Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Originally, each Petitioner filed an application for a Certificate Of Need for the construction and operation of nursing home facilities in Broward County as follows: HCR - 120 beds, Richmond - 240 beds, Health Quest - 180 beds, and FPM - 240 beds. The applications were reviewed by Respondent comparatively and competitively, and they were denied in a State Agency Action Report on August 12, 1982 solely on the basis that there was no need for additional nursing home beds in Broward County. The formal hearing thereafter requested by all Petitioners was continued several times due to scheduling conflicts and due to the expected promulgation of a new methodology by which the need for nursing home beds is computed. As a result of Respondent's Quarterly Census Report dated November 30, 1983, Respondent determined that in fact there was a need for an additional 101 nursing home beds in Broward County. Accordingly, just prior to the formal hearing and by letter dated January 4, 1984, Respondent's attorney invited each Petitioner to amend its application for the purpose of being eligible to receive a Certificate Of Need for those 101 beds. Each Petitioner so complied. At the final hearing, each Petitioner proceeded on both its original application and its amended application. In spite of the singular ground for denial of each application contained in the State Agency Action Report, Respondent's attorney contended from the inception of this proceeding and into the final hearing that whether any of the applications met all statutory and rule criteria for approval was disputed by Respondent, including the financial feasibility of each proposed project. According to Respondent's only witness, Thomas F. Porter, however, all four applications meet all statutory and rule criteria for approval including financial feasibility. Accordingly, the only facts to be determined herein will relate to the issue of the number of beds needed. Since Respondent stipulated that 101 beds were available to be awarded to one of the applicants in this proceeding (Tr. 17, 36-40, 952), the threshold issue is how many beds in excess of 101, if any, are needed in Broward County. Respondent uses the most recently available information in analyzing applications for nursing home beds, including the Quarterly Census Report which it publishes, and a mathematical methodology contained in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the purpose of which methodology is to project the need for nursing home beds on a three year basis to determine the availability of those beds for award to Certificate Of Need applicants in relation to a projected need. The methodology contains several steps. The first part of the methodology projects the number of beds that will be needed based upon an adjustment of a standard of 27 beds per thousand for the population aged 65 and over to reflect the percentage of those in poverty in the HRS district in relation to those living in poverty in the state. The second part of the methodology contains the present and prospective occupancy rates. Before any of the new beds which are determined to be needed can be added, the average occupancy rate for existing homes must exceed eighty five Percent (85), as the rule is applied to Broward County, the only county in Florida constituting its own HRS district and having no sub-districts. Furthermore, the second part of the formula provides that no additional beds which have been determined to be needed can actually be added if, theoretically, the prospective occupancy rate after the beds are added will be reduced below eighty percent (80 percent). Respondent's determination as to the number of beds needed and the number of beds available for Certificate of Need applicants according to "part two" of the formula is based on its Quarterly Census Reports. The November 30, 1983 Quarterly Census Report revealed that 1,419 community nursing home beds (4,058 needed beds, less 2,789 existing and 300 previously approved but not constructed beds) will be needed in Broward county in 1986, the horizon year for these applicants. The occupancy rate of existing nursing home beds for the six months preceding that report was 91.5 percent. According to that report, since the prospective occupancy rate is 80 percent for Broward County, then the addition of more than 101 beds at the present time will theoretically reduce the prospective occupancy rate below 80 percent. Under normal circumstances Respondent will issue Certificates of Need in accordance with the need methodology set forth above. However, Respondent has discretion to approve applications for nursing home beds which do not conform to the need methodology if the existence of special circumstances can be proven. Special circumstances do exist in Broward County which warrant a determination that more nursing home beds are needed than is demonstrated by a strict application of Respondent's need methodology. One of those special circumstances is the existence in the district comprised of Broward County of an older population than in the other districts in Florida. Broward County's 65 and over population is fairly typical of Florida at the present time, but there is a significant difference in the proportion of the population which is 75 and over and which will be 75 and over in the near future. In 1980 Florida as a whole had 6.5 percent of its 65 and over population in the 75 and over category which was projected to increase to 9 percent by the year 2000. By contrast, according to studies performed by Dr. Robert Weller, in Broward County 35.4 percent of the 65 and over population was 75 and over, and by 1986 this number was projected to increase to 53.6 percent. This difference was classified by Dr. Weller as "very meaningful" to the point where he would be very "uncomfortable" with any attempt to plan for Broward County using statewide averages. This large difference in the composition of the elderly population of the state as a whole and Broward County is a significant special circumstance because the older the population the greater the demand for nursing home beds. In fact, the big predictors of need for nursing home beds are illness and age. The average age of entry into a nursing home is 81. While the population group of 85 and older utilize nursing home beds at a rate 15 times greater than the 65 and older group, the over 75 age category constitutes 70 percent of all nursing home users. Respondent's need methodology does not make an adjustment for differences in the 65 and over category between the various districts. This failure to adjust for an older population may not significantly affect districts with more normal population composition, but since Broward County's population departs substantially from the norm, it is an essential consideration. The failure to consider this situation results in a gross understatement of need in Broward County. Diagnostically Related Groups (hereinafter "DRG") regulations are amendments to the Social Security Act effective in 1983 which alter the method by which hospitals will receive reimbursement for Medicare patients. Under the DRG regulations, which hospitals are required to adhere to by the end of 1984, reimbursement for Medicare patients will be based upon an established length of stay for each type of illness. For example a hospital might be reimbursed for an eight day hospital stay for a coronary by-pass operation whether the patient actually stays in the hospital for seven or for 12 days. The effect of the DRG regulations is the earlier discharge of many patients in need of intensive nursing care. Every expert witness and professional administrator opined at the hearing in this cause that DRG regulations will result in an increased demand for nursing home beds. In addition to the effect the DRG regulations will have in a normal situation, the characteristics of the Broward County will accentuate this effect. The nationwide average for percent of Medicare funding in acute care hospitals is approximately 50 percent while the average for Broward County in last 12 months ranges from 53 percent to about 64 percent. The characteristics of Broward's elderly population also increases the effect of the DRG regulations because the population in Broward County is older than that in the remainder of the state. A study of the effects of the DRG regulations on the need for additional nursing home beds was recently conducted for Palm Beach County. That county has a high percentage of elderly (although not as high as Broward) and a high percentage of Medicaid funding. That study indicated that the DRG regulations would increase demand there by about 225 to 300 beds. Theodore J. Foti, an expert in health planning, utilized the Palm Beach study to estimate that from 325 to 400 additional beds are needed in Broward County to compensate for the DRG regulations alone. In Broward County there are three facilities which Respondent counts as nursing home facilities but which do not provide nursing home services. The Daystar Nursing Home, which contains 44 beds, is a Christian Science facility which does not provide the level of care associated with nursing homes. The Manor Oaks facility, which contains 116 beds, has a hospital license as an extended care facility and is a licensed specialty hospital, not a nursing home. St. Johns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which contains 100 beds, is a specialty hospital. Respondent includes the 340 beds in these facilities in computing the total of existing nursing home beds. Since these facilities are not truly nursing homes, they are displacing beds which normally provide nursing home services. The need methodology, therefore, does not include the true number of existing nursing home beds in Broward County, and, therefore, even if all other data used in the methodology be accurate, the bed need as determined by the methodology is understated by 340 beds. Barbara Palmer is employed by Respondent in its Office of Aging and Adult Services. Her job duties include writing proposed rules, manual material and legislative budget requests for Respondent's program known as Community Care for the Elderly (hereinafter "CCE"). CCE services include case management as well as CORE services, adult day care, chore, emergency alert response systems, home delivered meals, home health aid, medical transportation and personal care. Each of these programs is generally designed to provide services to the clients in the client's home. None of these services are provided to persons who are already in nursing homes. In order to compute need for CCE services, Palmer and Respondent rely on research by Dr. Carter Osterbind which identifies the incidence of "homebound" and "bedfast" individuals in the population aged 65 and over. Respondent defines bedfast as a person who, because of physical or other infirmities, remains in bed and is incapable of being in any other place. Similarly homebound individuals are those who cannot leave their homes without assistance. Respondent routinely uses Osterbind's 8 percent incidence factor to calculate the percentage of the population in the State of Florida 65 and over that can be characterized as homebound and bedfast. Subject to revisions, Palmer prepares the budget proposal for Aging and Adult Services which is then approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for submission to the Governor and which then becomes Services for part of the Governor's budget request which is ultimately submitted to the Legislature. Palmer uses two documents to prepare her budget request: Dr. Osterbind's paper "Older People in Florida" and "Florida Decade of the 80's", a technical appendix provided by the Office of the Governor as a reference for population statistics for use in developing legislative budget requests. Using these two documents, a projected need is compared with the historical data of how many people have been served with the money which was received in a previous budget year. By subtracting the historically met need from the projected need, Palmer arrives at the projected unmet need, which is presented in a table depicting the total number of homebound and bedfast clients who will not receive services. Palmer also uses a factor, developed by Respondent's Community Care for the Elderly Program, to determine how many individuals, but for the fact that their need is going to be met, are at risk of institutionalization. Respondent's Office of Evaluation has developed and published a 42 percent factor and utilizes it as a basis to determine how many of those persons in a category whose needs will be unmet because of lack of budget dollars in the future will actually end up in nursing homes if more dollars are not appropriated. In other words, Respondent utilizes a document promulgated in 1981 by its Office of Evaluation which indicates that a 42 percent factor should be applied to an 8 percent statewide percent of the population 65 and older to determine how many are at risk of institutionalization in a nursing home, and this methodology has been used routinely by Respondent to prepare Respondent's budget requests through 1985. Palmer's approach in preparing the budget request has a purpose of persuading the Legislature that unless money is provided, 42 of all homebound and bedfast individuals will have to be institutionalized but for provision for home health care services. Palmer's last budget request shows that in the decade of the 80's Respondent expects a 69.8 percent increase in the population group 65 and over. The 10 year plan for CCE and CORE services gives the estimated percentage of need which Respondent intends to meet with CCE and CORE services for various budget years through 1990. Respondent will only provide those services to 23.84 percent of those persons needing them in 1985-86 and only 26.48 percent in 1986-87. Estimated unduplicated clients that will be served in those same years are 41,448 and 47,869 respectively. Expert witness, Michael Schwartz, used Respondent's population figures for Broward County and Respondent's methodology according to Palmer to determine how many of those individuals aged 65 and over in Broward County will be homebound and bedfast in the planning horizon year of 1986. Multiplying the number of homebound and bedfast by the percentile of persons that are at risk of institutionalization yields the figure of 9,760 persons for the horizon year. The number of persons projected by Respondent's Office of Aging and Adult Services to actually receive the CCE-CORE services in that horizon year is 3,956. Thus, the number of individuals unable to obtain those services and needing a nursing home bed in that year will be 5,802. These people will need nursing home beds for an average length of stay of two and one-half years (national average). The current inventory of nursing home beds in Broward County, including approved but not built beds, is 3,089. When the existing inventory is subtracted from the number of needed beds, as computed by the Aging and Adult Services methodology, the net need is an additional 2,715. Thus, when Respondent's methodology for determining the need for nursing home beds in the absence of alternatives of CCE and CORE services is applied to Broward County for the year 1986, it yields a need for 2,715 beds in addition to existing and approved beds to accommodate the homebound and bedfast who will not receive those services. However, when Respondent's methodology in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is applied to Broward County for the year 1986 it yields a need for 1,419 beds in addition to existing and approved beds. Yet, when the theoretical prospective occupancy feature contained in that rule is applied to Broward County, only 101 beds are needed to be built in time for service in 1986. It is noteworthy that the formula used by Respondent to induce the Legislature to fund programs for the diversion of the elderly from nursing homes yields double the need for nursing home beds in Broward County in 1986 than use of the formula established by Respondent to evaluate applications for new nursing home beds. Schwartz identified the reason for the difference: The CCE funding formula takes into account those below the poverty level as well as those above the poverty level in determining the number of people who are at risk of institutionalization unless CCE services are provided. However, Respondent's bed need methodology uses a poverty ratio (number of impoverished in the county relative to number of impoverished in the state) to adjust the statewide standard of 27 beds per thousand downward to 15.5 beds per thousand in Broward County. Since the first part of the bed need methodology only measures nursing home bed need for the impoverished (by adjusting 27 beds per one thousand by a poverty ratio) while the formula used by Aging and Adult Services contemplates all persons at risk of institutionalization, whether impoverished or not, and since the Aging and Adult Services methodology yields a higher need figure, tie difference between the two figures must represent the extent to which private pay patients (not impoverished) are using, and will continue to use, nursing home beds in Broward County to the exclusion of Medicaid patients. Utilizing the first part of the bed need methodology, Respondent has determined that Broward County will need a total of 4,508 beds in 1986 and that, when licensed and approved beds are subtracted, 1,419 additional beds will be needed. However, the second part of the methodology which purports to determine the prospective utilization of nursing home beds limits the number of beds which can be added to 101. The premise behind the prospective utilization test is that the addition of more than 101 beds will result in the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County being reduced below 80 percent. Because of the particular situation existing in Broward County this premise is not valid. In November 1983, Richmond's newly-constructed Sunrise facility had 120 beds in service, but Respondent counted all 240 approved beds as being in service for determining its occupancy rate. These 240 beds were, therefore, occupied at a rate of 24.4 percent. In November 1982, the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County was 89.8 percent, while a year later after including all 240 licensed beds in Richmond's Sunrise facility, the occupancy rate had only fallen 3 points to 86.7 percent. Expert witness Schwartz concludes that if 240 beds can be added In Broward County and only drop the occupancy rate from 89.8 percent to 86.7 percent, then certainly more than 101 beds can be added before the occupancy rate will drop below 80 percent. He further concludes that when One examines what actually happened in Broward County rather than what could theoretically happen, the prospective utilization test may well be a valid predictor of future occupancy rates under normal circumstances, but it fails to be in Broward County. Rather, Schwartz concluded that approximately 1,000 nursing home beds can be added in Broward County without lowering the occupancy rate below 80. Expert witness Theodore Foti explained the effect of Respondent's bed need methodology when applied to Broward County. The methodology is based on the premise that the only people who need nursing homes in Florida are the impoverished since the standard 27 beds per one thousand is adjusted only by the poverty ratio. However, nursing home providers prefer private patients because they pay more. In Broward County there are facilities that only accept private pay patients. The provider receives about 25 percent more profit than he would if he had two individuals to care for in the same room when the difference between private and semi-private rates and the decrease in staffing that is possible with the lesser number of patients are taken into consideration. Because of the shortage of supply and the ever-growing demand in Broward County, it is economically beneficial to a 60 bed nursing home for example to take 20 beds out of service and operate with 40 beds because the owner can increase the rates and lower the costs simultaneously. According to Foti, a review of the occupancy rates in Broward County shows that beds in certain facilities have been taken out of use over a period of time by those facilities. Those providers have chosen to serve primarily the private paying individual since it is to their financial benefit to do so. The corresponding result is that the demand for nursing home beds by the medicaid recipient cannot be satisfied because the private pay patient has "squeezed out" the Medicaid patient. The existence of this phenomena in Broward County rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance since Respondent uses a formula to prescribe prospective occupancy rates which are directly controlled by the number of beds that the existing owners place in service or take out of service. Considering the "private pay phenomena" in Broward County, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in Broward County is the lowest in the state, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in the state is the lowest in the country, Foti calculates a need currently in Broward County to be an additional 800 beds as a minimum figure even without considering the DRG regulations which clearly will accentuate that need. Respondent's witness Porter acknowledged that Respondent would look favorably upon applications for Certificates of Need for additional beds in an area where indications are that Medicaid patients are being denied access to beds although Respondent's bed need methodology simultaneously shows that no new beds are needed. He explained that as an extenuating circumstance if there is evidence that a particular population group is being denied access and that Respondent would look favorably upon applications proposing substantial Medicaid beds (such as those under consideration herein) if accessibility for Medicaid clients is limited. He further acknowledged that the Medicaid program office of the division of Adult and Aging Services would be an appropriate authority upon which he would rely in making such a determination. He further acknowledged that the accessibility to Medicaid beds would be increased in Broward County by issuing Certificates of Need with a Medicaid bed condition attached to them since the Medicaid utilization rate has been increasing in Broward County even though the total number of beds has remained constant. Lynn Raichelson as the supervisor of Respondent's Adult Payments Unit for Broward County is responsible for gathering data reflecting the number of people placed in Medicaid beds during the month in Broward County for Medicaid payment purposes. Both her reports admitted in evidence and her testimony at the final hearing noted an overall difficulty in finding placements in Broward County for Medicaid patients. Her reports indicate a number of entries where all Broward County and Dade County nursing homes were contacted but there were no nursing home beds available. The number of days for placement ranged from 23 to in excess of 83 days. Most of the patients were in acute care hospital beds while awaiting nursing home beds. Several health care professionals testified as to the actual need in Broward County as opposed to the projected need based upon Respondent's mathematical formula. One hospital administrator had no problem placing private pay patients but found that Medicaid placements are extremely difficult to make in Broward County. His hospital alone holds 8 to 12 patients on any given day who should have been discharged into a nursing home. The executive director of the North Broward Hospital District which encompasses three hospitals encounters difficulty in placing Medicaid and Medicare patients in nursing homes in Broward County since the nursing homes are at full operational occupancy. Approximately 25 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals in the District are referred to and placed in nursing homes. Of this 25 percent, the District encounters difficulty in placing 10 to 15 percent of the patients. The problems persist year round but are especially difficult during the winter "peak" season. Alan Mahar is the administrator of the Primary Health Care Division of the Health and Public Safety Department for Broward County. He was the supervisor of nursing home placement from 1975 to 1981 when Broward County was making nursing home placements. Between June 1981 and September 1983 he participated in a Medicaid demonstration project called Pentastar which was sponsored by Respondent's District 10 Aging and Adult Program Office. The purpose of the project was to determine if an alternative existed to keep persons out of nursing homes. An important part of the program was the identification of persons aged 60 and over who were potentially at risk of being placed into a nursing home within one year. Those enrolled in the program had to qualify for Medicaid payments. Although he expected he would need to interview approximately 300 to find 150 persons for the program, everyone he interviewed qualified. At the conclusion of the program, none of the persons who received services through pentastar were any less at risk than they were before those services commenced. Services under that program terminated in September 1983. Since Broward County does not have a publicly operated nursing home, Mahar experienced extreme difficulty in placing Medicaid patients and found that it frequently took weeks and sometimes months to find an available nursing home bed for a Medicaid patient. Mahar's opinion that there is not a sufficient number of beds available to Medicaid patients in Broward County is also based on his identification of the trend over the last three years he has been involved in auditing Medicaid matching funds. The money which Broward County has been paying for hospital care for Medicaid persons has almost doubled in the last three years, while the Medicaid match money for nursing home care has gone up only 15 or 20 percent during that same period. The poverty ratio included in Respondent's bed need formula results in an underestimation of bed need for wealthy counties such as Broward County where the majority of nursing home patients are private pay patients. Broward County is the wealthiest county in the state and has the lowest Medicaid usage in the state. The poverty ratio results in a calculated bed-need ratio in Broward County of 15.5 beds per thousand whereas the statewide need ratio is 27 beds per thousand. There is overwhelming competent substantial evidence to show an actual need for community nursing home beds in Broward County currently and in 1986 for in excess of the 780 beds Petitioners collectively seek herein. Substantial competent evidence was presented to show several special circumstances, and respondent's sole witness acknowledged that one of those was sufficient for the grant of all applications filed by the four Petitioners in this cause. The overwhelming need proven herein was uncontroverted by Respondent, and the special circumstances prohibit Respondent from applying the bed need methodology in Broward County at this time. In view of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, there is no need to determine which of the applicants herein is best qualified for the award of the 101 beds in issue in this cause. Additionally, the evidence in this record is insufficient to proclaim any of the applicants to be best qualified. At the final hearing there were a few attempts at a comparative analysis, and none was credible. The attempts at comparative analysis simply resulted in a further substantiation of the fact that all of the applicants are equally qualified. Respondent's witness gave his personal opinion that one of the applicants was preferable but was unable to assign any weight to any of the factors utilized in reaching that individual opinion. Rather, the one factor that he did testify to at length in the hearing as the most important - accessibility by Medicaid patients - was the one item that that applicant would not guarantee. HCR's application for the 101 beds indicated that it would not commit to the number of Medicaid patients that it would serve. In short, the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented provide very little basis, if any, for choosing one applicant over another. Rather, all applicants meet all criteria, and the need for the number of beds originally requested clearly exists.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Granting to Richmond Healthcare, Inc. a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America a Certificate of Need 120 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Quest Corporation a Certificate of Need for 180 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; and Granting to Federal Property Management a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire 1107 South East Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jean Laramore, Esquire and Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1568 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 464 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
The Issue The issues raised concern the questions of whether Manor Care should be entitled to the grant of a certificate of need for the addition of 31 nursing home beds to its existing facility which presently houses 89 beds, in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV, and whether All Saints should be granted permission to transfer its existing 60 bed nursing home facility from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV by grant of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact HRS is the regulatory agency responsible for reviewing applications submitted for purpose of obtaining permission to provide various forms of health care in Florida. This includes nursing home care. Consideration of the applications is given in accordance with Sections 381.701 - 381.715, Florida Administrative Code. Those sections are known as the "Health Facility and Services Development Act." A successful application leads to the grant of a certificate of need issued by HRS evidencing need for a new or expanded health care facility or service in the given community. In these cases two applicants have requested the grant of a certificate of need for nursing home beds. Those applicants are All Saints Nursing, which wishes to relocate or transfer a 60 bed facility in Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV to Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. The CON action number related to that application is No. 4956. Manor Care, which presently has an 89 bed facility in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV, wishes to add 31 additional beds. The CON action number for the Manor Care request is No. 4952. The two applications described were reviewed by HRS in the same cycle. As a consequence, they have been considered in the hearing de novo comparatively, the possibility existing that there is insufficient need for the addition of nursing home beds to meet the requirements of both applicants. In its initial assessment of this case and statement of decision, HRS favored the grant of a certificate of need to All Saints and denied the Manor Care application. Manor Care made a timely request to challenge the grant of the certificate of need to All Saints and to the denial of its request for certificate of need. Likewise, Mandarin Manor has timely opposed the grant of a certificate of need to All Saints and timely intervened in the case related to Manor Care's challenge to the denial of its requested certificate of need. Mandarin Manor is an existing nursing home facility in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV and gains its standing to participate in this action by that reality. Mandarin Manor will be substantially affected if the applications are approved for the addition of nursing home beds to Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Both applicants and Mandarin Manor are specifically referred in the certificate of need process as "skilled nursing facilities" as defined in Section 381.702(17), Florida Statutes. The rationale for the preliminary choices of HRS concerning the intent to grant the certificate of need to All Saints and to deny Manor Care was that All Saints is presently housed within a facility whose physical state is such that it no longer suffices and needs to be replaced and can be replaced in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV at low cost through an arrangement which affords increased access to the support system of the diocese of the Catholic Church in this area, whereas the numeric need formula found within Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, for the pertinent planning horizon of January 19, 1990, shows a surplus of community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV and would not allow the grant of beds to Manor Care. In essence, the All Saints situation is seen as an exceptional circumstance which in the analysis made by HRS warrants the grant of certificate of need. Manor Care's request, according to HRS, is not so compelling and without demonstrated need through the use of the formula for deriving projected need may not be favorably responded to. The question of need as it involves the two applicants will be discussed more comprehensively in subsequent findings in this recommended order. THE ALL SAINTS APPLICATION The All Saints application dates from January, 1987. All Saints is located in the downtown area of Jacksonville, Florida within Subdistrict 2 of HRS IV. It sits back about 250 feet from Riverside Avenue and has a parking area that accommodates 25 to 30 cars. All Saints is owned and controlled by the Catholic Church through the Bishop of the Diocese of St. Augustine which is a corporate entity under Florida law. The facility itself is very old and its inner spaces are very confining. The facility is located on property one and one-half acres in size and is bordered by Riverside Avenue and the St. Johns River on two sides and other enterprises on the remaining sides. Ingress and egress to the facility is awkward. Parking is a problem in that two hospital parking lots are located nearby All Saints. Those parking lots are associated with Riverside Hospital. As a consequence, it makes it difficult to find parking at All Saints because of utilization patterns by persons visiting the hospital. In addition, the All Saints parking lot, even if available for visitors to that facility alone is inadequate. The size of the site of the present facility precludes outdoor activities for patients. Given the age of the facility, a significant amount of capital budget or operating expenses have been devoted to capital improvements and repairs routinely since 1981. One problem within the facility concerns the location of the nurses station. It is located in the center of the facility in a design in which the patient wings run to the east and west from that nursing station. This thwarts the attempts of the nurses to observe the patient rooms from the nursing station. The nursing home has problems with its ceilings and does not have a fire sprinkling system. 16, The corridors within the nursing home are confining, creating problems for the transport of patients in and out of their rooms and providing difficulty for the staff to render care. The kitchen area is inadequate and needs to be replaced. The windows in the facility are an old style crank-out type which cannot be replaced and, given their poor state of repair, provide problems with heating and cooling in the patient rooms. The laundry area is very small and the laundry cannot be divided into soiled and clean areas. The roof over the west wing has numerous leaks and a decision must be reached soon on replacing the roof. Problems exist with the plumbing at the nursing home. Problems exist with the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, leading to an expenditure of $52,000.00 in 1986 to build a new generator and cooling tower for the air conditioning system. Replacement parts for some of the system are unavailable due to the age of the system. The patient rooms generally present problems with heating and cooling due to the age of the facility. The kitchen hood is in a state of disrepair. The electrical system presents problems, among them the fact that only one switch is available to turn on the emergency generator if emergency lighting were to be needed. The better arrangement is to have two switches. A problem is presented in that the receiving room is outside of the physical space of the facility. The patient rooms are confining. The hot water system has broken down at times causing the hot water temperature to exceed allowable limits. The problems that are being described are not such as to cause the decertification of the facility or to place the license of the facility in jeopardy, in that the facility has been "grandfathered" in terms of the need to comply with code requirements related to the items described. An architectural survey conducted at the facility led to the conclusion that an expansion within this facility is not practical. In addition to the price of the purchase of air conditioning, between 1982 and 1986 the nursing home has spent $60,000 to replace stoves, refrigerators and a freezer unit in the kitchen, and approximately $22,000 to put a new roof on the east wing. Other refurbishments have also been made. The nature of the physical plant is as such to interfere with the care rendered to the patients; however, the facility has afforded quality care to its patient in spite of these impediments. In particular, the spatial inadequacies have made it difficult to provide physical, speech and occupational therapies and for the nurses to carry out some of their duties. The circumstances of the physical plant have interfered to some extent with the ability to recruit and keep staff members and at times to attract patients, although the occupancy rates at the facility have remained high. The license of the nursing home has never been revoked. In the years 1984 and 1985 the facility had a superior rating. In 1985, for a period of 35 days, the hot water problem caused the superior rating to be downgraded to conditional. In 1986 the facility received a standard rating due to a combination of problems within the physical plant, as to the layout of the kitchen, and the menu selection. On the dates of the hearing the facility had a superior rating. The gravest concerns about the physical plant have to do with patient safety, especially as it relates to not having a sprinkler system and the size of doors within corridors, and diverse floor finishes. If the facility were to attempt to gain compliance with present codes, the cost would be approximately $500,000. In this connection, if more than fifty percent of the value of the building was expended in making these upgrades, it would be necessary to bring the entire building into compliance with the current codes and this may not be done because the corridors are not subject to those corrections, given their design. Under the circumstances, to bring the nursing home into compliance the better choice would be to construct a new home. By constructing a new home the defects could be cured. HRS has concluded, in its review of the application, that the construction of a new home is the most cost effective solution to remedy the problems. In the face of the problems described, All Saints hired architects who are expert in nursing home design and had them evaluate the possibility of using the existing structure and property for improving the situation and alternatives at other locations for the construction of a new facility. In particular, the alternatives under consideration included: Vertical expansion of the existing facility. Horizontal expansion within the existing facility. Constructing a new facility at a new site. Acquiring additional property at the existing site. Completely demolishing the existing facility and reconstructing a new two story home at the current site. In examining the idea of the demolition of the existing facility, while it was considered to be advantageous in that it would allow the facility to remain near existing hospitals and existing staffing patterns, the disadvantages related to inadequate size of the lot were felt to outweigh the advantages and that alternative was discarded. The idea of keeping the current facility and building and bringing on an additional home with additional beds at a new site was not deemed feasible because two nursing homes could not be operated with one central administration. The idea of construction or renovation within the facility and the employment of a parking garage as part of this revitalization was felt not to be cost effective and was further hindered in that the construction would have presented additional burdens in providing patient care in the construction phase. Renovation to add a second floor presented the same sorts of problems. The purchase of additional property for expansion is not easily available and was considered to be too expensive, nor was the purchase of additional parking within the general area of the facility felt to be within a suitable price range. Eventually the provider decided that the best choice for the provider was to relocate and undertake new construction, this being the most cost efficient choice in providing the best opportunity for the delivery of quality care. With this relocation it hopes to gain a state of the art design of the facility. To this end it went about finding a site and examined several properties belonging to the diocese of St. Augustine. In looking at these properties the size of the land, the general location, the effect on safety of patients and the proximity of a Catholic church were matters of importance to the provider. Two of the sites which were examined were located within Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV. One of those sites was Dunn Avenue. While considered to be large enough, it was not felt to be acceptable because of the volume of commercial traffic on that road. The Dunn Avenue facility is between five and one- half acres and six acres of land 10 miles from the current facility. A site known as St. Catherine's presented approximately three acres of property. In addition to believing that the acreage was inadequate the selection committee was concerned that a church was not on the site and it did not have adequate utilities available. The St. Catherine's location would provide sufficient acreage for the 60 bed nursing facility, even though not considered adequate for the proposal for the nursing facility and a 60 bed Adult Congregate Living Facility planned to be part of the project. An additional site owned by the St. Augustine Diocese that was examined was located near Bishop Kenny High School, a Catholic high school which had about four acres of property available. It was felt to be inadequate in size and to be too near a main thoroughfare. Finally, the site which was chosen as being the best alternative was a site known as San Jose in Duval County which is in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV . It has a campus type environment and is nearby the second or third oldest established Catholic church in the area, The San Jose Parish. It is located in a residential area. It makes available approximately eight acres out of a total acreage of approximately 13 to 14 acres. It has a church school on the location. This arrangement would also be more beneficial to the applicant in installing a 60 bed Adult Congregate Living Facility as well as the relocation of its 60 nursing home beds at the same facility in the San Jose area. As stated, justification for locating in San Jose was urged because of the proximity to the Catholic church. In this connection only 40 percent of the present patient population in the facility is Catholic and the Catholic percentage of population has declined in recent years. If built, the facility would be a one story facility. Given the acreage available, it will allow for outside activities in a setting which is not interfered with by heavy traffic conditions. The patients who are presently residing in the Riverside Avenue facility will be allowed to move to the new location at their election. The new facility would provide a kiln room, physical therapy and a multipurpose room. It provides a better dining area and a secured courtyard area with a gazebo. The nurses station would be in the center of patient wings designed to allow observation of all corridors and to supervise the patients. It would also have a separate medicine preparation room. Overall, the construction would remedy the problems inherent in the present facility. The facility would have 24,000 square feet. The square footage per patient in the new home would be approximately 400, with a cost of construction of $65.00 per square foot. The total project cost is estimated at $2,117,000.00. The construction and total project cost of this plant are reasonable. The equipment is adequate and no leased or donated equipment will be required at the new home. No question has been raised concerning the schematics of the replacement facility. Should All Saints select property not already owned by the St. Augustine Diocese this would increase the project costs. In this regard, the possibility of selling the existing property would offset to some extent the purchase price of new property for relocation to a new site. In effect, if All Saints relocated, the value of the real property on which the CON facility is located now is approximately $1.2 million, which would be available to defray the expense of the purchase price of property if they were unable to use property already owned by the St. Augustine Diocese. The occupancy at All Saints at the time of the hearing was at 100 percent with 55 percent of those patients being private pay and 45 percent Medicaid. The estimate of the applicant concerning its first year of operation of a new home would be expected at 97 to 98 percent, with 50 percent private pay, 45 percent Medicaid and 5 percent Medicare. Between 1985 and 1986, the home averaged about 99 to 100 percent occupancy. Projected utilization within the new nursing home facility was based on the assumption that utilization historically having been 99 to 100 percent, it would not drop dramatically upon relocation. No specific surveys have been conducted to ascertain whether the present patients would transfer to the new location. Nonetheless, given the constituency of the patient population within the present facility, it would not be unexpected to see a substantial number of those patients relocate to the new facility. This does not address the death rate of that very elderly population and trying to determine who the new patients might be by age cohort and where they might come from. The average age of the residents at All Saints approaches 90 years and within the typical year approximately one third of the patient population changes. All Saints has referral agreements from St. Vincent's Medical Center and Riverside Hospital. They would maintain these referral agreements on relocation and would hope to make agreements with new hospitals after relocation, to include St. Luke's Hospital which is located in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Although St. Luke's will continue their referral agreements with Riverside and St. Vincent's, In all likelihood, according to All Saints, it does not expect this to be an active referral agreement given the distances between those facilities and the new site location for All Saints. Any arrangement with St. Luke's Hospital for referral has yet to be consummated. Patient charges at the nursing home are $53.00 per day for room and board without regard for whether a patient is located in a 2, 3 or 4 bed room. Upon relocation it is expected that the charge would be $65.00 per day in the first year regardless of type of payor, with a $70.00 charge in the second year. The patient origin at present is from within Duval County, Florida where the nursing home is located and from surrounding counties and to some extent other areas within the state. The applicant does not expect that this circumstance would change with relocation. At present 50 percent approximately of the patients in the facility have been referred from St. Vincent's and Riverside Hospitals. At present 30 to 35 percent of the patients in the facility are residents from inside Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV and approximately 30 to 35 percent of the current residents are from Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Based upon a patient origin study of 1983 and updates to that study, there appears to be an equitable distribution of the existing patients in terms of origins throughout Duval County. About a third of those patients came from Subdistrict 3 and about 30 to 40 percent from Subdistrict 2 within HRS District IV. The remaining patients came from other parts of Duval County and throughout the state. All Saints has assumed that there is no primary detriment for All Saints in terms of patient origins which is associated with the location of the facility and cites a patient origin study done by the local health planning council referencing or containing a statement that said that religiously oriented facilities were less subject to geographic areas of concentration of their patients than would be the case for other facilities. Given the trends in All Saints away from the number of Catholic patients, it is not concluded that All Saints is necessarily one of the religiously oriented facilities spoken of. Upon reflection, the information presented concerning patient origin's for the present All Saints facility affords limited insight in trying to ascertain the patient origin for a relocated facility and the anticipated occupancy rates associated with that information. From the record these projections cannot be satisfactorily determined. There have also been admissions to All Saints from Baptist Hospital, St. Luke's Hospital and Orange Park Hospital. Currently the nursing home has 55 employees on staff and would not expect to add additional staff for the nursing home component if allowed to relocate. The turnover rate in nursing staff has been low and the nursing home has generally been able to fill vacancies. The nursing salaries compare favorably with salaries for nurses in the Jacksonville area. The new facility would take approximately one year to construct. The desire to move from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV is more related to a business choice than to health planning. Notwithstanding this fact, the underlying reason for relocation is to escape the conditions that exist within the inadequate physical plant that now serves the patients. The local health plan that was in effect at the time of the All Saints application, and which is to be applied, recommends that modernization or replacement of an existing nursing home be made within the same general geographic area. That is not seen as being a recommendation which would contemplate separate subdistricts as being within the same general geographic area. It is taken to mean replacement within the same subdistrict, although HRS seems to hold a contrary viewpoint about the term "general geographic area." In its preliminary assessment and preference for All Saints, HRS felt that the replacement facility was a low cost alternative and was struck by the fact that the replacement would increase access to the support of the St. Augustine Diocese and she organizations within the Catholic Church. Although the present facility is not on the immediate grounds of a Catholic Church, there is no contention that it has not received the support needed from that church. As alluded to before, All Saints has made a commitment to make services available to the underserved patients such as Medicaid and indigent care patients. Being a religiously affiliated nursing home and not-for-profit has allowed All Saints to make more of an effort to serve the medically underserved groups. If relocated, All Saints would continue this effort. Having been in existence since 1956, All Saints is considered as having existed for a long time as a health care system. A new physical plant would improve the competitive standing of All Saints in the marketplace. Among observations by HRS in its analysis of the application, it felt that All Saints would conform to needs and policies and priorities within the district plan and concluded that All Saints could increase availability and access to services while improving quality of care, efficiency, and adequacy of services to be provided. Its opinion is correct with the exception of availability and access which criteria are being satisfied at present in the facility and in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. HRS principally justified its opinion of the need for certificate of need based upon the structural deficiencies of the physical plant at All Saints. HRS believed in its review that the All Saints proposal would be consistent with plans for providing and financing long-term care. All Saints could provide long-term care at the new facility and can finance the venture. The purpose of the Adult Congregate Living Facility component of the new facility would be to speak to what all Saints considers as being necessary for three retirement centers around the area in addressing the independent living stage before nursing home care is indicated. THE MANOR CARE APPLICATION The Manor Care application was made in January, 1987. Manor Care is the fifth largest provider of long-term care beds in the United States. It owns approximately 104 nursing homes in 22 separate states. Nine of those nursing homes are located in Florida. At present, Manor Care has an 89 bed nursing home located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, within Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. That facility holds a superior license rating and has maintained that rating over the past five years. At the time of the hearing the occupancy rates for Manor Care were at 95 percent. The addition of the 31 beds sought for approval would bring the facility to 120 beds. If allowed this increase in beds, the addition would complement the range of long-term care services being offered at the existing facility, to include skilled nursing services, rehabilitative therapy, intermediate nursing care, respite care, and community outreach. The patients in the additional beds would be provided homelike residential surroundings, with well balanced nutritional meals, diversity in recreational programs, entertainment, and rehabilitative services. Each individual would be the subject of a planned rehabilitative program. The project contemplates a full range of restorative therapies through a full-time therapeutic staff and fully equipped therapy units. The addition contemplates the expansion of the number of Medicaid beds available in the community. The proposal, in addition to the 31 bed increase, would eliminate 3 bed rooms and provide additional therapy space for existing residents. With the increase in beds to 120 operational efficiencies would improve. The total project cost of Manor Care's proposal is $1, 436,267. Manor Care projects an occupancy level at 65 percent in year one and 95 percent in year two. This evaluation is premised upon typical start-up occupancy rates experienced in several of Manor Care's facilities opened in the last five years. In year one, Manor Care anticipates the addition to provide 35 percent of Medicaid patients days and 65 percent of private pay patient days. Manor Care hopes to have the new beds available for occupancy by June 1990. HRS REVIEW CRITERIA INCLUDING NUMERIC NEED Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, establish the review criteria that HRS utilizes in assessing nursing home applications. Among those criteria are ones which examine availability of services, quality of care, and cost of providing services. Another item prominent in this inquiry concerns the basic issue of the need for those services by way of deciding if additions should be made to the beds in the inventory in the pertinent service area. That service area in these cases is Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. The question of need constitutes the pivotal issue in this dispute. Rule 1O-17.016(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, designates Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV to consist of St. Johns County and that portion of Duval County which lies south and east of the St. Johns River. This is distinguished from Subdistrict 2 within HRS District IV identified in Rule 10- 17.016(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which includes southwestern Duval County. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, when applied to derive any need for the planning horizon in this case, January 1990, related to community nursing home beds reveals that Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV will have a surplus of 72 beds at that juncture. This number is a product of the use of the needs calculation formula. The use of that rule is more comprehensively described in HRS exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. By contrast, the use of that formula demonstrates a net need in Subdistrict 2 for 278 additional beds in January 1990. Within the calculation related to need for the planning horizon for Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV are beds approved for and attributed to Beverly Gulfcoast of Florida, 100 beds pursuant to CON No. 2732; to Florida Convalescent Center, 106 beds pursuant to CON No. 2969; and to River Garden Hebrew Home, 180 beds pursuant to CON No. 4678. These beds related to those three entities are felt by Manor Care to be inappropriately included within the need calculation for Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV at the January 1990 planning horizon. Thus, according to Manor Care, it was inappropriate for HRS to reject its request for the grant of a certificate of need in that when the aforementioned beds are excluded the formula identifies a need for additional beds at the planning horizon. The Manor Care assertion that the previously described approved beds within Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV should not be included in calculating need is rejected. To begin with, Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code, identifies that the Department would not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in a service district if approval of that application would cause the number of community nursing home beds to exceed the number derived through the use of the needs formula. To acquiesce in the choice of Manor Care would cause the number of beds to further exceed those calculations in a subdistrict in which a surplus already exists by the use of the formula. Additionally, Manor Care dose not vie for the exception to need calculation as announced at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. This latter provision deals with the granting of a certificate of need based upon exceptional circumstances related to problems of accessibility to nursing home services within the subdistrict. Nor do any of the beds associated with those three aforementioned entities fall into the category of Christian Science nursing home beds which are deleted or excluded from the inventory of beds in calculating need. In essence, Manor Care is desirous of putting in place its own explanation of entitlement to the granting of a certificate of need outside the rule formula which has been promulgated to examine that issue and this is not allowed. All Saints has made that attempt as well but for reasons which are different and will be described subsequently. On the topic of the Beverly beds, HRS in its assessment of the certificate of need applications under consideration in this instance felt that those Beverly beds should be counted in the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV . Counsel, in the course of the hearing in these cases, did not see fit to ask HRS witnesses why they had made that determination and no reason is stated in this record through written pronouncements made by HRS and offered and admitted as evidence. Nonetheless, Manor Care has attempted to depart from the choice expressed by HRS and bore the burden of explaining the flaw in the HRS logic without ever having sought the explanation from HRS. In this regard, Manor Care pointed out that the certificate of need given to Beverly was under a scheme in which Duval County constituted a sole subdistrict. Consequently, Beverly was given a certificate of need which would allow the placement of that 100 bed nursing home facility in any location within Duval County. By contrast, at the time of the cases that are examined in this dispute, parts of Duval County were found in Subdistricts 1, 2, and 3 to HRS District IV. Under those circumstances Manor Care did not believe it was appropriate to carry the 100 beds as approved in inventory in Subdistrict 3 alone. Instead it indicated that no portion of those beds should be attributed to Subdistrict 3, thereby subtracting the entire 100 bed complement from the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict 3 for purposes of utilizing the formula to calculate need. Manor Care, through its presentation on February 15-17, 1988, which constitutes the hearing de novo for considering this dispute, urged that in examining HRS records no determination could be made as to Beverly's choice of sites for construction of the facility and this led Manor Care to its argument set forth in the preceding paragraph. As with the circumstance of failing to ask HRS why it sought to carry the 100 beds in the inventory for Subdistrict 3, Manor Care did not inquire of Beverly concerning where it would place its facility and promote that explanation in the course of the hearing session described in this paragraph. Moreover, an examination of the Manor Care exhibit 4 admitted into evidence, information pertaining to the Beverly application, contains correspondence by signature of E. G. Boone, Esquire, counsel to Beverly, in Certificate of Need No. 2732, in response to Herbert E. Straughn, medical facilities consultant for HRS. In the reply to the Straughn letter of July 28, 1982, also found in the composite exhibit 4, attorney Boone states that Beverly, though it has not signed a contract for the purchase of a site in Duval County, will be locating in south Jacksonville near St. Luke's Hospital. St. Luke's Hospital is in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. As a consequence although no one found it necessary to ask HRS why it would attribute the beds to Subdistrict 3 or ask Beverly, this correspondence tends to offer justification for the HRS choice of inventory location and suffices as an explanation. The River Garden Hebrew Home, and its 180 beds, is primarily intended to be a Jewish nursing home having in mind an attempt to meet the needs of that community for nursing home services. This is not to say that the nursing home would refuse to serve non-Jewish patients. River Garden had been granted a certificate of need to transfer from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV in recent times. So recent, in fact, that the patients still reside in Subdistrict 2 and the 192 beds that are involved in the River Garden facility in Subdistrict 2 are shown as licensed beds in the inventory for that subdistrict, although in view of their pending relocation to Subdistrict 3, the 192 beds had been subtracted from the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict This information is found in HRS exhibit 1 admitted into evidence along with the 180 beds approved to be transferred to Subdistrict 3. The relocation of beds was without regard for the numeric needs formula. It was attributable to a sociological premise pertaining to River Garden's service to the Jewish community. This special circumstance approach to allowing beds for Jewish nursing homes notwithstanding use of the numeric need formula has been carried forward in Palm Beach County in several other Jewish nursing facilities. Nonetheless, HRS has consistently depicted those nursing home beds for Jewish nursing homes in the overall inventory as it has generally done following the granting of a certificate of need based upon exceptional circumstances. To carry forward this policy choice with the River Garden beds as they affect the question of need in the present cases would be to act consistently. No compelling reason has been given for departing from that approach. As an alternative theory, Manor Care has expressed the belief that only 79 of the 180 beds for River Garden should be counted in the approved bed inventory. The theory here is that the state agency action report which approved the River Garden relocation noted that if River Garden was allowed to relocate from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3, the effect of that move should be taken into account for later batched applicants. Neither the HRS staff nor the local planning council has suggested the out and out exclusion of the 180 beds for River Garden from the Subdistrict 3 inventory of approved beds as Manor Care urges. Whatever the perceptions held in the HRS staff review, the ultimate portrayal of the River Garden beds is as expressed in the HRS exhibit 1 in which an essentially zero balance is attempted in describing the River Garden beds in Subdistrict 2 and those beds are shown as a net increase in Subdistrict 3. In summary, it is not available to the present parties to relitigate the question of the granting of a certificate of need to River Garden for relocation, and the inclusion of those beds through the inventory is consistent with previous practices and it has not been shown that HRS acted unreasonably in counting all beds in the inventory of approved beds for Subdistrict 3, as opposed to only 79 beds. Next, Manor Care expresses the belief that the Florida Convalescent Center beds, 106 in number, should not be included in the approved bed count because that entity meets the requirements of the so-called Health Quest Amendment set forth in Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes, which states: VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATE OF NEED--A certificate of need issued by the department for nursing home facilities of 100 beds or more prior to February 14, 1986, is valid, provided that such facility has expended at least $50,000 in reliance upon such certificate of need, excluding legal fees, prior to the initiation of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act subsequent to February 14, 1986, contesting the validity of the certificate of need. If such nursing home certificate of need includes beds that have not yet been licensed as of June 17, 1987, such beds shall not be considered or utilized in the determination of need or included in the inventory of licensed or approved nursing home beds by the department, with respect to applications filed before June 17, 1987. This subsection shall only apply to nursing home beds. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to deny action pursuant to s. 120.69, or to eliminate any conditions of the certificate of need or time requirements to commence construction, including any authorized extensions. As contended, a certificate of need was issued for Florida Convalescent Center to construct a nursing home facility of 100 more beds and that certificate issued prior to February 14, 1986. On the other hand, sufficient proof was not offered that it had expended at least $50,000 in reliance upon that certificate to exclude legal fees prior to the initiation of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act, such action taking place subsequent to February 14, 1986, and designed to contest the validity of the certificate of need issued to Florida Convalescent Centers. Methodist Regional Hospital System, Inc. d/b/a Methodist Manor Nursing Home, by petition of March 7, 1985, had challenged the grant of a certificate of need to Florida Convalescent Center for the project related to that latter corporation. However, that action was prior to February 14, 1986, and cannot satisfy that condition of Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes, which makes it incumbent that the challenge come about subsequent to February 14, 1986. A further challenge was offered by the Forum Group, Inc., designed to oppose the granting of the certificate of need to Florida Convalescent Center. Although this petition occurred after February 14, 1986, it was ruled to be untimely. A final order was entered to that effect by HRS. See HRS exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Under those circumstances, the Forum Group, Inc., challenge is not seen as being the type of petitioner initiated in challenge to the Florida Convalescent Center certificate of need application which is contemplated under the terms of Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes. It is not necessary to further examine the requirements set forth in that statute for determining whether the 106 beds for Florida Convalescent Center should be excluded from the inventory. Based upon the problems with this theory already identified, they should not be. In examining the All Saints proposal, it does not rely on demonstrated need through use of the formula. Furthermore, there is no specific reference to the accessibility exception found within Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. It is not a case in which exception from the use of the formula is urged based upon the rationalization in the River Garden circumstance of the transfer of beds from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV to accommodate a religious community. It is a circumstance which is best described as being one in which HRS believes that there are compelling reasons to abandon the physical plant that now houses all Saints and wherein HRS is willing to allow this transfer across subdistrict lines to accomplish that outcome, with some regard being afforded for placement near a Catholic church. The approval contemplated for All Saints is one which necessarily recognizes the economic advantage of All Saints in which it Is allowed to locate at a place that does not include the purchase of property and to have available the opportunity to sell property that it now holds at which the All Saints physical plant is found. The supervising health planning consultant for HRS who is the principal advisor to the agency concerning the All Saints application, Reid Jaffe, gave testimony at hearing. He appears to think that the placement of the new facility in Subdistrict 3 would be activity in the same service area, assuming that a certificate of need is issued and construction takes place and that patients within the facility would be transferred to the new facility. As described before, the exact number of patients to be transferred is not known and even if they all transferred, the focus of this case contemplates future planning and more particularly, future planning within Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV and information about future patients is sketchy. This realization, taken together with a higher turnover rate of patients within the All Saints facility, puts to question whether the service area as spoken to by the local planning council of Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 can be considered as being synonymous. As already stated, this would not appear to be a reasonable construction and Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 are found to be discrete service areas. While the All Saints relocation does not increase beds within the district, it does increase beds at the subdistrict level which is the level of bed assignment within HRS District IV. As such, the relocation is tantamount to the promotion of a new certificate of need within Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. Having chosen the alternative that it did, All Saints is not entitled to the exception to application for certificate of need for replacement on its existing land. Although HRS concedes that it would have been less complicated if All Saints had rebuilt its nursing home in Subdistrict 2, no particular inquiry was conducted to follow up on this observation and HRS does not feel that it could mandate that All Saints rebuild in Subdistrict 2. Basically, the applicant did not feel that Subdistrict 2 was a viable alternative and HRS did not press the point with the applicant, leaving the case in a posture wherein consideration of Subdistrict 2 is excluded. On the whole, it would seem that HRS looked favorably upon the All Saints application because of the basic impression that it would improve quality of care and that the building most assuredly needs to be replaced. HRS further concedes that its ideas about intra- district transfer of nursing home beds is not firm and the approach to examining these requests is case by case, with close scrutiny being given to each request in this respect. By response, even though HRS was thorough in its acquisition of information about the proposed project, it has failed to justify its choice. While the local health plan applicable at the time of the applications under question tended to identify a lesser ratio of beds per thousand elderly in Subdistrict 2 when compared to the ratio statewide, this does not appear to be the justification for movement from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 expressed either by the applicant All Saints or HRS and there is still the problem of bringing beds into a surplus situation in Subdistrict 3. Although Subdistrict 3 has a somewhat lower ratio of beds per elderly population, in contrast both Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 have relatively high occupancy rates. Regardless of the result of comparing Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 in the terms expressed in this paragraph, the fact remains that in keeping the beds in Subdistrict 2, the status quo remains and to move them to Subdistrict 3 would promote a significant change in the status quo contrary to established procedures for determining need. The change in the makeup of the patient population at All Saints in the direction of less Catholic patients has been conceded by HRS in the course of the hearing as diminishing the value of having the nursing home installed near the support systems of the Catholic church. Generally, HRS concedes that it is not advantageous to transfer beds from what, by the need calculation, is an underbedded condition in Subdistrict 2 and into an over-bedded subdistrict, and that to do so would have a short-term adverse competitive impact on existing providers such as Mandarin Manor. All Saints, while improving the quality of care in its transfer for patients in its facility, would not be responding to any need for the improvement of quality of care that now exists within the Subdistrict 3 or cost effectiveness or other criteria related to that subdistrict which criteria are used in deciding whether to grant a certificate of need. On balance, the opportunity afforded All Saints is contrary to basic policy within the statutes and rules under which HRS considers the granting of a certificate of need and the explanation for allowing this arrangement on this occasion is insufficient. There is no question that All Saints needs a new facility, but to allow it to transfer its facility from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 for what are principally economic reasons, when this arrangement is contrary to established health planning principles is wrong. It is the local plan in existence at the time the applications were filed that is controlling. Both applicants have problems with meeting the consistency requirements of the local health plan in that priority is recommended for the placement of nursing home beds in St. Johns County within Subdistrict 3 if additional nursing home beds are granted. The local plan calls for approximately 25 percent of patients to be Medicaid patients within the nursing home and for the accessibility and availability and equal distribution of that care. All Saints' proposal meets this requirement and Manor Care makes an effort. The state health plan in effect at the time of this case does not speak in specific terms to the relocation of health care facilities. The applications tend to address the general goals of the state health plan. The state health plan addresses Medicaid recipients in particular, and All Saints particularly and Manor Care to a lesser extent address the nursing home care needs of Medicaid recipients. The suggestion by Manor Care that the 31 bed addition is preferable to the status quo because of needs in the community is rejected. Under the circumstances wherein there is no need for additional beds it is not necessary to consider whether it is more cost effective to put the 31 beds in an existing facility or build a new facility or whether greater economies of scale are derived with the increase of beds from 89 to 120, even though 120 bed nursing homes are deemed most efficient in an academic sense. Finally, while it would be a better arrangement to have two patients per room than three patients, the vehicle to accomplish that end that has been sought by Manor Care is unacceptable. The Manor Care utilization projections in the face of no identified need are not tenable in describing proposed occupancy levels in its facility with the advent of the 31 additional beds. Likewise the projected utilization rates of All Saints upon the relocation of its facility are not found to be accurate in that they are based upon assumptions not supported by hard data.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Case background and the parties: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing, revoking, or denying certificates of need for health care facilities or services. In that regard the Department has promulgated a rule for computing the need for new or additional community nursing home beds. The methodology of the rule (now Rule 10-5.036, Florida Administrative Code) calculates a specific number of beds anticipated to be needed for a given planning horizon. Once calculated, the Department publishes the calculated need for the district/subdistrict. Additional beds are generally not authorized if their approval would cause the total number of beds approved to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed under the rule. The Department is not, however, obligated to approve beds so that the total number of beds calculated to be needed are approved, i.e. the Department may, as in this case, approve only a portion of those beds thought to be needed. In this case, the Department published a projected need for 165 additional beds in Orange County, Florida. That bed pool was calculated for the January, 1993 planning horizon and was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 13, 1990. The calculated need published in this case has not been challenged and, therefore, was not at issue in these proceedings. At the time need was computed, there were 2,797 licensed beds in Orange County with an additional 505 approved nursing beds. The occupancy rate for the county was just under 93 percent. Following the publication of the need figures, letters of intent and applications were filed by health care providers seeking to obtain approvals for the available nursing beds. Coordinated Care, Inc. filed an application (CON #6287) for approval to develop a new, freestanding 120 bed community nursing home. The project was estimated to require a capital expenditure of $6,000,000 and would provide 24 beds in a subacute care unit. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. filed an application (CON #6292) for approval to develop a 60 bed addition to its existing facility known as Palm Garden of Orlando (CON #2991). If approved, the total number of nursing beds for that facility would then be 120 beds. The project cost for the expansion was estimated at $1,648,638. It was proposed that financing and management for the facility would be provided by National HealthCorp., Ltd. Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc. filed an application (CON #6290) for approval of a 39 bed community nursing home facility to be built as a component of a retirement community to be known as Brighton Gardens Nursing Center. The project cost for the Marriott proposal was $2,613,919. The Department's preliminary action in this case was to grant the CONs requested by Marriott and Florida Convalescent and to deny the application filed by Coordinated Care. Health Quest Management Corporation VII (Health Quest) operates an existing 120 bed nursing home in Orange County, Florida. That nursing home is known as Regents Park. Health Quest also operates Regents Woods, an adult congregate living facility, in Orange County. Health Quest opposes the proposed approval of CON #6290 for Marriott. Coordinated Care opposes the proposed approval of CON #6292 for Florida Convalescent and affirmatively alleges it is entitled, as the superior co-batched applicant, to the approval of its application. The petitions filed by Coordinated Care and Health Quest challenging the Department's preliminary action were timely. As to Case no. 90-7563: At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the following review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, were not at issue or were inapplicable to this case: Subsections 381.705(1)(d),(e),(f),(g),(j),(k),(m), and (2)(b) and (c). As to all other relevant criteria, Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care were comparatively reviewed for CON approval by the Department and are so reviewed in this order. Florida Convalescent is a nursing home company currently operating twelve nursing homes in Florida, including Palm Garden of Orlando (Palm Garden). Palm Garden is a 60 bed facility that was constructed according to a 120 bed prototype. The facility was designed to have three sections: two 60 bed patient wings and a center, nonliving area for the operations of the facility. The kitchen, dining room area, therapy spaces, office spaces and open areas have already been constructed and are currently utilized for the existing 60 bed unit. The approval of the CON here would allow the completion of the final 60 bed wing. Palm Garden is managed by National Healthcorp, Ltd. (National), a nursing home company headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National provides financial, developmental, and management services to nursing home companies in nine states. National prepared the CON application in this case on behalf of Florida Convalescent. If approved, National will continue to manage the Palm Garden facility in Orlando. As part of the 60 bed extension, Palm Garden will have specialized programs for Alzheimer's patients, subacute care, and special respite care. The approval of the 60 extension will allow these programs to be expanded and Florida Convalescent has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON an obligation to provide such special care programs. Currently, the profile of Palm Garden patients can be summarized as follows: 70 percent Medicaid, 25 percent private pay, and 5 percent Medicare. Florida Convalescent has agreed to commit to providing 58 percent of its services to Medicaid patients, and has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON such a provision. National has agreed to finance 1.6 million dollars of expenses for the Florida Convalescent proposal. The total project cost associated with the proposal is $3,333,119. Coordinated Care is a management company whose principals, Fred A. Lane and Patricia Lane, his wife, operate four nursing home facilities in Volusia County, Florida. If approved, Mr. Lane will administer Coordinated Care's facility in Orange County. It is proposed that the Coordinated Care facility will have 120 beds with a 24 bed subacute unit. The subacute unit will provide care for AIDS patients, ventilator dependent patients, and IV therapy. Additionally, the Coordinated Care proposal offers a program for mentally impaired patients including those with Alzheimer's and will also offer a respite care program. Coordinated Care is willing to accept as conditions on its certificate of need the following commitments: to exceed minimums on direct care staff to patient ratios by 10 percent; to provide service to AIDS patients; to offer 48 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare; and to provide the subacute programs previously described. The Department's District 7, subdistrict Orange County, has a need for additional nursing home beds. The District 7 Local Health Plan cites recommendations regarding new nursing home beds for the District. Those recommendations speak to the needs of the District as a whole and are not ranked by priority of interest. In this case, both applicants, Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent, will provide nursing services to AIDS patients. The Coordinated Care application recognized the need for a staff education program to provide AIDS training and committed the applicant to provide care for AIDS patients. The Florida Convalescent application did not address AIDS patients specifically because no AIDS patient has sought admission at the existing facility. Florida Convalescent will conduct staff education for AIDS patients, however, and will not deny admission to AIDS patients. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent will provide, and will commit to provide, specific levels of Medicaid patients. In this context, Florida Convalescent's history (63 percent) and proposed commitment (58 percent) to Medicaid utilization is greater than that offered by Coordinated Care (48 percent). With regard to indigent or charity care, Florida Convalescent currently provides such care at Palm Garden of Orlando. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated a commitment to high quality nursing home care. Palm Garden of Orlando is a superior rated nursing home and has, additionally, established a high quality service rating among homes managed by National. Similarly, the Lane family homes have experienced superior ratings and are committed to quality care. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated good track records for employee recruitment, training, and benefits. Additionally, the salary and bonus offers make both providers an attractive employer. Palm Garden of Orlando currently has ties to nursing programs in the Orlando area and is close geographically to Valencia Community College and the University of Central Florida. It is anticipated that Coordinated Care will be able to establish such ties in the Orlando area since it has done so in Volusia County. Both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have demonstrated that their proposals in Orange County meet the State Health Plan preferences. By virtue of it being an existing provider, it is anticipated that Florida Convalescent will lower its administrative costs with the addition of 60 beds since there is recognized an economy of scale at that level. There is no demonstrated problem related to availability, accessibility, extent of utilization, or adequacy of nursing care services in this case. It is likely that resources, including health care manpower, will be available for project accomplishment and operation. Both applicants have demonstrated the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposals. It is anticipated that the addition of 60 beds to the Florida Convalescent facility will have the least impact on the costs of providing health services and will promote cost-effectiveness. It is anticipated that the Florida Convalescent's proposal will best provide services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. The Florida Convalescent expansion is the most efficient and more appropriate alternative for providing nursing home services. The Florida Convalescent expansion will minimize the numbers of patients who were not admitted because of lack of beds at the Palm Garden facility. The Florida Convalescent expansion is consistent with other agencies and is in compliance with the local plans for providing long term care. The application submitted by Florida Convalescent was complete and its consolidated financial statement was consistent with the Department's rules and policies. The consolidated financial statement submitted by Florida Convalescent was prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is sufficient for all purposes for which such statements are required by the Department. Florida Convalescent has demonstrated it has the financial resources to accomplish the project expansion and that the methods of construction, including equipment costs, are reasonable. On balance, when comparatively reviewed, the application submitted by Florida Convalescent is superior to the proposal submitted by Coordinated Care. As to Case No. 90-7565 Marriott filed an application for a certificate of need, designated by the Department CON # 6290, to construct a 39 bed nursing unit to be built in conjunction with an 133 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Orange County, Florida. The Marriott proposal in this case is based upon a design it has utilized before and is commonly known as a "Brighton Gardens" project. In accordance with Department statutes and rules, a certificate of need (CON) is necessary in order for Marriott to pursue the nursing component of its project. A CON is not required for the ACLF component. The Marriott project will be financed by its parent company. That Marriott entity has $400 million in cash or cash equivalents, generates $600 million annually in cash flow, and can easily afford the project addressed by this application. The Marriott proposal substantially meets the preferences and recommendations of the State and Local Health Plans. The Marriott proposal specifies 30 percent of its patient days will be available for Medicaid patients. Marriott is able to provide a high quality of care. The Marriott proposal will establish links with the nursing school community so that recruitments and staffing may be enhanced. Additionally, Marriott will offer continuing education for staff with reasonable salary and benefit opportunities. The costs of construction for the Marriott proposal are reasonable, allocated appropriately between the nursing facility and the ACLF, and meet or exceed all applicable code requirements. Both as to the manner of allocation and costs of allocation, Marriott has disclosed sufficient detail to adequately assess the nursing component of its proposed development. Marriott's proposed project both in the immediate and long-term is financially feasible. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's ability to recruit personnel. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's rate of occupancy. If Health Quest's occupancy should decrease following the approval of Marriott's request, such result is not attributable to the approval since Health Quest currently has a lower than district average for occupancy and since Health Quest currently charges more than the average amount charged by other nursing facilities. The number of beds requested by Marriott represents approximately 1 percent of the total number of beds currently approved in Orange County. Marriott's application substantially complies with all review criteria set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order approving the applications filed by Marriott and Florida Convalescent, denying the application of Coordinated Care, and dismissing the petition filed by Health Quest. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-7563 and 90-7565 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted; the remainder of the paragraph is not a statement of fact. Paragraphs 7 through 13 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "well" in the last sentence, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY MARRIOTT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With the clarification that at most 120 beds are in dispute, paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that Marriott's application is consistent with the state and local health plans; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, it is rejected as argument or response to a position argued by Health Quest. The weight of the credible evidence showed that Marriott appropriately disclosed its projects and that it will be able to finance the project which is at issue. Paragraphs 10 through 19 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence which is accepted; paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 21 through 23 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 24 is accepted, the remainder rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant or argument. With the deletion of the words "by far" which are rejected as argument, paragraph 26 is accepted. With the deletion of the words "serious" and "numerous" which are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. It is not found, however, that Health Quest will suffer adversely from the approval of Marriott's application, to the contrary it will not. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraphs 35 and 36 are rejected as argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY HEALTH QUEST: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 (a) is accepted. Paragraphs 4 (b), 4 (c), and 4 (d) are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, it is rejected as irrelevant or argument; in this case Marriott has allocated and identified appropriately to establish the support areas needed for the nursing component of its proposal. Those areas have been computed in the cost and fairly and reasonably been considered in the financial feasibility of the project. To the extent addressed in the findings of fact or as accepted elsewhere in this appendix, paragraphs 8 through 36 are accepted, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. It is specifically found that Marriott appropriately and accurately disclosed and allocated costs of the nursing facility and that those costs fairly depict the expenses reasonably expected to be incurred by this project. As to the suggestion by Health Quest that Marriott's proposal could not survive as a stand alone facility, such suggestion is rejected as irrelevant given the total circumstances and financial disclosures made in this case. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, hearsay, or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraphs 39 through 147 are rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, argument, contrary to the weight of credible evidence or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 148 is accepted. Paragraph 149 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 150 through 169 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 170 through 179 are accepted. Paragraph 180 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 181 through 185 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 186 is accepted. Paragraph 187 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 188 is accepted. Paragraphs 189 through 199 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or argument. It is found that the allocations of space and costs in this case accurately describe the project and would allow for the financial feasibility of the nursing component. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY COORDINATED CARE: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4 it is accepted that the mathematical calculations are correct but such are not depositive of this case. Paragraph 5 is accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Contrasted to the management style of FCC, which does not manage any of its facilities," which is rejected as argument or irrelevant, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented, irrelevant, or unsupported by the record. Paragraphs 26 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 34 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 44 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or, where accurate as to fact, considered to be not dispositive of the issues of this case. Paragraph 45 is accepted. Paragraph 46 is accepted (assuming numbers have been rounded off). Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraphs 50 through 64 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence presented or argument. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraphs 67 through 72 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 21 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 and 26 are rejected to the extent that they suggest the Palm Garden facility enjoys a higher quality of care than the Lane family facilities. Both applicants provide a high quality of care and must be ranked equally in this regard. It is expected that the expansion of Palm Garden will assure that facility's continued high care and only to that extent has Palm Garden been considered the better applicant in this batch. Paragraph 27 is accepted to the extent it details the history of Florida Convalescent, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it suggests both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have established good recruitment and training programs, etc. To the extent that Florida Convalescent is already established in the Orlando community it is advantaged; but, it is expected that Coordinated Care will be able to duplicate its efforts and successes (as in Volusia) in the Orange County venue. It is because it has an established program that Florida Convalescent gets the nod in this category. Paragraphs 31 through 38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted to the extent that it states both applicants have superior programs and quality of care; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraphs 40 through 42 it is found that both applicants meet the preferences addressed in the state health plan and that neither ranks higher in the categories listed in these paragraphs. Paragraphs 43 through 45 are accepted. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 47 (all subparts) through 52 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 53 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 54 through 74 are accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 91 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 through 109 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay Theodore E. Mack Cobb Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McArthur Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas 101 N. Monroe Street Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles M. Loeser 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Darrell White Gerald B. Sternstein McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Donna Stinson Thomas M. Beason Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner and remaining intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes in Florida. Each has pending before MRS applications for Certificates of Need for new nursing homes in Florida, and the challenged Rule 10-5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, is applicable to these applications. The respondent MRS has applied and relied upon the challenged rule to deny certificates of need to these parties. Prior to the adoption of Rule 10-5.11(21) , there was no uniform statewide methodology for the determination of the need for additional community nursing home beds. The different health planning districts utilized various methodologies to determine the nursing home bed need in their communities. The majority of the districts utilized a formula of 27 beds per thousand population 65 years of age and older. Application of the formula was adjusted or deviated from in some districts to account for other considerations, such as occupancy levels of existing facilities, the waiting lists for existing facilities, travel times and the exclusion of sheltered beds. In order to develop a uniform statewide methodology for determining the need for additional nursing home beds, the Statewide Health Coordinating Council (SHCC) established a work group to review the various existing methodologies and recommend a uniform methodology. This work group met over a period of some six months. Its recommendation, accepted by the SHCC, was the adoption of a statewide nursing home bed ratio of 27 beds per thousand population age 65 and over, with an area specific allocation based upon the poverty level in the service area compared to the statewide poverty level. In the July 23, 1982 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(21) relating to community nursing home beds. The need methodology originally proposed was that recommended by the work group and SHCC--the 27/1000 ratio, adjusted by the poverty factor, with a population projected three years into the future. A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on August 10, 1982, and the record of the rule-adoption proceedings was held open until September 10, 1982, for the filing of any additional comments on the proposed rule. written comments were received by ERS after the public hearing. As a result of and in response to comments received regarding the originally proposed rule, HRS changed the methodology to he utilized for determining nursing home bed need by adding further steps to the application of the formula. Notice of the changes was published in the October 22, 1982 Florida Administrative weekly, and the rule became effective on November 15, 1982. No further public hearings were held on the challenged rule. The challenged existing rule states that applications for community nursing home beds will be considered in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The rule then sets forth a formula methodology for determining nursing home bed need in the various service districts and provides that applications for new or additional nursing home beds "will not normally [be] approve[d]" if approval would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated by the rule's methodology. Basically, the methodology prescribed in the challenged rule contains three specific steps or screens which must be met before additional beds may be approved. The three- step process begins with the 27/1000 bed need ratio, adjusted by the poverty indicator, as originally proposed. This results in a theoretical bed need. The number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict is then subtracted from the number obtained by using the ratio to determine whether additional beds are needed in the district and the subdistrict. The subdistrict is then classified into one of four categories, depending on whether there is a need or lack of need in the district and subdistrict under analysis. Each of the four categories is assigned a current and prospective utilization or occupancy level ranging from 80 to 95 percent. The occupancy levels of existing nursing home facilities are utilized to reflect existing community behavior patterns which could not be captured by a general or theoretical need estimator alone. The prospective utilization screen, the last step in the methodology, purports to specify how many beds will be made available when a demand for beds exists. In essence, the rule defines an area-specific generalized or theoretical need for nursing home beds based upon the degree of poverty in an "area, and then looks to community behavior through actual utilization of beds to determine how and when additional beds should he added. The rule is designed to pace the issuance of new beds by examining the actual utilization of nursing home facilities in operation. Bed availability is paced in response to actual demand as evidenced by community behavior toward existing and new nursing home facilities. The formula methodology contained in the challenged rule does not take into consideration the use of nursing home beds by individuals under the age of 65. The rule assigns no weighted factor for the various age groups 65 and over. It is estimated that some 13 percent of all patients in nursing homes are under The vast majority of those persons presently in nursing homes are 75 and over, and the segment of the elderly population over age 75 is growing much more rapidly than that segment between 65 and 74. Many states utilize a higher nursing home bed per elderly population ratio than 27 per thousand. However, the types of beds included in those higher numbers were not established. It is the policy and practice in Florida to recognize and encourage alternative forms of long-term care for the elderly, such as sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility and adult congregate living facility beds. These tvpes of beds are not included in the 27 figure set forth in the challenged rule. The use of the 27 bed standard is based upon a trend line analysis of historical nursing home utilization, and is intended to be a cap on the number of approvable beds. Use of the poverty index factor to adjust theoretical need achieved by a simple bed to population ratio is based upon an actual positive correlation in Florida between the degree of ooverty in an area and the supply of existing nursing home beds in that area. The poverty indicator takes into account only those elderly persons defined according to the latest available United States census. No separate consideration is given to those persons who may be "medically indigent" or "near Poor," though not falling into the poverty category as defined by the United States Census Bureau. It often takes between two and three years to place a Certificate of Need approved nursing home into operation. Some 30 of all licensed and approved nursing homes in Florida are not presently in operation. In some counties, such as Dade and Monroe, only 30 percent to 35 percent of the beds approved are in a position to become operational. The effect of the challenged rule is to approve additional beds only after those beds previously approved become operational and occupied. Because the prospective utilization screen counts beds approved but not yet operational and assumes a zero patient census for these beds, application of this screen may result in a determination that no additional beds should be approved regardless of the lack of existing available nursing home facilities. This is the result of the rule's current application in Dade County. One of the purposes of the challenged methodology is to measure the actual demand for new nursing home beds in a cautious manner while allowing the market to respond to the beds approved prior to the rule. The methodology prevents the approval of all potentially needed beds in one hatching cycle by waiting to examine how utilization experience in the community may modify need. The rule's methodology does not provide a mechanism for making accurate long-range predictions as to the future need for nursing home beds in any specific area. As occupancy levels change, there will he great fluctuations in the resulting need for beds under the prescribed formula. In order to "run" the formula, it is necessary to have information concerning current and projected population figures, the poverty factor, occupancy levels of existing facilities and the actual number of existing and approved nursing home beds in the district and subdistrict. The newly enacted Medicare hospital reimbursement system based upon diagnostic related groupings (DRGs) is likely to have a tremendous impact upon the utilization of nursing home beds and other long-term care facilities. With reimbursement levels based upon the nature of the illness as opposed to the length of stay, hospitals will have an incentive to release patients earlier. An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The statement contains an estimate of the respondent's printing and distribution costs involved in implementing the rule. The EIS relates that the rule implements a statewide standard of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population 65 years of age and older, and concludes that this standard does not exceed the current bed need standard applied in Certificate of Need decisions. It was noted that this rule establishes a cap on nursing home growth and thereby restricts public expenditures. A comparison of Medicaid expenditures if a higher bed to population ratio were adopted was provided. With regard to the effect of the rule on competition, the EIS relates that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess capacity and restrain competition among nursing home providers with the intent of containing public expenditures. Increased competition was noted among providers who serve patients whose care is funded with private resources. Before preparing the EIS, the author reviewed the suggested methodology of the State Health Plan and analyzed the various methodologies previously utilized in the various health planning districts throughout the State. She determined that the challenged rule would not basically change the existing methodologies applied throughout the State, and therefore concluded there would he no economic impact beyond the costs associated with the promulgation of a rule. According to calculations performed by the author of the EIS subsequent to the adoption of the challenged rule, the statewide bed to population ratio in Florida as of June, 1983, was 27.3. This result is derived by adding together the existing licensed beds, the Certificate of Need approved beds and the beds available on a statewide basis as a result of the rule's application, and dividing that number by the 1983 population age 65 and over.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of February, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
