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
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Which of three competing applicants for a certificate of need to construct a nursing home in health planning District 4, Subdistrict 3, best meets the statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the department of state government which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care facilities and services in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. For the planning horizon beginning July 2001, AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 121 community nursing beds in nursing home planning District 4, Subdistrict 3, for southeast Duval and St. Johns Counties. Sawgrass Care Centers, Inc. (Sawgrass), Woodlands Extended Care, Inc. (Woodlands), and National Healthcare Corporation (NHC) are competing, mutually exclusive applicants for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home in District 4, Subdistrict 3. After reviewing the applications, AHCA preliminarily approved the issuance of CON No. 9125 to NHC. In the Prehearing Stipulation, filed on November 2, 1999, the parties agreed that the following criteria are either not applicable or are not in dispute: Subsections 408.035(1)(d), (e), (f), (g), (j), and (k), and Subsections 408.035(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes; Rule 59C- 1.036, Florida Administrative Code; and allocation factors 1, 3, 4, and 9 of the local health plan. During the final hearing, the parties also stipulated that all letters of intent were legally sufficient. The issues requiring resolution in this proceeding, the parties agreed, are: Subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (c), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n), and (o); and Subsection 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes; allocation factors 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the local health plan; and Section 408.037, Florida Statutes. Sawgrass is the applicant for CON No. 9126 to construct a 120-bed nursing home in northern St. Johns County for approximately $3,967,000 in construction costs for a 56,800 square-foot building. The total project will cost approximately $6.4 million. Mr. S. W. Creekmore, Jr., who is the sole shareholder and president of Sawgrass, has been in the nursing home business over 30 years. Currently, Mr. Creekmore owns and operates between 30 and 40 nursing homes in Arkansas, California, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Nevada. Sawgrass is currently constructing Sawgrass Care Center of North Duval, an 84-bed addition to a 60-bed facility in Duval County. If CON No. 9126 is issued to Sawgrass, it will be on condition that Sawgrass: locate the 120-bed nursing home in northern St. Johns County within zip codes 32082, 32092, 32095, and 32259, in District 4, Subdistrict 3; provide a minimum of 63.51 percent total annual patient days to Medicaid patients; establish a 20-bed Alzheimer's care unit, a 20-bed Medicare unit, hospice services and respite care; admit AIDS patients; and construct the facility according to the schematic drawings. Sawgrass contends that its application should be approved primarily because of its proposed location in northern St. Johns County. An increase of beds in St. Johns County will correct what Sawgrass' expert health planner described as a maldistribution of nursing home beds within the district. Sawgrass also presented evidence questioning the financial feasibility of NHC's proposal. Woodlands is the applicant for CON No. 9123 to construct a 120-bed nursing home in southeast Duval County for approximately $5.2 million in construction costs for 53,155 gross square feet, and $7.9 million in total project costs. Woodlands currently operates Woodlands Terrace Extended Care Center (Woodlands-Deland), a 120-bed nursing home located in Deland, Florida. Woodlands is owned by Mr. Morris Esformes, who also owns EMI Enterprises, Inc. (EMI), a nursing home management company, with its headquarters in Illinois. EMI manages almost 3,000 nursing home beds in Missouri, Illinois, and Florida, including Woodlands-Deland. EMI provides bookkeeping, payroll, purchasing, insurance and other contract negotiation services for the nursing homes it manages. If its CON application is approved, Woodlands is committed to constructing the facility in southeast Duval County, to serving 63.01 percent Medicaid, 1 percent AIDS, and .5 percent indigent care, and to establishing units of 24 beds for subacute care and 20 beds for Alzheimer's care. Woodlands contends that existing nursing home occupancy levels support its decision to build and to condition its CON on a location in southeast Duval County. Woodlands presented evidence intended to demonstrate that the design of its Alzheimer's unit, and its proposed staffing levels are superior to those of NHC. Woodlands also maintained that its estimated construction cost is more reasonable and its design preferable to that of Sawgrass. Woodlands presented evidence to support the accuracy of Schedule 2 of its application and of its projected financing costs. NHC, the applicant for CON No. 9125, started in 1971, with fourteen nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages approximately 100 facilities in nine states, 42 of those in Florida. Ten of the 42 Florida facilities are also owned by NHC. The new facility, NHC HealthCare, St. Augustine, will cost approximately $6.7 million to construct the building with 63,104 gross square feet, and $10.2 million in total project costs. NHC's CON would be issued on condition that NHC (1) provide 63.05 percent of total facility patient days to Medicaid at stabilized occupancy; (2) establish, as special programs, a 16-bed subacute unit and a 30-bed Alzheimer's/Dementia unit, provide adult day care through an existing provider, and offer respite and HIV/AIDS care. In addition, NHC commits to selecting a highly accessible site within one mile of a major artery or within three blocks of a bus stop. Although NHC presented evidence that St. Johns County is the preferable location for a new nursing home, it is not willing to have a condition on the county in which it will build as a condition for the CON. NHC, through the testimony of its assistant vice president for health planning, specifically reserved the right to locate anywhere within the subdistrict so long as the location complies with the local health plan description of a highly accessible site. NHC contends that approval of its CON will bring possibly the first and, among the competing applicants, the largest Alzheimer's unit to St. Johns County. NHC also challenged the financial feasibility of the Sawgrass and Woodlands proposals. 408.035(1)(a) - need for the facility and services proposed in relation to the district plan At issue in this proceeding, from the district health plan for District 4, are the following preferences or allocation factors: 2) For urban areas, applicants who will locate in an area highly accessible in terms of public and private transportation - within one mile from a major artery or within three blocks from a bus stop. Applicants who include in their CON application specific plans detailing how they intend to address the mental health needs of their clients, including having a provider skilled in the recognition and treatment of mental health problems. Applicants who document that their project addresses an unmet need for the nursing home placement of persons with a specific debilitating illness. Applicant must document that a need exists. (In November 1992, hospital discharge planners reported having difficulty placing ventilator and tracheotomy patients). Applicants who have JCAHO accreditation and superior ratings from AHCA in existing facilities. Applicants who propose to locate in a county or defined subcounty area within a subdistrict (such as north, southwest or southeast Duval; east or west Volusia) with a licensed bed occupancy rate of at least 91 percent for the most recent six-month period (January-June or July-December) prior to the start of the current CON review cycle and no additional beds are approved. Sawgrass described the area of St. Johns County in which it will locate as not urban and concluded, therefore, that allocation factor two is inapplicable to the Sawgrass application. Woodlands, which proposed locating in southeast Duval County, identified three alternative sites, all within a mile of major county, state, or interstate roads and highways, and within three blocks of public bus stops. Woodlands is not, however, committed to selecting any of those three sites. NHC's CON would include compliance with preference two as a condition for approval. If it chooses to locate in St. Johns County, NHC cannot comply with the alternative of locating within three blocks of a bus stop because there is no public transportation system in St. Johns County, but NHC can meet the preference by choosing a site in the County which is near a major artery. The three applicants included, in their CON applications, letters from mental health services providers who are willing to enter into agreements to care for residents of the facilities. While an expert witness raised an issue regarding the dates of the supporting letters, which are 1998 and early 1999 for Sawgrass, early in 1999 for Woodlands and, by contrast, late 1997 for NHC, there is no evidence that the services proposed are not still available. Overlapping to some extent with allocation factor five, for providing mental health services, is six, for meeting unmet needs of persons with specific debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's/Dementia. The proposed 20-bed units dedicated to Alzheimer's/Dementia care at Sawgrass and Woodlands, and 30-bed unit at NHC comply with the that factor. Sawgrass and NHC, based on their evaluations of the subdistrict, particularly of St. Johns County, noted an absence of Alzheimer's care in a dedicated unit. There was credible evidence, however, that 40 residents have been placed in a locked 60-bed dedicated dementia unit, established at a facility called Bayview in St. Johns County, subsequent to the filing of these CON applications. There was also evidence that an estimated 50 percent of all nursing home residents suffer from some form of dementia. Ratings by AHCA and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations (JCAHO), are not yet available for the 84-bed Sawgrass facility in Duval County, because it is still under construction. Sawgrass relied on the experience of its principal, Mr. Creekmore, and of Mr. Donald Fike, the president and owner of RFMS, a corporation which manages nursing homes in Florida, Nevada and Illinois. RFMS has an agreement with Mr. Creekmore to manage Sawgrass. Mr. Creekmore, who resides in St. Johns County, owns facilities in Tennessee, California, New York, Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri, none of which has had a license revoked or suspended or been in receivership within 36 months prior to the hearing. Currently, RFMS manages and Mr. Fike has a controlling interest in partnerships that own two nursing homes in Florida, 120-bed Surrey Place of Ocala (Surrey Place), which also has 36 assisted living units, and Hawthorne Care Center of Brandon (Brandon) with 90 existing beds, 30 approved beds, and 64 assisted living units which are under construction. An additional facility managed by RFMS and owned by Mr. Fike is under construction in Lakeland. RFMS' employees at its corporate headquarters in Galesburg, Illinois, provide management, budgetary, accounting, and recruiting services. RFMS has never managed a facility for Sawgrass or Mr. Creekmore, but its two Florida facilities, Surrey Place and Brandon, were rated superior until the state eliminated superior licenses on July 1, 1999. Woodlands operates one Florida facility, Woodlands- Deland, which had been rated superior as long as it was eligible for that designation. Woodlands-Deland is not JCAHO-accredited. Woodlands relied on the experience of its owner, Mr. Esformes, and his management company, EMI. Mr. Esformes has been in the nursing home business for approximately 30 years. No specific information on the ratings of the facilities owned by Mr. Esformes or managed by EMI was provided. Of the 42 Florida nursing homes operated by NHC, ten are also owned by NHC. Three of the ten were rated superior, one was not yet eligible, and one was also JCAHO-accredited at the time the CON application was submitted. By February 1999, five of the ten NHC owned and operated facilities in Florida were rated superior. Twenty-eight of the 32 NHC-operated Florida nursing homes were rated superior. From January through June 1998, the average occupancy was 90.84 percent in the subdistrict, 91.3 percent for southeast Duval County, and 89.36 percent for northern St. Johns County. Woodlands is committed to establishing its facility in southeast Duval County, Sawgrass is committed to the northern four zip codes in St. Johns County, and NHC is not committed to either but, in general, supported the need for a nursing home in St. Johns County. Subsequent data on occupancy shows consistency with past levels. In the second six months of 1998, the occupancy levels in nursing homes in St. Johns County was 88 percent, and in southeast Duval, 93 percent. From January through June 1999, St. Johns was 89 percent and southeast Duval was 92.8 percent occupied. Suggesting that occupancy percentages are not the sole indicators of the availability of beds, a health planning expert for Sawgrass noted that significantly more empty beds are available in southeast Duval County as compared to St. Johns County due to the larger total number of beds in the Duval area. Three CONs were issued in 1998 and 1999 to Vantage Health Care Corporation, which was identified as a Beverly Corporation, the first one for 60 beds in St. Johns County, a second one to add 56 beds to the first CON with Duval/St. Johns as the county on the face of the CON, and the third to add four skilled nursing beds to the first two CONs, or a total of 120 beds all together. Although, counties are indicated on each CON, none is specifically conditioned on a particular location within the subdistrict. AHCA lists the Vantage beds in its inventory for St. Johns County, which is supported by the testimony of the Executive Director of the Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida and by the most restrictive location on the face of the first 60-bed CON. Although of questionable value due to the arbitrariness of using zip codes for health planning purposes and due to the relatively minor, 2 percent difference in occupancy rates, preference eight favors a proposal to locate in southeast Duval County. More important in determining the preference for a southeast Duval location is the prior approval of 120 beds for St. Johns County, even though Vantage could build its facility in southern St. Johns County. 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of existing facilities and services in the district In addition to the comparison of occupancy levels in St. Johns and Duval Counties, other factors affecting the availability and utilization of nursing beds have been considered. The total population 65 and over in Duval county was 79,986 as compared to 17,294 for St. Johns County in 1995. Population growth, however, has been and is projected to be greater in St. Johns than in Duval County. From 1998 to 2003, the population 65 years and older is expected to increase from 36,988 to 39,790, or 7.5 percent, in southeast Duval County, and from 8,506 to 9,922, or 17 percent, in the northern four zip codes in St. Johns County. Despite the fact that St. Johns is relatively sparsely populated currently, the data supports a conclusion that the trend from 1990 to 1995, when the over 65 population increased by 12 percent in Duval County and by 26.3 percent in St. Johns County, is continuing. The lower occupancy in St. Johns County was attributed, in part, to two facilities with occupancy rates consistently in the 87 to 88 range which occupy over 30 year-old concrete block buildings with survey problems. Although, in 1998, all of the facilities in St. Johns County were rated superior. Another explanation was the fact that one 57-bed facility, in northern St. Johns County, reserves five beds for residents of its retirement community. A second nursing home, near Ponte Vedra Beach in St. Johns County, is also a sheltered facility, which is limited to residents of the retirement community. Migration patterns, in a study done around 1996, showed significantly more St. Johns County residents placed in Duval County facilities than Duval County residents in St. Johns County facilities. Bed-to-population ratios in St. Johns and southeast Duval Counties are also factors which may indicate the relative availability and accessibility of nursing home services. The health planning experts for Sawgrass and NHC determined that a maldistribution of beds is indicated by the bed-to-population ratio, showing that St. Johns County is underserved as compared to the rest of the district. NHC's health planner testified that, for every one thousand people over the age of 65, there are 32 beds in St. Johns County as compared to 42 beds in Duval County. Sawgrass' health planner noted that 72 percent of the beds but only 66 percent of the district population is located in southeast Duval County, while four percent of the beds and 15 percent of the population are in northern St. Johns County. The discrepancy in bed-to-population ratio is more significant, according to the experts for Sawgrass and NHC, than the two percent difference in occupancy levels between the two areas of the subdistricts. Bed-to-population ratio analyses, however, assume uniform need which is not necessarily valid due to demographic variances in the population. The bed-to-population analysis also assumed that what was, at the time, 116 approved beds for Vantage would be constructed in southern St. Johns County. Considering the Vantage CONs together, the more reasonable conclusion is that Vantage could build the new nursing home anywhere in the County. Woodlands' proposed location was criticized by the health planner for NHC as contributing to a clustering of facilities in Duval County. As a part of that cluster, Woodlands might not greatly enhance accessibility although it does meet the local health plan preferences related to accessibility and occupancy. In addition, NHC argued, that the area is growing in young families not older people due in part to its proximity to Mayport Naval Station, and as indicated by the construction of three new elementary schools in the last six years. Accessibility and availability to specialty programs was another consideration evaluated by the health care planners. There is a need for more complex subacute care in nursing homes. The evidence indicated that Alzheimer's care in a dedicated unit was available in St. Johns County at the time of hearing although it had not been at the time the applications were filed. See also Finding of Fact 18. 408.035(1)(c) - history of providing and ability to provide quality of care As a legal entity, the applicant Sawgrass has no history of providing nursing home care in Florida. Sawgrass, however, through the experiences of Mr. Creekmore and Mr. Fike, has established that the owner and operator have histories of providing high quality of care. Based on the descriptions of operational styles and the policies of RFMS, Mr. Fike's management company, Sawgrass demonstrated the ability to provide a high quality of care if its CON application is approved. See Findings of Fact 20. Woodlands, as to a legal entity operating in Florida, has a limited but excellent history, with a superior rating at Woodlands-Deland beginning in 1997. Woodlands asserted, but without specific information on their other facilities, that its principal, Mr. Esformes, and his management company, EMI, have the ability to provide a high quality of care if CON 9123 is approved. See Findings of Fact 21. NHC has a more inconsistent but improving history, based on licensure, of providing quality of care in its Florida facilities. It is the only applicant with JCAHO accreditation but in only one of its ten Florida nursing homes. NHC has significantly more experience operating nursing homes than either of the other two applicants. See Findings of Fact 22. To determine quality of care, an additional factor urged for consideration is staffing, which overlaps with the following critera: 408.035(1)(h) - availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel On Schedule 6, the table in the CON application which shows staffing patterns, NHC showed a total of 11.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) registered nurses (RNs). On Schedule 8, which listed the projected income and expenses for the proposal, NHC allocated RN salaries for 7.0 FTEs. NHC's 7.0 FTEs for RNs providing direct patient care is comparable to 5.6 for Sawgrass, and 8.4 for Woodlands. The comparison is valid because NHC included administrative as well as direct care positions in the total of 11.2 FTEs for RNs, including unit directors or managers and an assistant director of nursing. An NHC witness conceded that the RNs in these positions do not, as a routine responsibility, provide direct care. NHC also included a central supply clerk and nursing secretary in the FTEs for nurses aides or CNAs. NHC's regional administrator for Florida, Tennessee and Kentucky testified that staff in these positions also do not, as a routine, provide direct care to patients. NHC included one FTE for a medical director on Schedule 6, but indicated, at hearing, that the position is not full time. When the administrative positions are excluded, NHC's total direct hours of care per patient day (ppd) is approximately 3.18 hours, not 3.29 as described in the CON, as compared to 3.39 for Woodlands, and 3.29 for Sawgrass. When broken down based on the type of nurse providing the care, NHC's 3.18 total hours combines 2.38 hours by certified nurse assistants (CNAs) and 0.8 by licensed nurses (RNs and LPNs). Woodland's total of 3.39, combines 2.32 hours by CNAs and 1.07 hours by licensed nurses. For the Alzheimer's unit, NHC, in the CON application, erroneously described its proposal as providing 5.0 hours of care per resident day, but that was corrected at hearing by NHC's expert in health care financial feasibility and reduced to 2.58 hours. Woodlands provided at its current facility and proposed to provide at a new one approximately 3.9 hours ppd in the Alzheimer's unit. The staffing levels proposed by Sawgrass, NHC, and Woodlands all exceed the minimum state requirements of .06 ppd for licensed staff and 1.7 ppd for CNA, or 2.3 hours ppd total. Direct care staff at NHC perform some functions which would be performed by different personnel in the other two proposals. These duties include evening housekeeping, setting up and cleaning dining tables in the Alzheimer's unit, and answering evening telephone calls. Another indication of the demands on staff time is reflected in NHC's proposal to employ 7 FTEs in housekeeping for a 63,000 square foot building, as contrasted to Woodlands' use of 8 FTEs in its housekeeping department for 53,000 square feet. The staff at Woodlands will provide more direct resident care by higher level staff and reasonably, therefore, presumptively a higher quality of care than Sawgrass or NHC. NHC asserted that it can attract and retain quality staff by paying higher salaries. Using NHC's salary levels, NHC's expert determined that Sawgrass and Woodlands underestimated salary expenses by $573,000 and $522,000 respectively. NHC's total for projected salaries is $2,864,000, as compared to $2,386,653 for Woodlands and $2,318,119 for Sawgrass, although NHC will have seven fewer FTEs than Woodlands and six more than Sawgrass. NHC's comparison used 1998 average salaries, inflated forward, from Palm Gardens of Jacksonville (Palm Gardens), a facility managed by NHC for the owner, Florida Convalescent Centers (FCC). The average salary, for example for nurses, including administrators, such as the assistant director of nursing and Alzheimer's director, was applied to each nurse's position proposed by Woodlands and Sawgrass. NHC's methodology, particularly without any comparison of patient mix and acuity at Palm Gardens to that projected by the applicants, and the use of five percent annual inflation as compared to an actual annual inflation rate of three percent, when two statistical outliers are excluded, renders the analysis unreliable. The testimony of NHC's witness that the opening of new centers forces salaries to go up also indicates that the salary comparison includes some factor over and above actual inflation. 408.035(1)(h) - funds for capital and operating expenses, for project accomplishment and operation; 408.037(1)(a)1. - listing of all capital projects; and 408.035(1)(i) - immediate and long term financial feasibility The ability of Sawgrass to fund and finance the project was, in part, established by the deposition testimony of Jackie Garrett, Vice President, for Commercial Lending, First National Bank, Fort Smith, Arkansas, who is accepted as an expert in banking and finance as well as a fact witness. Having been involved for 30 years in financing projects for the Sawgrass owner, Mr. Creekmore, Ms. Garrett, in her letter of December 28, 1998, and in her testimony expressed the interest of the Bank in financing the Sawgrass project. Ms. Garrett also confirmed the possibility of financing up to 100 percent of the cost at better than an 8 percent fixed rate, as well as providing working capital as long as the loan is guaranteed by Mr. Creekmore. Ms. Garrett's letter to Mr. Creekmore offering to work out any contingencies with him and the inclusion of his personal financial statement in the application, lead to a reasonable conclusion that he can and will guarantee the financing for Sawgrass. Although a specific letter of commitment or the testimony of Mr. Creekmore could have provided a clearer commitment on his part, the documents in the application are sufficient to establish the short-term financial feasibility of Sawgrass. The accuracy of Schedule 2 of the Sawgrass CON application was questioned because it does not include an assisted living facility (ALF) for Duval County, which was proposed for construction on the campus with the nursing home. A financial expert for Sawgrass testified that the ALF is no longer planned, although AHCA was led to believe, in the prior nursing home CON, that an ALF would be built in conjunction with the nursing home. Comparing the historical payer mix and occupancy rates from similar facilities in the service area to staffing, salaries, and other fixed and variable expenses, the financial expert for Sawgrass demonstrated that the project is also financially feasible in the long term. To develop Woodlands-Deland, the general partner, Mr. Esformes, obtained financing primarily from AmSouth Bank in Orlando. The AmSouth loan was guaranteed by Mr. Esformes, who proposes similarly to finance the new Woodlands facility. In a letter dated December 30, 1998, and in her deposition testimony of October 26, 1999, an AmSouth assistant vice president indicates the availability of a loan to cover 75 to 85 percent of the total project cost. On behalf of EMI Enterprises, Inc., Mr. Esformes committed to funding the equity and working capital required from funds which are on deposit. AmSouth's lending limit for a borrower with Mr. Esformes' assigned risk rating is $15 million. NHC argued that Woodlands is not financially feasible in the short term because Mr. Esformes cannot borrow $8 million given his outstanding debt of $12,669,382. That position erroneously ignores the testimony of the bank officer when she stated that such projects, with liquidation of the property as a secondary source of repayment, can be treated separately, not grouped together and not aggregated to come to the $15 million total. She specifically considered Woodlands-Deland, saying, "And his other loan with the Deland property would be isolated for the same reason." See Deposition of Melissa Ann Ledbetter, October 26, 1999, page 11. In addition to the letter from AmSouth Bank, Woodlands presented a letter from and the testimony of Mr. Esformes on his commitment to the project. The evidence showed that Mr. Esformes has sufficient funds available to honor that commitment. Woodlands' proposal is, therefore, financially feasible in the short term. Woodland's long-term financial position was criticized based on Woodlands-Deland's not having achieved the utilization projected as quickly as projected. Utilization goals were adversely affected by the opening or expansion of other nursing homes at approximately the same time in the Deland area, an undesirable consequence which the District 4 health plan seeks to avoid. At the time of the hearing, Woodlands had a 1999 year-to-date profit of $106,000. Considering projected revenues and expenses, based on actual reimbursement rates at Woodlands- Deland, which are extremely high for Medicare, Woodlands' proposal is expected to be profitable in the long term. An expert for Sawgrass questioned NHC's short-term financial feasibility based on the sufficiency, commitment dates and changing investment policies of its funding sources. Schedule 2 of the NHC application lists total capital projects exceeding $436.6 million with approximately $397 million in "funds assured but not in hand and funds currently being sought." The application also includes letters of commitment establishing lines of credit from related companies National Health Investors, Inc. (NHI) for $260 million, and National Health Realty, Inc. (NHR) for $200 million. The letters are expressly valid through December 31, 1999, although what Sawgrass' expert estimated as the 12-month construction period for this project would begin approximately May 1, 2000, to end when operations commence on May 1, 2001. In addition, an examination of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by NHI and NHR, according to the expert for Sawgrass, shows declining available funds and changing company objectives. As real estate investment trust (REIT) companies, NHI and NHR identify their typical financing arrangements mortgages and lease-back agreements, but do not specifically mention the extending of lines of credit. The SEC documents also indicate that NHI had approximately $136.9 million, available to fund health care real estate projects as of December 1998, not $260 million as committed for the line of credit to NHC. By June 1999, the SEC disclosures report a decrease to approximately $15.3 million available to fund health care real estate projects, of which approximately $12 million was available for the next 12 months. NHR's disclosures also indicate that the company will maintain its existing portfolio, not expand further. NHC's net income after taxes decreased from $23.7 million in 1997, to $8.2 million in 1998, adversely affected by declining Medicare reimbursements and increased taxes. The decline in profit from $37 million in 1997 to the projected $14 million for 1999 resulted largely from the expiration, on December 31, 1997, of special tax benefits for corporations. SEC disclosures indicate possible additional declines due to lawsuits over management contracts and a former employee, "whistle-blower" action, neither of which had been finalized at the time of the hearing. NHC's plan to reduce its taxes included the transfer of assets to NHI and NHR. NHC has also off-set losses by providing some therapies in-house and by group purchasing of pharmacy entical and medical supplies. In response to the loss of management agreements with FCC, NHC has successfully secured other management contracts and has eliminated certain regional positions. Reserves of approximately $31 million have been set aside for potential liability resulting from pending litigation, with FCC and in the former employee's qui tam action related to Medicare costs. Despite the efforts of NHC to adjust to changes in its financial position, the termination dates in the NHR and NHI letters of credit are troubling. The position of NHC, as investment advisor to NHI and NHR, and the ability of their Boards of Directors to change investment policies, without stockholder approval, suggests the likelihood of their funding the NHC project, if approved. Stronger support for a determination that at least NHR continues to be a source of funds for NHC comes from the deposition testimony of NHR's Senior Vice President, who signed the NHR line of credit letter. He noted that any projects submitted by NHC in the past have been approved by NHR and thinks it unquestionable that NHC would obtain financing for this project. That testimony rises to the level of the letters of interest by lending institutions submitted on behalf of the other applicants and establishes the short-term financial feasibility of the NHC proposal. NHC projected a net operating profit of $57,000 in year two which, with depreciation of about $350,000, results in a cash flow in excess of $400,000. NHC's proposal is financially feasible in the long term. 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs; and 408.035(1)(m) - costs and methods of construction The estimated construction cost for Sawgrass is $70 a square foot for a 56,800 square foot building. By comparison NHC's estimated construction cost is $106 a square foot for the nursing home and a separate storage/maintenance building, totaling 63,104 square feet. Woodlands' 53,000 square foot facility will cost an estimated $98 a square foot. Sawgrass' construction costs were considered unreasonably low by some expert. The construction costs were developed by an expert in construction supervision and costs, who works for Medical Holdings Limited, another company which is owned by the Sawgrass President, Mr. Creekmore. The architects for the project work for another related wholly owned subsidiary of Medical Holdings Limited, Healthcare Builders, Incorporated (Healthcare Builders). Healthcare Builders is also owned by and only builds facilities for Mr. Creekmore. The estimated cost, $70 per square foot, is based on the use of local materials and subcontractors and excludes any profit, which alone would add from 8 to 10 percent to the cost. All of the salaries for the supervisors of the project, the general construction superintendent, the regular superintendent, and bookkeeper are paid by Healthcare Builders and excluded from constructions costs. Only one Sawgrass project, over the past 15 years, has required an application for a cost overrun. On this basis, Sawgrass established the reasonableness of the costs for its company. NHC's building is the largest and most expensive, with 71 resident rooms and 9-foot wide corridors, as compared to 66 rooms and 8-foot wide corridors for Woodlands and Sawgrass. NHC has 22 private rooms, but Woodlands and Sawgrass have 12 private rooms in each of their designs. NHC's private rooms range in size from 196.8 to 277 net square feet, as compared to 220 net square feet for Sawgrass, and 194 net square feet for Woodlands. Semiprivate rooms range in size from 196 to 246.7 net square feet for NHC, 198 to 218 for Woodlands, and 220 for Sawgrass. All three exceed the state minimums of 100 square feet for private rooms, and 160 square feet for semiprivate rooms. The schematics for NHC and Woodlands demonstrate more concern for safe outside spaces, with two separate enclosed courtyards, one designated for wandering which is typical of Alzheimer's residents. Woodlands' design also provides for two separate entrances, one for the main facility and one for the subacute unit. The subacute entrance is particularly desirable because the busier pattern of visitors is more akin to that in a hospital setting. NHC has 57 rooms with showers in the bathrooms, as compared to 53 for Woodlands and 18 for Sawgrass. The experts debated the benefits of privacy and the enhanced dignity and the reality that safety necessitates, for many, assistance in bathing. On the one extreme, NHC has unnecessarily included showers on the Alzheimer's unit for residents who are least likely to use them safely and most likely to need assistance, but Sawgrass has so few that the use of central bathing facilities will be necessary for most of its residents and will not enhance their privacy and dignity. Woodlands' design for the purposes intended, is the most reasonable, and its type of construction is the highest rated of the three. Despite the differences in size and construction costs, all three applicants propose relatively similar charges in a very narrow range of lows for Sawgrass and highs for NHC, from $105 to $115 a day for semiprivate rooms to $120 to $130 for private rooms. Reimbursement rates, primarily from Medicare, differ based on differences in acuity levels. 408.035 (1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid and indigent care Sawgrass has received one CON in Florida with a Medicaid commitment of 87.4 percent of total resident days. Other CON applications prepared for Mr. Creekmore have offered to meet or exceed the prevailing community Medicaid occupancy levels. Woodlands committed to providing a minimum of 63.01 percent Medicaid and 0.5 percent indigent resident days. Woodlands has reached 63 percent but not its committed level of 66 percent Medicaid in its Deland facility, although it expected to do so when final data at full occupancy becomes available for 1999. NHC's proposal includes the provision of 63.05 percent of total resident days to Medicare. AHCA has determined that NHC is not in compliance with its Medicaid commitment in two of its facilities, located in Daytona and on Merritt Island, but due to its extensive operations in Florida, NHC provides substantial Medicaid care. 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care in multilevel system All three of the applicants plan to offer Alzheimer's hospice, respite and subacute care. Sawgrass included a 60-unit ALF on its schematic design and on its Schedule 2 for a cost of $4 million. The ALF will be connected to the nursing home by a covered entrance. Sawgrass also planned but is not constructing an ALF with its Duval County project. See Finding of Fact 45. Woodlands stated its intention to build an ALF on the same campus with the proposed nursing home in a misleading narrative on page 114 of the application, but did not include it as part of the project in either the schematics or on Schedule 2 of the CON application. At the hearing, Woodlands' witness conceded that an ALF would not be built, if at all, for several years until the nursing home proves to be financially viable and then, by a separate corporation. In addition to the services provided by the other applicants, NHC plans to offer adult day care through existing providers. Only Sawgrass meets the criterion for proposing a multilevel system of care, based on the assumption that it will build the ALF as planned. 408.035(2)(e) - consisting with plans of other state agencies responsible for providing or financing long term care All three proposals are consistent with the policies of other responsible state agencies, including the Department of Elder Affairs. Summary Comparison of Applications This case is difficult, in part, because there is not a great difference among the applicants based on any one of the criteria. In terms of location, southeast Duval has a slight advantage due to its larger population, occupancy levels, and the approved CON for St. Johns County. Woodlands promises to provide a higher quality of care than NHC and Sawgrass based on proposed staffing, but has only operated one other Florida facility, albeit a superior one. Woodlands provided less detailed information on its owner's and manager's operations of out-of-state facilities. All three applicants have what appear to be at this relatively early stage of the process, reliable funding sources and plans to operate profitably. Woodlands' construction cost and design are the most reasonable for the purposes intended, although no appreciable differences in patient room charges were demonstrated. Based on past history and current proposals, all of the applicants will provide adequate and appropriate levels of Medicaid care. Only Woodlands will also provide a small percentage of indigent care. Sawgrass, by offering to construct an ALF in conjunction with nursing home and by designating a funding source to do so, offers the greatest continuum of care in a multilevel setting. On balance, the application submitted by Woodlands is superior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order of the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON No. 9123 to Woodlands Extended Care, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in southeast Duval County on the conditions set forth in the application and in Findings of Fact 10 of this Recommended Order; and deny CON No. 9125 to National Healthcare Corporation, and CON No. 9126 to Sawgrass Care Center, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Sternstein, Rainer & Clarke, P.A. 314 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thelma S. Malmberg, is a 47-year old director of nursing at Americana Health Care Center (Americana) in Winter Park, Florida. Americana is a 138-bed skilled nursing facility. She has been employed at that facility since October, 1984. Prior to that time, she served as both director and assistant director of nursing at New Horizon Rehabilitation Center (New Horizon), a nursing home facility in Ocala, Florida, for approximately two years. Before that, she was manager of the quality assurance department at Marion Community Hospital in Ocala from 1974-1982, and at Munroe Memorial Hospital in Ocala from 1971-1974. Malmberg was also a registered nurse from 1968 to 1971. Using her lengthy experience in the health field, Malmberg made application for licensure as a nursing home administrator on April 26, 1984, with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Board). After reviewing the application and supporting documentation, the Board issued its proposed agency action in the form of a letter on May 30, 1984, advising Malmberg that her application was being denied on the grounds her "work experience and education appears to be limited to nursing," and that "additional detailed administrative experience is required to meet Florida's administrative standards in the health care area." The denial prompted the instant proceeding. According to statutory requirements, as codified in Section 468.1695, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure by examination must be 18 years of age or older, a high school graduate or equivalent, and meet one of four criteria in the educational and work experience areas. As is pertinent here, Malmberg contends she has had "24 years of practical experience in a related health administration area," and is therefore eligible to take the examination. The Board has promulgated Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code, which describes the practical experience in a related health administration area as follows: (2) function in a position of total responsibility for the operation and administration of a health care facility which treats and houses patients such as a hospital (or a major subunit thereof), adult congregate living facility of at least 50 beds, hospice, or infirmary. The applicant must show evidence of the performance and practical application of executive duties and management skills including planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling. The parties agree it is this experience which Malmberg must possess in to take the examination. In her present position as director of nursing at Americana, Malmberg supervises a 100-employee nursing department. She interfaces with all other departments of the nursing home, reports directly to the administrator, and acts as administrator in the administrator's absence. To date, however, the administrator has not been absent. While serving as director and assistant director of nursing at New Horizon, she supervised an 80-employee department, and reported directly to the nursing home's administrator. She also performed the duties of an administrator in the administrator's absence, which occurred for approximately 1 1/2 months during her total tenure with New Horizon. In both Americana and New Horizon, Malmberg has been responsible for planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling the nursing department. From 1974 till 1982, Malmberg was the manager of the quality assurance department of a large hospital in Ocala. The quality assurance department is considered a major department within the hospital and Malmberg had responsibility for planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling its various functions as well as interfacing with other departments. On this job, she reported directly to the hospital administrator. Malmberg has also attended various seminars in the health field area over the last ten years or so, and served for six years on the Board of Directors of the Marion-Citrus Mental Health Center, a community mental health board. According to uncontroverted testimony of the Board's chairman, a director of nursing is not in a position of "total responsibility" within the meaning of the rule unless she is designated as a designee to act in the absence of the administrator. Further, the administrator must be absent for at least four years in order for the designee to fulfill the four years of practical experience requirements. In Malmberg's case, she has acted in the administrator's stead for only a few months which is far short of the necessary time. Similarly, her supervision of a single hospital department for a number of years does not qualify for "total responsibility," nor does attending seminars add to her credentials. Therefore, she has not been in a position of total responsibility for the operation and administration of a health care facility for the requisite period of time and is presently unqualified for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Thelma Malmberg for licensure by examination as a nursing home administrator be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-0675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Lynch, Esquire Post Office Box 696 Ocala, Florida 32678 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Room 212, 400 West Robinson St. Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner desires to construct a 180-bed nursing home facility. The proposed facility was originally conceived by the Winter Haven Hospital. The hospital was seeking to construct the facility adjacent to its present location. The hospital planned to utilize Federal Economic Development Agency funds to finance the construction. Under Federal regulations, Economic Development Agency funds are not available to a private hospital, but are available to local governmental units. The Petitioner agreed to seek the certificate of need, to apply for Economic Development Agency funds, and to construct the facility. After construction it is the Petitioner's plan to contract with the Winter Haven Hospital to operate the facility. Petitioner's request for certificate of need was forwarded to the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc., and to the Respondent. The Health Systems Council, by a seven to six vote, recommended to the Respondent against the issuance of a certificate of need. The Council's written recommendation to the Respondent was never forwarded to the Petitioner, or to the Winter Haven Hospital. The Respondent denied the request for issuance of certificate of need by letter dated December 30, 1976. The Respondent's denial was based upon a mechanical application of the Florida State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities. The sole basis for the denial was that in accordance with population figures set out in the State Plan, and in accordance with the application of a Federally required formula to the population figures, there is no need for the additional nursing home beds proposed by the Petitioner. No independent determination was made by the Respondent as to actual needs for nursing home facilities that might exist in Polk County. In the Florida State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities, it was determined that 252 additional long-term care beds were needed in Polk County. At the time that the plan was promulgated, Kennedy Center, a new nursing home facility located in Lakeland, Florida, was not actively under construction. Since the plan was adopted, active construction of the Kennedy Center has commenced. At the time of the hearing 120 beds had been opened and made available at the Kennedy Center, and an additional 120 beds were being constructed. When the Kennedy Center is considered, there remains a need of only 12 additional long-term care beds in Polk County. Obviously the Petitioner's proposed 180-bed facility would greatly exceed the need envisioned in the State Plan. Petitioner offered evidence in the form of a publication of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the College of Business Administration, University of Florida, which indicates that the population of Polk County is somewhat higher than that set out in the State Plan (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). If these population figures, rather than those set out in the State Plan were utilized, there would remain a need for 252 long-term care beds in Polk County, even after construction of the Kennedy Center (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). There is no means of determining from the evidence whether the population figures submitted by the Petitioner are more or less accurate than those set out in the State Plan. Petitioner offered evidence that it has had difficulty placing certain classes of patients in nursing home facilities. This difficulty in fact prompted the Petitioner to seek a certificate of need for a new nursing home facility. Petitioner takes the responsibility for placing indigent persons in need of nursing home care. The State Medicade Program contributes the bulk of the cost of the care. Three categories of nursing home care are identified for Medicade purposes. These are "skill care", "intermediate I" and "intermediate II" patients. Skill care patients are the most infirm, and intermediate II care patients are the least infirm. The Medicade program allots more money for skill care patients than it does for intermediate care patients. Because of this private nursing home facilities often reject intermediate care patients in favor of skill care patients. The Petitioner has accordingly experienced difficulty in placing indigent intermediate care patients. The Petitioner has had to place 86 patients in nursing home facilities outside of Polk County. The opening of the Kennedy Center will alleviate most of the placement difficulties that the Petitioner has experienced. Approximately 100 beds at the Kennedy Center will be available for "intermediate II" patients. In addition, the operator of the "Grovemont Home" in Winter Haven, Florida, appeared at the hearing and stated that his facility would accept Medicade intermediate care patients, and that they are not running at full capacity. The Petitioner had not previously been placing Medicade patients in the Grovemont Home.
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration issue a Final Order approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
