number of additional community nursing home beds needed in Pinellas County for the planning horizon of January, 1990, is 818. This figure is derived by an acceptance of HRS's calculation of bed need under the formula up to the calculation of the appropriate number of "approved" beds. The Careage CON (60 beds) and CONs No. 2379, 2976 and 2978 (360 beds) should be excluded from the inventory of approved beds, leaving 78 beds to be counted as approved. After adding the number of licensed beds and 90 percent of the number of approved beds existing in Pinellas County, and subtracting that number from the total bed need in the County, there is a net need for 818 beds.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Certificates of Need for the establishment of community nursing home beds in Pinellas County be GRANTED to HCR for 60 beds, Manor Care for 120 beds, Forum for 120 beds, Florida Country Place for 14 new beds and 16 transfer beds, CSI for 120 beds, Mediplex for 120 beds, and Health Quest for 180 beds. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of VHA/Oxford for 120 beds be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3447, 87-3448, 87-3449, 87-3453, 87-3455, 87-3456, 87-3463, and 87-3465 The proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Health Quest 63. Rejected insofar as the evidence demonstrates that Health Quest is selling or transfering 3 of its Florida nursing home CONs. Rejected as to individual line items. Rejected factually as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence (but see Conclusions of law regarding financial feasibility.) 140. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 149. Second sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. All but first sentence rejected as improper factual findings. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. 162. Last sentence rejected as argumentative. 176. Second sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Figure $3(0,000 rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected. See Conclusions of Law. Florida Country Place 51. Rejected as to range of need. See Finding of Fact 68. 58. Rejected as an improper factual finding. Forum 20. Rejected. See Finding of Fact 73. CSI 19(i) Accepted, with the exception of CSI's Tallahassee facility. 47. The words "do better" rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 120. As noted in Finding of Fact 57, there was some discrepancy in the testimony as to which entity would manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. Mediplex 7. Second sentence rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence. See Findings of Fact 41 and 42. 11. Rejected. See Finding of Fact 42. 13, 18, and 21 - 23. Rejected. See Findings of Fact 41 and 42. 43. Accepted, except with regard to toilet facilities in kitchen. 63. Rejected as unsupported by substantial competent evidence. 71. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Partially rejected. See discussion in Conclusions of Law regarding preliminary plans or drawings. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 97. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Manor Care 129 - 131. Rejected. See Findings of Fact 68 - 73. HCR 4 and 9. Rejected as to the number of beds awarded to Careage; contrary to the evidence. VHA/Oxford 12. Figure of 860 rejected. See Finding of Fact 73. 14 and 42. As noted in Finding of Fact 57, there was some discrepancy in the testimony as to which entity would manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. 30. The number of private rooms on the floor-plan is rejected as contrary to the evidence. 50. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 56. Rejected. The testimony demonstrates 600 to 800 patients. 59. Rejected. The evidence demonstrates that the total project cost is $3,579,680. 63 - 66. Rejected as not sufficiently established by the evidence of record. 73. Rejected if the statements are intended to apply to salaries in Pinellas County. 76 and 78. Last sentences rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence 81. Accepted only if other assumptions in pro formas are reasonable. 87. Rejected as an improper factual finding. 90. The words "tremendous" and "terrible hindrance" are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. First sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected insofar as it is intended to imply that review of other applications did occur. HRS 6 - 9. Rejected. See Findings of Fact 68 - 73. Rejected insofar as it purports to state anything other than HRS's position in this proceeding. (the first 14) Factually accepted, but irrelevant to the application at issue. 15 - 38. The changes stated are factually accepted; however, see Finding of Fact 66 and discussion of "updates" in Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Powers, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Sandra P. Stockwell, Esquire 820 East Park Avenue, Bldg. F Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite C-135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 W. David Watkins, Esquire Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street Suite 701 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul Amundsen, Esquire Guy Collier, Esquire Byron E. Mathews, Esquire Vicki Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer but with the significant modification set out and explained in PDCF's Exception (1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue to petitioner Holmes Health Care, Inc., a Certificate of Need for 60 additional community nursing home beds in an addition, to be constructed, to its 60-bed facility now under construction, with permission to use the existing Bonifay Nursing Home facility under the CON until the 60-bed addition is constructed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The OAKLAND Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1984.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner qualifies for grant of a certificate of need (CON) for construction of a 60 bed addition to its existing Stuart Convalescent Center nursing home facility in Stuart, Martin County by establishing a bed need of 60 beds. By stipulation, bed need is the only issue to be determined in these proceedings. POST HEARING SCHEDULE The parties joined in filing transcript of the proceedings on October 10, 1985, and by stipulation, proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law as well as supporting memoranda were timely filed by each party within 20 days thereof. Due to the extended period agreed upon, the 30 days for entry of this Recommended Order has been waived. All proposed findings of fact have been considered in preparation of this Recommended Order and each proposed finding of fact is ruled upon in the appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Eden Park is a for-profit corporation which constructs and operates nursing homes in Florida and elsewhere. Its principal offices are located in the state of New York and its local office is located in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. Eden Park demonstrated that all of its facilities in Florida are currently rated "superior" by the DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification. This indicates at least peripherally that current nursing home residents at existing Eden Park facilities, including Stuart Convalescent Center in Martin County, receive a high quality of care. Eden Park's amended application contemplates adding 60 nursing home beds to its Stuart Convalescent Center, in Stuart, Martin County. Stuart Convalescent Center is the only licensed nursing home within the City of Stuart. Martin County constitutes a sub-district within DHRS District IX. St. Lucie County, is in the same DHRS District as Martin County, but is a separate and distinct sub-district as mandated by Rule 10-17.021(1)(b) and (e) Florida Administrative Code. Eden Park currently operates a nursing home in the City of Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, which it maintains has an overflow of patients and a waiting list which needs to be absorbed by the proposed addition to its Stuart Convalescent Center in Martin County. The two counties are contiguous and it is possible for persons residing in St. Lucie County near the county line to be closer, physically, to Petitioner's existing Martin County facility than to Petitioner's existing St. Lucie County facility. The Cities of Stuart, Martin County and Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County are also characterized as physically contiguous cities. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that any existing nursing homes in St. Lucie County other than its own St. Lucie County facility had waiting lists. Petitioner presented no evidence to clearly establish that the patients on the Petitioner's St. Lucie County facility's waiting list could not be placed at other nursing homes in St. Lucie County. (See discussion of waiting lists infra.) Respondent presented testimony that two recent certificates of need have been granted in St. Lucie County to two other nursing home applicants, Beverly Enterprises and Florida Convalescent Centers. These facilities are not yet licensed and in operation nor are they required by their certificates of need to locate in any designated physical location within St. Lucie County. However, it is anticipated by DHRS personnel that completion of these facilities will adequately accommodate any nursing home bed need currently existing in St. Lucie County. Exhibit P-6, the Stuart Convalescent Center Martin County May 29, 1985 Census, shows 131 beds occupied by Martin County residents, 12 by St. Lucie County residents, 31 by residents of other Florida counties and 6 by patients originating out of state. Out of state patients are not calculated, and Florida patients from outside Martin County are not considered in the present calculation of bed need employed by DHRS for Martin County but Florida patients from outside Martin County are considered in bed need determinations for the counties in which they reside. For instance, the bed need of St. Lucie County residents has been calculated and provided for by the two nursing home CONs as recently issued for that sub-district and discussed above in paragraph 6. A CON was issued to Beverly Enterprises in 1982 for 120 new nursing home beds in Martin County. As of the date of formal hearing, these beds had been licensed and the nursing home was in operation. Although Mr. Kane, operational director for Eden Park Management, testified that the Beverly facility was only about one-fourth full at the time of formal hearing, he conceded that the Beverly facility would have an impact on Petitioner's Stuart Convalescent Center facility's waiting list although it has not impacted yet. Mr. Kane represents that the Beverly home is not presently taking Medicaid or Medicare patients. The predicate for Mr. Kane's knowledge on this point is weak, but even if it could be accepted, it does not, in isolation, provide any gauge of unfulfilled bed need in Martin County. Mr. Jaffe testified that Beverly's CON carries the proviso that Beverly must maintain one-third Medicaid occupancy when filled. Mr. Kane's testimony is accepted that historically Petitioner's Martin County facility has maintained a 50 percent Medicaid and Medicare population. Testimony of Respondent's expert, Reid Jaffe, is accepted that poverty level in a sub-district such as Martin County in relationship to its district, District IX, does not impact on the current bed need methodology established by rule and that the relevant factor is poverty level in the district in relationship to the state poverty level. Petitioner's existing St. Lucie County and Martin County nursing homes currently have a combined waiting list of 80 persons. For the Martin County facility, it is more like 32 on the waiting list (P-5). However, this waiting list's accuracy is suspect in that it includes persons hospitalized since December, 1984 and Mr. Kane could not state that the lists were correct, or whether the people on them were still hospitalized, at home, or exactly where they were. More recent data appears on P-3 (Eden Park's St. Lucie County facility's waiting list) but it shares the same paucity of in formation on the status of the listees and what other nursing home options are or are not available to them. Petitioner was previously granted three separate 60 bed projects, an original and two additions to its St. Lucie County facility. It took three months to fill the first 60 beds, two months to fill the second 60 beds and three and one half months to fill the next 60 beds. Past fill rate in St. Lucie County appears largely irrelevant, even given Petitioner's argument on the contiguous nature of the sub-districts. Petitioner appears to argue in its proposals that these additions were to its Martin County facility (Stuart Convalescent Center) but that is not what the undersigned understands from the testimony in the record (TR 48-51). Moreover, this rate of fill occupancy in 1978 has no probative value for currently projected future bed need whether it applied in St. Lucie or Martin Counties. Contrariwise, Petitioner's amended application (P-1) indicates the Stuart Convalescent Center was built for 120 beds in 1973 with a 60 bed addition in 1976 and that the St. Lucie County facility was built for 180 beds in 1980. In conjunction with Mr. Kane's testimony, this latter date also has no probative value for currently projected future bed need in Martin County. Martin Memorial Hospital is located in Martin County in near proximity to Petitioner's existing nursing facility, Stuart Convalescent Center. DHRS has recently granted a certificate of need to Martin Memorial Hospital for 150 hospital beds. Petitioner desires that the inference be drawn from the foregoing fact regarding new hospital beds that a need for 60 additional nursing home beds is established, but the two cannot be related as a quid pro quo. Petitioner is in the process of constructing a 150 unit adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Martin County, which it proposes will provide an alternative to existing services in Martin County. Mr. Jack Kane testified that the Eden Park ACLF will foster the most efficient use of services allowing people to be cared for in the most appropriate setting based upon their individual needs especially as these needs change in the continuum of care. This testimony is accepted but it does not, without some statistical evaluation or projection of potential nursing home candidates arising out of that ACLF environment, provide any useful information for determining current nursing home bed need or even for projecting, per the formula established by rule, the future nursing home bed need in Martin County. Jack Kane served seven years as the director of the Palm Beach Health Planning Council, was president of the Florida Health Care Association for a period of two years, served as senior vice-president for the Florida Health Care Association for two years and as regional vice-president for five years. Mr. Kane testified to a number of factors which, during his tenure on the Palm Beach Health Planning Council, would have been applicable to the bed need formula used then. A process or formula applicable on a local basis prior to adoption of the present statewide system and prior to the present rule's adoption is not applicable in this instant proceeding. Here, there is no evidence of current revised sub-district designations by a local health council within either sub- district or even within District IX which have not already been accounted for by the rules. (See discussion in Conclusion of Law Paragraphs 8a-d). Determination of nursing home bed need used to be on a beds-per- thousand basis but the new methodology now precludes that formula. The present formula application, as clarified by expert testimony from Mr. Reid Jaffe, medical facilities coordinator for DHRS's Office of Community Medical Facilities, only permits application of a 27 beds-per-thousand formula if two events exist: the district percentage of elderly in poverty is greater than that which the state has and there are fewer beds than 27 per thousand. A poverty ratio was not established sufficient to bring Martin County within this rule. Any further discussion of the bed need rule is more properly discussed under the following conclusions of law. Although a specific location of facility is requested on the CON application there is no statutory requirement that the facility, as constructed, be located there.
Recommendation That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the denial of Petitioner's certificate of need application for 120 nursing home beds and further denying the amended application for 60 nursing home beds. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 84-0260 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore, subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinated unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Constitutes an evidentiary matter and not a finding of fact, and therefore requires no ruling. Accepted but modified and amplified to conform to the evidence. See Finding of Fact Paragraphs 2 and 13. Adopted. See Findings of Fact Paragraph 12. Rejected as setting forth a Conclusion of Law and to the extent it may constitute a proposed finding of fact is contrary to the competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Rejected as a proposed conclusion of law and as a proposed recommendation. It is not a proposed finding of fact requiring a ruling. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposals of fact herein are adopted. Other assertions which are essentially procedural are rejected as unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Adopted. Adopted. Adopted Adopted. Adopted. Up to the word "but" the proposal is accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. The remainder of the sentence is accepted but not adopted as stating a conclusion of law. See Finding of Fact Paragraph 14. Conceded that the proposal constitutes a portion of the expert opinion testimony of DHRS' expert witness but as expressed is a proposed conclusion of law requiring no ruling. To the extent it may constitute a proposed finding of fact it has been accepted and modified to conform to the competent substantial evidence contained in the record as a whole. See Finding of Fact Paragraphs 9b and 14. If this constitutes a proposal of fact that DHRS previously considered certain circumstances or as a matter of custom considers certain circumstances, it is accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. If it constitutes legal argument or a conclusion of law, it requires no ruling. Similar subject matter is covered by Finding of Fact Paragraphs 9a and 14. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark W. Hoffman, Esquire 87 Columbia Street Albany, New York 12210 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
