Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation should be granted a certificate of need for a 120-bed nursing home in Palatka, Florida. Whether, after comparative review, Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation should be granted a Certificate of Need for a 120-bed nursing home in Palatka, Florida rather than Respondent, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., being granted Certificates of Need for a 60-bed nursing home in Lake City, Florida and a 60-bed addition to its existing facility in Ocala, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting certificate of need number 4944 to Florida Convalescent Centers for construction of a 60-bed nursing home in Columbia County, Florida and a certificate of need number 4948 to Florida Convalescent Centers for the addition of 60 beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, and denying Health Quest Corporation's certificate of need number 4949 for construction of a 120-bed nursing home in either Marion County or Putnam County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3503 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the * in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Health Quest Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4(1); 5(38,44); 7-9(70); 10(71); 11(68,70); 14-15(102); 18-19(10); 20(11); 21(11,12); 74-75(90); 77(112); 78(72); 80(74); 82(72); 87(72-73)and; 94(47). Proposed findings of fact 6, 12, 13, 23 and 25 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 26 and 95 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. 4. Proposed findings of fact 16, 17, 29-36, 38-42, 76, 79, 81 and 88-93 are rejected as not being relevant or material. Proposed finding of fact 22 is rejected for the reasons set forth in findings of fact 13 - 20 and as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 24 is rejected for the reasons set forth in findings of fact 23 - 34 and as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 27 is rejected for the reasons set forth in finding of fact 102. The balance of proposed finding of fact 27 and proposed finding of fact 28 are adopted in substance in finding of fact 102. Proposed findings of fact 37, 43-73 and 83-86 are rejected as being a restatement of testimony or argument going to the credibility of witnesses rather than a finding of fact that is material or relevant to the issue. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, FCC 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(6); 3(8); 4(7); 5(4); 7-13(35-40); 14(45); 18-21(41-44); 24(45); 27-28(21-22); 29- 39(10-20); 41(50); 42-44(4); 45-47(46-48); 49-50(48-49); 51(2); 52-53(49-51); 55-57(54-59); 60-61(67); 62(50,52,53); 63(65-66); 64-69(61,62,66); 70-74(63-66); 77(83); 78-80 (71,77,78); 82-88(73-76,68,79); 90(80); 92-93(81-82); 95(85); 101(91); 104-107(90,95,96); 109(94); 110- 112(90,100); 113-114(74); 116-120(74,88,86,85,77); 124- 126(112); 133-139(91,92,93,98,99,94,100); 145(30); 157- 159(77,40,80); 162-165(105); 166(108) and 169- 175(106,107,110,110,111,110,110). 2. Proposed findings of fact 6, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25, 40, 54, 58, 59, 75, 76, 89, 91, 94, 96-100 102, 108, 115, 121, 122, 140, 152, 153, 155, 156, 160, 161, 167 and 168 are unnecessary. 3. Proposed findings of fact 17, 26, 48, 81, 103, 123, 129-132, 141-144, 148 and 151 are rejected as not being material or relevant. 4. Proposed findings of facts 127, 128, 146, 147, 149, 150 and 154 are rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, HRS 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 17); 8(17,18); 9(17, 18, 19); 10-21(23-34); 22(36, 37); 23(46); 24(48,50,52):25-26(48, 50); 27(51, 52) and 28(53). COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 E. Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire 804 First Florida Bank Building Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Post Office Box 14348 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue (1) Whether Respondent, Rockledge NH, L.L.C., d/b/a Rockledge Health and Rehabilitation Center, should be given a "Conditional" or "Standard" license effective February 12, 2002, or March 7, 2002; (2) Whether Respondent is subject to an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a skilled nursing home located at 587 Barton Boulevard, Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner is the State of Florida agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing home facilities in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material to this matter, licensed by Petitioner and required to comply with applicable rules, regulations, and statutes, including Sections 415.1034 and 400.022, Florida Statutes. On or about March 7, 2002, Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of Respondent. Petitioner's surveys and pleadings assign numbers to residents in order to maintain the residents' privacy and confidentiality. The resident who was the subject of the Class II deficiency from the March 7, 2002, complaint survey has been identified as Resident number 1, with the initials "H.C." Resident number 1 is 82 years old and was admitted to Respondent's facility on January 19, 2002, with diagnoses of dementia, back pain from multiple falls, hypertension, osteoarthritis, recurrent bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. At all times material to this matter, Resident number 1 was a "vulnerable adult" as defined in Subsection 415.102(26), Florida Statutes. On February 5, 2002, at approximately 9:50 p.m., a certified nursing assistant employed by Respondent went into Resident number 1's room to see why Resident number 1 was yelling. Upon entering the room, the certified nursing assistant found Resident number 1's bed positioned in such a way that his head was down and his feet were up. A blanket had been tied across the "up" end of the bed securing Resident number 1's feet allowing him to be held in a "head down" position. The certified nursing assistant who investigated the yelling "pulled on the blanket to verify that it was tied down." There were no prescriptions or written orders justifying the restraint of Resident number 1. The certified nursing assistant who found Resident number 1 in the above-described position identified a different certified nursing assistant, one provided to Respondent by a staffing agency, as the caregiver for the shift in question. The alleged abusive act was perpetrated by the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency. The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency placed Resident number 1 in a position that was contraindicated for a person with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respondent's certified nursing assistant waited approximately two days before reporting the alleged abusive act to the abuse hotline, Respondent's abuse coordinator or the Director of Nursing. A medical record review indicated that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital on February 22, 2002, for shortness of breath and again on February 26, 2002, for difficulty in breathing and lung congestion. The History and Physical from the hospital, dated February 23, 2002, revealed that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital because of progressive shortness of breath. Resident number 1's lower extremities were documented to have been severely edematous with "skin changes subsequent to chronic stasis and edema with excoriation, loss of circulation, blisters, etc." The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency had a full resident assignment and cared for several residents the day of the alleged abusive act. After the discovery of the alleged abuse, the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency continued to care for Resident number 1 and other residents assigned to her for approximately one hour or until the end of her shift. Documentation, dated March 8, 2002, from the staffing agency, confirmed that the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency did have education in the current rules and regulations related to the abuse and neglect of the elderly. Petitioner's surveyor believed that the failure to immediately report the alleged abuse constituted a Class II deficiency because the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency was allowed to continue to care for Resident number 1 and other residents until the shift ended and could have further abused Resident number 1 or other residents in her care.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints in this matter be dismissed and Respondent's licensure status be returned to Standard for the period it was Conditional and that no administrative fine be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alex Finch, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent, Phyllis Carol Holmes, was a licensed practical nurse licensed by the State of Florida under license number 31075-1, employed as a licensed practical nurse at Crestview Nursing and Convalescent Home (CNCH), in Crestview, Florida, as a charge nurse on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. When Respondent first began work at CNCH, she was required to go through a modest training and orientation program starting on June 21, 1983. As part of this program, she was briefed by various section heads on such matters as personnel policies and procedures, knowledge of working units and various aspects of nursing procedures. The checklist utilized in accomplishing this orientation was signed by four different nurses who accomplished the orientation briefings and it reflects that all aspects of the orientation were accomplished. In addition, Respondent was furnished with a complete written job description outlining the summary of work to be performed and the performance requirements for each which she acknowledged. She was also furnished with a policy letter on nursing personnels' responsibilities for charting and a policy letter on decubitus care procedure. Under the above-mentioned policies and procedures, as charge nurse Respondent had the responsibility for some 60 patients. Part of the requirements of her position included: Making rounds when coming on duty to see that there were no special problems; Administering medications; Preparing and controlling all documenta- tion for individual patients; Making rounds at least every two hours and checking on seriously ill patients more often than that; and Administering treatment immediately as needed in those areas where appropriate. Charge nurses also have the responsibility to insure that patients are moved every two hours to be sure that pressure sores (bed sores) do not develop. On or about July 19, 1983, Barbara Ann Griffin was working as a nurse's aide for Respondent who was charge nurse over her on the 11 - 7 P.M. shift. She observed the Respondent involved in a catheter insertion into an elderly female patient whose name she cannot remember. The records admitted at the hearing do not identify the patient by name but merely as a patient number. In any case, the evidence clearly reflects Respondent inserted a catheter into the female patient's rectum by mistake, then pulled it out, wiped it off and then inserted the same catheter into the patient's meatus. The term meatus means passage or opening. In this case, the witness was referring to the external opening of the urethra. This incident was also observed by Linda Gibbons, an aide who also cannot recall the name of the patient. She recalls, however, that Respondent has had difficulty in inserting catheters on other occasions and in each case, would insert it, perhaps in the wrong opening, withdraw it, and insert it again. At the hearing Respondent admits that she had a problem one time with Mrs. Henderson in inserting a catheter, but she denies reinserting it once she discovered it had been improperly inserted. She states that she got a new catheter from the supply room and inserted it rather than utilizing the one previously inserted and denies ever having any other problems with catheters on any other patients. However, the incident in question was brought to the attention of Mr. Hopkins, the nursing home administrator, at the time in question, and when he spoke with Respondent about it, she admitted that she made a mistake, but said the room was dim and she was in a hurry at the time. From the above, it is found, therefore, that Respondent on or about the date alleged, improperly inserted a catheter into a patient without insuring that it was sterile. Ms. Griffin, an aide, also indicates that on or about September 15, 1983, when she was conducting her midnight rounds, she observed the resident in Room 213A having some sort of problems. According to Ms. Griffin, from the symptoms the patient was displaying, it appeared that the patient had had a stroke. She immediately reported this to the Respondent at the nurse's station and then went back to the patient's room. Approximately 15 minutes later the Respondent came in, looked at the patient, and decided not to call the doctor because, according to Ms. Griffin, "it was too late." Ms. Griffin contends that Respondent did not check on the patient again that night, but at 6:00 A.M., told her to get the patient up for the day. Ms. Griffin went off duty at 7:00 A.M. and did not again see the patient who she later heard had been hospitalized with a stroke. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that instead of waiting 15 minutes when advised by Ms. Griffin, she went to the patient's room almost immediately. Admittedly, she did not make any notes in the patient's record about this situation but claims this was because she was giving her midnight medicines and thereafter forgot. However, she claims she checked the patient approximately every 30 minutes all through the night. Respondent contradicts Ms. Griffin's description of the patient indicating that when she first saw her, the patient was displaying no symptoms and when she saw the patient later that morning, she looked fine. Though she did not make notes at the time, the following day Ms. Holmes entered an after-the-fact note in the records which indicated that the patient was checked at 30 minutes past midnight due to an elevation in blood pressure. Her observation at the time was that the patient's color was good and her skin was warm and dry. The patient appeared cheerful and smiling but not talkative and appeared to be in no acute distress. The admission physical done at the time the patient was admitted to the hospital on September 15, 1985, reflects that there was no swelling of the extremities which had a full range of motion and there was no evidence of Babinski's symptoms which relate to a reflex when the tendons to the extremities are palpated. The history also shows that on the day of admission, the patient was found to have a right-sided weakness and slurred speech but there is no evidence to support the symptoms reported by Ms. Griffin. In substance, then, it appears that while the Respondent failed to report the patient's symptoms to the physician, there is some substantial question that the patient was in the acute distress indicated by the witness, Ms. Griffin. Further, Ms. Griffin admitted that she was in and out of other rooms in the home throughout the remainder of the shift and though she contends she is sure Respondent did not visit the patient during the remainder of the shift, there is no way she can be so certain. In paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleged that on or about April 11, 1984, Respondent administered Ascriptin to a patient in her care even though the physicians's order for the patient had discontinued administration of this substance on April 4, 1984. Review of the documentation submitted by the Petitioner in support of its claim here, specifically the medication administration record for patient number 17, reflects that on April 11, 1984, the Respondent did administer Ascriptin to the patient. The physician's orders clearly reflect that on April 4, 1984, Ascriptin, along with several other medications were discontinued by the physician. However, on April 16, 1984, according to the medication administration record, another nurse also administered Ascriptin. Petitioner admits that the medical administration record did not show the fact that the medication was discontinued. The entry indicating discontinuance was made well after the second administration by the other nurse. However, Ms. LeBrun, the then Director of Nursing for CNCH, contends that even though the medication administration record did not show the discontinuance, Respondent should have noted that the medicine had not been given for quite a while and gone to the doctor's orders to see why that was the case. Had she done so, she would have noticed the order indicating the medication was discontinued. Ascriptin, however, is a pain medication and the doctor's original order indicated it was to be given in the event of pain. If the patient was not suffering pain, the patient would not have called for it and it would not have been given even if authorized. Respondent indicated that the patient did not complain of pain often. When she administered the medication last, there was no indication on the medication administration record that it had been discontinued and even as of April 11, 1984, when the medication was administered by the Respondent, seven days after the doctor's order discontinuing it, the medication was still in the patient's drawer on the medication cart. Inez Cobb has worked at CNCH for approximately 15 years as a nurse's aide and worked for Respondent during the 1983-1984 period. As she recalls, on the morning of May 2, 1984, while getting the patients up for the day, between 6:00 and 6:45 A.M., she entered the room of patient Haas. When she came in she observed the patient slumped in his chair. She checked his blood pressure and found it to be very low and his pulse was weak and faint. She immediately reported this to the Respondent who did nothing and as of 7:00 A.M., when the witness left duty, Respondent had failed to check on the patient. As she recalls, however, the incoming charge nurse who was to replace Respondent on the next shift also failed to check on the patient. Respondent contends that when she was notified of Mr. Haas' condition, she had the medicine nurse for the day shift check him and this nurse, acting on Respondent's instructions, called the doctor almost immediately after the Respondent was notified. Respondent was giving report to the oncoming charge nurse when Ms. Cobb mentioned Mr. Haas to her, and when she finished this report, she went and checked on him. Admittedly, she did not notify the physician. The nurse's notes made by Respondent on the day in question fail to reflect any mention of this incident. Ms. LeBrun noting that Respondent's nurse's notes fail to reflect any acknowledgment of the problem, indicated that proper practice would have been for Respondent to have immediately gone to observe the patient, made her own assessment, immediately called the physician, and then made her nurses notes entry. This is so especially in light of the comment regarding the incident in the flow sheet made by Ms. Cobb regarding the patient's condition. Also, according to Ms. Cobb, on May 11, 1984, she noticed a red area on the coccyx of patient Martin. She reported this to the Respondent several times even after the skin broke, but to her knowledge, nothing was done about it for several days. It is her understanding that when an aide sees an area like this, she is not allowed to treat it herself but must report it to the nurse on duty which she did. Unfortunately, the red spot turned into an ulcer which remained on the patient until he died at some later date. The decubitus care procedure and policy letter reflected above outlines the method of care to be taken with regard to the prevention of ulceration. It calls for keeping the patient's skin dry, massage and frequent turning. Ms. Gregg noted this situation on the flow sheets for May 11, at 5:15 A.M. The nurse's notes prepared by the Respondent at 5:15 A.M. in the morning on May 11 reflect merely that a bed bath was given with a linen change and that a broken area was noted on the patient's right buttox. There is no indication that any treatment was given by the Respondent or that the physician was notified. Respondent admits that she knew Mr. Martin had a broken area and she treated it often. Admittedly, she did not chart her treatment properly because she had to give all medicines at the time and do all the charts for more than 60 patients and did not get around to it. She contends she may not have heard Ms. Cobb report this situation to her because she is somewhat hard of hearing from time to time and as a result, has asked all her aides not to just give her information on the run but to be sure to get her attention when they need to report something. On the issue of whether Respondent's performance measures up to the standard of care required of nurses in Florida, Ms. LeBrun contends that the standard of care for licensed practical nurses is not that much different or much less than that required for registered nurses because in this State, licensed practical nurses do many of the same procedures often reserved for registered nurses elsewhere. In the area of medications, for example, there is no room for error. As a result, standards are high and Ms. LeBrun feels there is a need for checking and double checking. In the situation regarding the Ascriptin here, she believes that even though it is strictly a pain medication, the Respondent should still have checked the doctor's orders to insure the requirement was still valid before administering a medication which the records show had not been administered for quite a while. With regard to the catheter insertion, Ms. LeBrun states the fact that the patient did not develop an infection is irrelevant. The issue concerns the following of a procedure using a contaminated catheter which could easily have developed an infection for the patient. Referring to the stroke patient, Ms. LeBrun agrees with the testimony of Ms. Barrow, another licensed practical nurse, who was the day shift charge nurse relieving Respondent at 7:00 A.M. in the morning. As she recalls the situation on September 15, she observed the patient in question being brought out of the dining room. At that time, the patient was semi-lethargic. Ms. Barrow is of the opinion that if the patient was wakened at 6:30 A.M.; she would not have been in the condition she was in at 11:30 A.M. for a long time. Therefore, the stroke must have taken place just before 11:30 A.M.; as the patient was not in such poor shape during the preceding 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. shift. Ms. LeBrun feels that if the patient was in condition as described by the night nurse, it is not likely they would have gotten her up at 6:30 A.M. to go to the dining room. Nonetheless, she feels that Respondent should have responded sooner as the symptoms described by the night nurse are consistent with strokes as well as other things. On that basis, the Respondent should have made an assessment on the vital signs and notified the doctor immediately. Turning to the issue of the decubitus situation on the patient with the ulcer, Ms. LeBrun feels that the Respondent should have documented what she did for the broken area. If the records do not say what was done, it is presumed not to be done. When notified that the broken area was getting larger, the Respondent should have documented what treatment she administered since the nursing home had a procedure to be followed for this type of condition and it appears respondent did not follow this procedure. Several of the nurses who worked for the Respondent indicated that they had had other professional problems with her. For example, Ms. Griffin indicated that in addition to the catheter incident, she had instances when she would report problems to the Respondent but Respondent would make no record of it. She would, for instance, report patients with rashes to the Respondent but nothing would be done about it. It got so bad that the witness finally started to request Respondent to initial reports she made. Ms. Gibbons also has noticed Respondent to have had difficulty on other occasions than that involved in this hearing with the insertion of catheters. Ms. LeBrun prepared at least one efficiency report on Respondent which had to be reaccomplished because the Respondent would not sign for it and acknowledge the rating. In addition, Ms. LeBrun counseled Respondent on at least one occasion for jumping channels. On the basis of Ms. LeBrun's testimony, it would appear that there was some friction between the two nurses but this does not necessarily, in light of all the other evidence, indicate that Ms. LeBrun's testimony is biased or tainted. On the basis of the above incidents, Ms. Holmes was terminated from employment with the nursing home on June 29, 1984, because of poor performance. On December 21, 1983, the Board of Nursing entered an Order pursuant to a stipulation executed by the Respondent in another case which resulted in her being fined $250.00, being placed on probation, and being required to take certain continuing education courses. The stipulation reflects that the Respondent denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint which supported it which related to various failures by Respondent to conform to the minimal standards of nursing practice. Respondent indicated that she entered into the stipulation simply because she had no money with which to retain an attorney and was forced, therefore, to utilize the services of Legal Aid. It was her Legal Aid attorney who talked her into stipulating on the basis that she had no witnesses to support her position. She continues to deny the allegations in the former Administrative Complaint, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of one year or until such time as she has completed a course of remedial study prescribed by the Board of Nursing and to its satisfaction, and that upon her completion of such course of study, she be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Furlow, Esquire, and Celia Bradley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale E. Rice, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Crestview, Florida 32536 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 E. Coastline Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rules 58AER17-1 and 59AER17-1 (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether an immediate danger justified issuance of the Emergency Rules.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation, and matters subject to official recognition. The Parties LeadingAge Florida is a trade association whose membership includes 75 nursing homes and 79 assisted living facilities (“ALFs”). LeadingAge Florida’s services include the provision of legislative and regulatory advocacy on behalf of its members. FALA is a professional organization whose membership includes 592 ALFs. FALA’s advocates on its members’ behalf before the legislative and executive branches. Florida Argentum has 367 members and represents companies that operate professionally managed senior living communities, including independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities, as well as allied companies that serve senior living operators in the State of Florida. AHCA is the state agency in Florida responsible for licensing nursing homes and ALFs. AHCA’s staff inspects nursing homes and ALFs in order to ensure compliance with the statutes and rules governing those facilities. AHCA promulgates the rules governing nursing homes. DOEA is one of the state agencies charged with implementing the Assisted Living Facilities Act under Part I of Chapter 429, Florida Statutes (2017).3/ DOEA consults with AHCA in order to promulgate the rules governing ALFs. Pertinent Statutes and Rules Governing Nursing Homes and ALFs Nursing homes and ALFs are subject to statutes and existing rules pertaining to emergency management plans and emergency power. Section 400.23(2)(g), Florida Statutes, requires AHCA, in consultation with DOEA and the Department of Health, to adopt rules that include reasonable and fair criteria for “[t]he preparation and annual update of a comprehensive emergency management plan” by a nursing home. “At a minimum, the rules must provide for plan components that address emergency evacuation transportation; adequate sheltering arrangements; postdisaster activities, including emergency power, food, and water . . . .” (emphasis added). Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.134(12)(h) requires nursing homes to have generators.4/ Rule 59A-4.122(1)(e) requires nursing homes to maintain “[c]omfortable and safe room temperature levels in accordance with 42 CFR, Section 483.15(h)(6), which is effective October 1, 2014 . . . .” The version of 42 C.F.R. § 483.15 cited by the rule mandates that “[f]acilities initially certified after October 1, 1990 must maintain a temperature range of 71-81 ºF.” No exceptions are mentioned. Section 429.41(1)(b) requires DOEA in consultation with AHCA, the Department of Children and Families, and the Department of Health, to adopt rules that include reasonable and fair minimum standards for “[t]he preparation and annual update of a comprehensive emergency management plan” by an ALF. “At a minimum, the rules must provide for plan components that address emergency evacuation transportation; adequate sheltering arrangements; postdisaster activities, including provision of emergency power, food, and water ” § 429.41(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). ALFs are not specifically required to have generators. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G-2.007(8)(a) mandates that indoor temperatures at ALFs “shall be maintained within a range of 68 degrees to 80 degrees, as appropriate for the climate.” No exceptions are mentioned. Hurricane Irma and Its Aftermath On September 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma was projected to strike Southeast Florida, and nursing homes and ALFs in that area initiated evacuation plans. By September 8, 2017, Hurricane Irma’s direction had shifted, and projections indicated that Southwest Florida was in the storm’s path. Nursing homes and ALFs in that area also initiated evacuation plans. There were numerous situations during the pre-storm evacuation process in which patients could not be successfully evacuated to the originally planned destinations because those destinations were already filled with evacuees. In many instances, alternative arrangements had to be made in the midst of the emergency conditions and, often, the alternative shelters were not equipped to provide an appropriate level of care and/or did not have generators or the ability to house the patients for extended periods of time. By September 9, 2017, the scope of Hurricane Irma’s threat came into sharp focus. Projections had Hurricane Irma moving north over the entire Florida peninsula and affecting the vast majority of the State. On September 9, 2017, the Division of Emergency Management estimated that 6.5 million Floridians had been ordered to evacuate. By September 11, 2017, 6.7 million homes and businesses had lost power. More than 30,000 restoration personnel were activated in order to restore power as quickly as possible. That was the largest power restoration undertaking in history for a single state. Many nursing homes and ALFs were without power for more than 72 hours after the storm and had a difficult time maintaining their indoor temperatures at the required levels. Even facilities that had generators experienced difficulty due to a shortage of fuel during Hurricane Irma’s aftermath or because of a lack of generator capacity to power their air conditioning. Residents at some nursing homes and ALFs suffered from overheating, and they were transferred to hospitals because temperatures within the facilities had become excessively warm. Temperatures in some facilities became so high that AHCA ordered them to be evacuated. By September 15, 2017, power had been restored to more than 75 percent of the homes and businesses that had lost power. In the days after Hurricane Irma, AHCA and DOEA concluded that nursing homes and ALFs needed to be more self- sufficient. That would reduce the need for evacuations and the need for nursing homes and ALFs to seek emergency assistance if electricity could not be promptly restored following a hurricane. The Tragedy at Hollywood Hills Nursing Home In the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, a tragedy occurred at the Rehabilitation Center of Hollywood Hills, LLC (“Hollywood Hills”), a nursing home located in Hollywood Hills, Florida. Hollywood Hills was licensed to provide care to 152 residents. After conducting a survey of Hollywood Hills on September 13, 2017, AHCA imposed an immediate moratorium5/ on additional admissions to Hollywood Hills.6/ Following imposition of the moratorium, AHCA gathered additional facts and issued an Emergency Suspension Order7/ on September 20, 2017, that immediately suspended Hollywood Hills’ license to operate a nursing home in Florida. AHCA’s Emergency Suspension Order set forth the following findings: On September 10, 2017, [Hollywood Hills] became aware that its air conditioning equipment had ceased to operate effectively. In addition to contacting the local electrical power provider, [Hollywood Hills] situated eight (8) portable air coolers somewhere in the facility and equipped the halls with fans. Between 1:30 AM and 5:00 AM on September 13, 2017, several residents suffered respiratory or cardiac distress. At least eight (8) of those residents ultimately expired. Emergency personnel and law enforcement responding to these multiple emergency medical events directed [Hollywood Hills], as a result of the heat in the building, to evacuate the second floor of [Hollywood Hills]. [Hollywood Hills] ultimately evacuated the entire building. Due to the active state of emergency of Hurricane Irma, the Florida Emergency Operations Center was actively staffed to assist with critical incidents. Additional emergency resources through several state and local government agencies were also available. This includes potential assistance with a timely evacuation, which [Hollywood Hills] never requested. [AHCA] officials have reviewed records pertaining to the operational status of Memorial Regional Hospital, the hospital located directly across the street from [Hollywood Hills], and have confirmed that at all times relevant to this matter, the hospital was open, air-conditioned, and available to receive patients. The Emergency Suspension Order also found that: As a result of [Hollywood Hill’s] failure to care for and protect its residents, at least eight (8) residents have died. The deceased residents arrived at the large air- conditioned hospital across the street with core body temperatures of, for example, [109.9] degrees Fahrenheit; [108.5] degrees Fahrenheit; [107] degrees Fahrenheit; and [108.3] degrees Fahrenheit – too far gone and far too late to be saved. The Emergency Rules On Saturday, September 16, 2017, AHCA approved the adoption of Emergency Rule 59AER17-1. Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 was filed with the Department of State on September 18, 2017. Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 is entitled “Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan” and states that it “establishes a process for [AHCA] to ensure that licensees of nursing homes develop and implement plans that ensure ambient temperatures will be maintained at 80 degrees or less for a minimum of ninety-six (96) hours in the event of the loss of electrical power to a health care facility.” The full text of Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 provides that: 59AER17-1 Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan Procedures Regarding Emergency Environmental Control for Nursing Homes. Nursing homes shall, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this emergency rule, provide in writing, to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the local emergency management agency for review and approval, a detailed plan which includes the following criteria: The acquisition of a sufficient generator or sufficient generators to ensure that current licensees of nursing homes will be equipped to ensure ambient temperatures will be maintained at 80 degrees or less for a period of a minimum of ninety-six (96) hours in the event of the loss of electrical power. The acquisition and safe maintenance of sufficient fuel to ensure that in an emergency situation the generators can function to maintain ambient temperatures at 80 degrees or less for a period of a minimum of ninety-six (96) hours in the event of the loss of electrical power. The acquisition of services necessary to install, maintain, and test the equipment and its functions to ensure the safe and sufficient operation of the generator system installed in the nursing home. Each nursing home shall, within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this rule, have implemented the plan required under this rule. If the facility’s initial submission of the plan is denied, then the local emergency management agency shall report the denial to the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the facility within forty-eight (48) hours of the date of denial. Within ten (10) business days of the date of the local county emergency management agency’s notice of denial, the facility shall resubmit their plan. The county shall post all approved facility emergency management plans to their website within ten (10) days of the plan’s approval. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the plan from the local emergency management agency, the facility shall submit in writing proof of approval to the Agency for Health Care Administration. The State Fire Marshall shall conduct inspections to ensure compliance with this rule within fifteen (15) days of installation. Each nursing home facility shall develop and implement written policies and procedures to ensure that the facility can effectively and immediately activate, operate and maintain the generators and alternate fuel required for the operation of the generators. The Agency for Health Care Administration may revoke the nursing home’s license for failure to comply with this rule. In addition to other remedies provided by law, violation of this rule shall result in a fine or sanction of $1,000 per day. The facility shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the health care facility can effectively and immediately activate and maintain the generators and alternate fuel required for the operation of the generators. Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 purportedly took effect on Saturday, September 16, 2017. In sum, Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 imposes the following requirements: (a) development of a plan regarding emergency environmental control within 45 days (i.e., October 31, 2017); (b) acquisition of a generator within 60 days (i.e., November 15, 2017); and (c) acquisition of enough fuel by November 15, 2017, to power the aforementioned generator for 96 hours On September 18, 2017, DOEA filed Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 with the Department of State. Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 is entitled “Procedures Regarding Emergency Environmental Control for [ALFs]” and states that it “establishes a process for the Department of Elder Affairs to ensure that licensees of assisted living facilities develop and implement plans that ensure ambient temperatures will be maintained at or below 80 degrees Fahrenheit or less for a minimum of ninety-six (96) hours in the event of the loss of electrical power to an assisted living facility.” Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 imposed the same requirements on ALFs that were imposed on nursing homes by Emergency Rule 59AER17-1. Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 purportedly took effect on Saturday, September 16, 2017. With regard to the specific reasons why there exists an “immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare,” the Emergency Rules state the following: The State has experienced extreme shortages of electrical power that have jeopardized, and continue to jeopardize, the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Florida’s nursing homes. According to the United States Census Bureau, Florida has the largest percentage of residents age 65 and older in the nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people age 65 years or older are more prone to heat-related health problems. An incompetent response by a nursing facility to a loss of air conditioning after Hurricane Irma resulted in the tragic loss of eight senior citizens at the Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills. Thousands of frail seniors reside in nursing homes in Florida. Ensuring that nursing homes maintain sufficient resources to provide alternative power sources during emergency situations mitigates the concerns related to the health, safety, and welfare of residents in those nursing homes that experience loss of electrical power. This emergency rule establishes a process for certain nursing homes to obtain sufficient equipment and resources to ensure that the ambient temperature of the nursing homes will be maintained at 80 degrees or less within the facilities for a minimum of ninety-six (96) hours in the event of the loss of electrical power. Prompt implementation of this rule is necessary to ensure continuity of care and to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Florida’s nursing homes. As for why the method employed by AHCA and DOEA to address the situation described above was fair under the circumstances, the Emergency Rules explain that: The procedure used to adopt this emergency rule is fair, as the State of Florida is under a declaration of emergency due to the massive destruction caused by Hurricane Irma, and it is essential to ensure as soon as possible that temperatures in nursing homes are maintained at a level providing for the safety of the residents residing therein; provides at least the procedural protection given by other statutes, the State Constitution, or the United States Constitution; and takes only the action necessary to protect the public interest under the emergency procedure. Prior Evaluation of Whether Facilities Could Comply with the November 15, 2017, Deadline AHCA did not consult with the nursing home or ALF industries before adopting Emergency Rule 59AER17-1. DOEA did not consult with the ALF industry prior to adopting Emergency Rule 58AER17-1. Before adoption of Emergency Rule 59AER17-1, AHCA did not investigate whether the requirements imposed by the Emergency Rules were a workable solution that could address the alleged emergency described in the preamble to the Emergency Rules. Before adoption of Emergency Rule 58AER17-1, DOEA did not consider whether it was realistic to expect that ALFs could comply with the Emergency Rules’ requirements by November 15, 2017. In addition, DOEA had not: (a) formulated or procured any estimates regarding the cost of compliance; (b) become aware of the process and timeframe for planning, permitting, procuring, and installing a commercial generator; (c) consulted with any generator suppliers to ascertain whether this increased need for generators could be satisfied by November 15, 2017; consulted with electrical engineers as to whether 60 days was a reasonable amount of time for compliance; and had not consulted fuel tank suppliers to ascertain if the fuel tanks necessary to comply with Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 could be procured by November 15, 2017. The Installation Process for Commercial Generators and Fuel Tanks There are several steps that must be taken in order to safely and legally install generators. For existing nursing homes, installing a generator that complies with Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 requires three distinct phases: design, approval, and installation. The design phase requires that a nursing home hire an electrical engineer. Negotiating a contract with an electrical engineer is a one-to-two week process. Once hired, the electrical engineer will have to visit the site, examine existing electrical distribution systems, and discuss and confirm with the operators their expectations for the HVAC system when the generator is activated. The initial site visit requires three to four days to collect all of the facts needed for the design. After the initial site visit, the electrical engineer must create final diagrams and construction drawings that will ultimately be reviewed by AHCA and the local jurisdiction. The electrical engineer must engage the client frequently as the design is being drawn to ensure that expectations are being met. Finally, once the drawings are close to completion, the electrical engineer will take a final walkthrough of the facility in order to complete the final design that will be submitted for regulatory review. An expeditious design phase would take 60 days to complete. After a new power delivery system has been designed and drawn, the plans are submitted to AHCA and to the local jurisdiction concurrently for review. The plans must contain breaker coordination studies, ground fault studies, and power demand studies. AHCA must complete its review of the design plans within 60 days. There is no provision in the Emergency Rules regarding the time within which necessary local governmental approvals must be completed. After AHCA and the local jurisdiction complete their review, they provide comments to the electrical engineer. If the comments conflict, then the engineer must negotiate a solution between AHCA and the local jurisdiction. After completion of the approval phase, a nursing home can begin the process of ordering and installing the generator. Usually a nursing home will not order the generator and equipment necessary for installation until the design plans have been approved by AHCA and the local jurisdiction. While a nursing home could order a generator at an earlier time, that is problematic given that the final plan approved by AHCA may require a different generator than the one initially ordered. Following placement of a generator order, delivery usually takes 12 to 16 weeks because generators suitable for a large facility must be custom made rather than pulled “off the shelf.” After the generator has been delivered, installation can take weeks. With the exception of the smallest of ALFs, ALFs subject to Emergency Rule 58AER17-1 must go through a similar design and approval process and cannot comply by purchasing an “off the shelf” generator from a local home improvement store. Instead, the majority of ALFs (just like nursing homes) will need a generator built according to plans and specifications prepared by an electrical engineer and ordered months ahead of installation. Electrical engineer Michael Dodane provided persuasive expert testimony regarding the timeline required for nursing homes and ALFs to comply with the Emergency Rules. Mr. Dodane credibly testified that it is physically impossible for a facility to have a new generator installed within the 60-day timeline set forth in the Emergency Rules. Mr. James R. “Skip” Gregory, a former Chief of AHCA’s Office of Plans and Construction also credibly and persuasively testified that it is impossible for a generator to be installed within the 60-day timeframe set forth in the Emergency Rules. Uncertainty About Compliance with the Emergency Rules During the evening of September 18, 2017, LeadingAge Florida participated in a conference call with AHCA. LeadingAge Florida believed the call would present an opportunity to have questions answered so that LeadingAge could provide information to its members. At the time of the call, there was a great deal of uncertainty about how to comply with the Emergency Rules. AHCA was unable to answer any questions during the call. AHCA treated the call as an opportunity to gather questions and assured the callers that AHCA would provide answers at a later time. On September 21, 2017, the Agencies published eight questions and answers pertaining to compliance with the Emergency Rules. The most noteworthy questions and answers were the following: Question: Does the requirement to maintain temperatures in subsection (1) apply to the entire licensed facility including all resident rooms and common areas? Answer: The required temperatures must be maintained in an area of sufficient size to maintain all residents comfortably at all times and that is appropriate for the health, safety and welfare of all residents. This may include areas that are less than the entire licensed facility if the facility’s emergency management plan includes relocating residents to portions of the building where temperatures will be maintained as required by the rule. This information must be included in the plan required by subsection (1). Question: Will a contract or agreement to bring in a generator and/or fuel when needed comply with the requirement of subsection (1)? Answer: No. The rule requires the generator be installed and maintained at the facility, and sufficient fuel must be safely maintained at the facility to ensure temperatures for 96 hours. A contract to bring in a generator when needed does not comply with the rule. A contract to bring in fuel to support temperatures beyond the initial 96 hours would be appropriate as part of the [comprehensive emergency management plan], however the initial 96 hours must be supported by a fuel source available at the facility at all times. The rule is intended to enable nursing homes and assisted living facilities to be self-sufficient in maintaining resident safety. During times of emergency, delivery of a generator or fuel can be unreliable and will not provide necessary protections for vulnerable residents. Question: Will a mobile generator meet the requirement of the rule? Answer: The rule does not restrict the type of generator required, but it must be installed and maintained at the facility. The emergency generator, fuel supply, and distribution equipment must be protected from debris impact as required by the Florida Building Code. Question: Can natural gas be used as a fuel source? Answer: The rule does not dictate the type of fuel permitted. Only sources of fuel that are stored onsite will be considered reliable, however a piped fuel source may serve as an additional resource. The plan that must be submitted for review should include fuel information. Question: Does the rule waive other permitting or approval requirements elsewhere in law? Answer: The rule does not waive any other permitting or requirements. Nursing homes must continue to seek approval from all other state and local authorities including the Agency’s Office of Plans and Construction. [ALFs] must continue to seek approval from all other state and local authorities. Question: Does the rule provide for an extension of time if requested? Answer: No. The rule does not provide for an extension of time. Question: If a facility’s [comprehensive emergency management plan] is to evacuate if a power outage or other emergency does not enable the maintenance of required temperatures, is this plan a permissible alternative to meeting the generator and temperature requirements of this rule? Answer: No. Emergency evacuation plans are vital in many instances. However, the rule does not provide evacuation as an alternative means for compliance with this rule. On September 22, 2017, the Florida Health Care Association (“the FHCA”) held an open summit in Tallahassee for discussion about the Emergency Rules and how nursing homes and ALFs could comply. Attendees included facility operators, personnel from the Agencies, and industry experts and suppliers with expertise regarding generator installation at health care facilities. At the summit, expert panelists opined that 60 days was an insufficient amount to time to comply with the Emergency Rules. In addition, the Agencies were notified that generator manufacturers would not be able to fill orders quickly enough for every nursing home and ALF needing a new generator to comply with the Emergency Rules. Justin Senior, AHCA’s Secretary, spoke at the summit and indicated that the November 15, 2017, deadline established by the Emergency Rules would not be extended. However, Secretary Senior invited nursing homes and ALFs to utilize the statutory waiver process8/ if they could not comply with the Emergency Rules. Following the summit, the Agencies published more questions and answers on October 2, 2017, pertaining to whether nursing homes and ALFs could obtain a waiver and/or variance from the Emergency Rules’ requirements. Another set of questions and answers published on October 2, 2017, pertained to the requirements set forth in the Emergency Rules. One noteworthy question concerned the use of spot coolers: Question: The rule does not state that the generator(s) needs to run HVAC systems to cool. Are spot coolers considered in the rule? Answer: The rule does not specify the method of cooling required to allow flexibility for each provider to determine the most appropriate equipment to meet their facility needs. These details should be specified in the plan submitted for review and approval. The Agencies published another set of questions and answers on October 10, 2017. The more noteworthy questions and answers included the following: Question: There is no defined review timeline for local emergency management review of plans; however facilities are expected to have generators implemented within 60 days. If all plans [are] received on [the] 45th day – there is very little time for review/comment, particularly if permits are required [and] if it is expected that reviews will be completed within the 60 days implementation period. Is it expected that the plan reviews and approvals [will] be completed prior to implementation? Answer: The rule describes plan reviews and approvals prior to implementation. Question: Who determines the technical specifications for the emergency power requirements, such as load requirements? What agency/organization established these technical standards? Answer: The rules establish the criteria for compliance. The plans must include any analysis and documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. The solution must be compliance with applicable building and life safety codes. Some facilities will utilize the services of a professional engineer who will determine technical requirements. If an engineer is not utilized, publicly available tools may assist with determining needs. Generator sizing calculators are commonly available online to help determine an appropriate solution for small facilities. Question: Are there expectations for fuel burn rates/projections to be in the plan? Answer: The plans should address the fuel needs required to maintain the 96 hours of temperature control as required in the rule. Question: Local code/zoning provisions may not allow for fuel storage on site – there may be other on-site safety considerations. Answer: Plans should include details of fuel storage information. Review of plans should consider safety issues prior to approval. Question: Under the rules, local emergency management agencies report denials to Florida DEM but approvals to AHCA/DOEA. Wouldn’t AHCA/DOEA want information on denials? To whom will these notices be directed at the respective agencies? Answer: Notification to AHCA and DOEA would be helpful. Please use the following email addresses for notifications . . . . On October 10, 2017, the Agencies published revisions to two answers initially issued on September 21, 2017. With regard to whether a mobile generator could be utilized to satisfy the Emergency Rules’ requirements, the Agencies revised their answer to state the following: Answer: The rule does not restrict the type of generator required, but it must be installed and maintained at the facility. If the emergency generator used to meet the temperature requirements in the rule also supplies power for life safety and critical equipment, a level 1 generator must be used and the fuel supply and distribution equipment must be protected from debris impact as required by the Florida Building Code. As for whether natural gas can be used as a fuel source, the Agencies now stated that “[p]iped natural gas is an allowable fuel source under the rule. The plan submitted for review should include fuel information.” Despite the publication of the questions and answers discussed above, there are still unanswered questions regarding compliance with the Emergency Rules. For example, the Emergency Rules are silent on how much of a nursing home or ALF’s physical space must be air conditioned. One of the Questions and Answers published by the Agencies provided that only part of a facility needed to be air conditioned, but there was no specification as to which part. No square footage or other clear guidance was provided. Instead, the Answer merely stated that enough space had to be provided to keep residents “comfortable.” The Emergency Rules provided no guidance on where the air conditioning should be provided in a nursing home or ALF. The Emergency Rules do not give sufficient specificity about electrical load requirements. The Emergency Rules require that a generator power air conditioning for 96 hours, but they do not specify what type of load the generator must power. The current building code requires 72 hours of connected load, but engineers can design generators for 96 hours of connected load, 96 hours of demand load, or 96 hours of nameplate rating load, each requiring different amounts of fuel. Regardless of load, the 96 hour requirement would cause a need for more fuel storage than currently required under the building code. Another unanswered question concerns permissible types of fuel. The Emergency Rules would allow gasoline as a fuel source. However, gasoline is generally considered to be a poor fuel source for powering emergency generators because gasoline is highly flammable and only remains usable for six months unless stabilizers are added. The Emergency Waiver Rules On October 12, 2017, each of the Agencies published an emergency rule describing how facilities could apply for a waiver and/or variance from the Emergency Rules’ requirements. The variance rule pertaining to nursing homes appeared in the Florida Administrative Register as follows: 59AER17-2: Variances from Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan Rule SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE: The specific reasons are as set forth in the Notice of Emergency Rule, published in the Florida Administrative Register on Monday, September 18, 2017, Volume 43, No. 180, pp. 4003-4005. As a result of the vulnerabilities and risks to the elderly population residing in Florida nursing homes that was evidenced by the impacts of Hurricane Irma, the Agency has promulgated Rule 59AER17-1 Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan to set forth the requirements for each nursing home to develop a plan to ensure the safety and health of residents in the event of the loss of electrical power. In the aftermath of the devastation left by Hurricane Irma, including the loss of life at a licensed nursing home facility due to an incompetent emergency response coupled with the loss of power to cooling systems, and facing the threat of two more potential hurricanes on a similar track toward Florida, the Agency took immediate steps to require nursing home facilities to develop and implement plans to ensure that each facility would be able to maintain temperatures at an appropriate level for a minimum of 96 hours in the event of the loss of electrical power. The experience of Hurricane Irma revealed that additional protections for the elderly were needed beyond reliance on evacuation plans, transfer agreements for evacuation of patients to other facilities, or third- party suppliers of emergency power in times of emergency, and staffing issues arise when facilities are without air conditioning, potentially immediately endangering the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Accordingly, the Emergency Rule was promulgated to direct licensed nursing homes to implement Emergency Power Plans for a minimum of 96 hours to protect patients and residents during the immediate aftermath of a major power outage and infrastructure disruption, not just during a hurricane. This Supplement does not repeal or modify the requirements of the Emergency Power Plan Rule. Instead, this supplement to Emergency Rule is adopted to provide guidance and direction on the submission of variance requests under current Florida law. Nursing homes must focus their efforts on ensuring their patients and residents will be protected during the immediate 96 hours following a community-wide disruption of operation of environmental controls. REASON FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE PROCEDURE IS FAIR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES: To facilitate the expeditious implementation of the Emergency Rule requirements, this Supplement to Emergency Power Plan Rule regarding the variance process already available under existing law is adopted to provide guidance and direction to the nursing homes that for reasons outside their control are unable to fully implement an Emergency Power Plan within the sixty (60) days specified in the Emergency Rule. This Supplement does not repeal or modify the requirements of the Emergency Power Plan Rule. This Supplement will enable the Agency to accurately track the steps taken by nursing homes around the state to address the important goal of ensuring that all nursing homes have the ability to protect the safety of the residents in times of emergency. The Supplement provides at least the procedural protections given by other statutes, the Florida Constitution, or the United States Constitution; and takes only that action necessary to clarify the requirements and to protect the public interest under the emergency procedure. SUMMARY: This Supplement to Emergency Rule sets forth the criteria and information that should be provided by nursing homes seeking an emergency variance on the grounds that, for reasons outside their control, full implementation of the Emergency Power Plan is not feasible within the sixty (60) day timeframe required by the Emergency Rule. This Supplement does not repeal or modify the requirements of the Emergency Power Plan Rule. The Agency will consider the reasonable efforts undertaken by a nursing home to provide the protections contemplated by the Emergency Rule. Administrative action or sanctions for non-compliance with the Emergency Rule will be evaluated based upon the information submitted by the nursing home in conjunction with any variance request under existing law (see § 120.542, Florida Statutes) along with such additional information as may be available to the Agency. THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE EMERGENCY RULE IS: Kimberly Stewart, Agency for Health Care Administration, Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 28A, Tallahassee, FL 32308 or at BHFR@ahca.myflorida.com. THE FULL TEXT OF THE EMERGENCY RULE IS: Rule 59AER17-2, Variances from Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan Rule. Rule 59AER17-1, Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan, calls for implementation of a plan within sixty (60) days (the “Sixty-Day Period”) of its effective date. Variances from Rule 59AER17-1, Nursing Home Emergency Power Plan, may be granted by the Agency pursuant to section 120.542, Florida Statutes and Rule 28-104.004-104.005. To facilitate the timely consideration of requests for variances or waivers, in addition to the requirements of Section 120.542, Fla. Stat. and Chapter 28-104, F.A.C., a nursing home seeking a variance from any of the requirements of Rule 59AER 17-1 may provide a sworn affidavit from the Administrator of the nursing home that addresses the following: steps the nursing home has taken to implement the detailed plan required by Rule 59AER17-1 (the “Detailed Plan”) within the Sixty-Day Period; specific circumstances beyond the control of the nursing home that have prevented full implementation of the Detailed Plan within the Sixty-Day Period; arrangements the nursing home has made pending full implementation of the Detailed Plan to ensure that residents and patients of the nursing home will not be exposed to ambient temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the event of power failure or loss of air conditioning due to loss of electrical power; a delineation of the steps remaining for full implementation of the Detailed Plan and the nursing home’s estimate of the time needed to fully implement the Detailed Plan called for by the Emergency Power Plan Rule; and, all steps taken by the nursing home to provide notice to each resident or patient and, if applicable, to the resident’s or patient’s legal guardian or health care surrogate that the nursing home has applied for a variance or waiver from Emergency Rule 59AER17-1 and the steps that the nursing home is taking to comply with the Emergency Rule. The nursing home’s request for a variance shall be posted on the Agency’s website. Once notice has been provided as required in this Rule and the information related to the nursing home’s request has been posted on the Agency’s website, the Agency will consider the request for variance and the accompanying proof. If the Agency determines from the petition and any accompanying proof offered by the nursing home: that the nursing home has made all feasible efforts to implement the Detailed Plan within the Sixty-Day Period; circumstances beyond the control of the nursing home have made full and timely implementation impossible; and that satisfactory arrangements have been made to ensure the residents and patients will not be exposed to ambient temperature above 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the event the nursing home is without electric power, the Agency will grant a variance of the Sixty-Day Time Period for implementation of the Detailed Plan under the ‘principles of fairness’ standard in §120.542 for a period no longer than 180 days as to the nursing home, subject to such conditions the Agency determines are appropriate under the circumstances. The Agency will not assess a fine during the period of the variance if the agency grants a variance under Florida law. The variance rule pertaining to ALFs was virtually identical to the variance rule for nursing homes, and both variance rules (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Variance Rules”) took effect upon their filing with the Department of State on October 12, 2017. The Existence of an “Emergency” and Whether Nursing Homes and ALFs Can Comply by November 15, 2017 AHCA and DOEA relied on the same statements in order to justify the Emergency Rules. However, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that despite the tragic but singular events at Hollywood Hills, there is not “an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare” to constitute an emergency. One justification for the Emergency Rules was that, “According to the United States Census Bureau, Florida has the largest percentage of residents age 65 and older in the nation.” AHCA admitted that Florida has had a high percentage of residents age 65 and older for decades. The presence of elderly populations in Florida is not an emergency situation. Another justification for the Emergency Rules was that, “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people age 65 years or older are more prone to heat- related health problems.” AHCA admitted that this situation was not new or emergent. The effects of prolonged heat exposure on the elderly have been known for years. Another justification for the Emergency Rules was that, “Thousands of frail seniors reside assisted living facilities [and nursing homes] in Florida.” Again, AHCA admitted that thousands of frail seniors have resided safely in nursing homes and ALFs for decades. This is not an emergent situation that might justify the Emergency Rules. In order to justify the Emergency Rules, AHCA and DOEA also cited “an incompetent response” by one nursing home in Hollywood Hills, Florida, that resulted in the deaths of several residents. AHCA took appropriate and swift action by immediately suspending Hollywood Hill’s license to operate a nursing home. There was no evidence at the final hearing indicating that the tragic situation at Hollywood Hills was representative of the situation at any other facilities. The fact that there were no similar incidents at any of the multitude of other nursing homes and ALFs affected by Hurricane Irma suggests that it was not. The Agencies’ position that an emergency exists is undermined by: (a) the fact that the Secretary of AHCA invited facilities to consider applying for a variance almost immediately after adoption of the Emergency Rules; and by (b) the Agencies’ adoption of the Emergency Variance Rules. If Floridians are truly in immediate danger, then whether the protections of the Emergency Rules affect a particular nursing home or ALF differently than they affect another nursing home or ALF (the “principles of fairness” standard referred to in the Emergency Variance Rules) should not matter. The Agencies’ justification for adopting the Emergency Rules is further undermined by the fact that there are only 15 days between November 15, 2017 (the date when the Emergency Rules go into effect) and November 30, 2017 (the last day of the 2017 hurricane season). As a result, the Emergency Rules will only be in effect for the final two weeks of the 2017 hurricane season, and the requirements of the Emergency Rules will not be realized until well after the end of the 2017 hurricane season. Furthermore, Hurricane Irma was a unique storm in that it impacted the vast majority of the State due to its sheer size and the course it took directly northward through the Florida peninsula. While Florida’s emergency response personnel performed admirably, they and the resources they utilized were severely taxed due to the amount of the State impacted by Hurricane Irma. Fortunately, the evidence presented at the hearing indicates it is meteorologically unlikely that another storm like Hurricane Irma will strike Florida this late in the 2017 hurricane season. While not cited in the preamble as a justification for the Emergency Rules, Molly McKinstry,9/ AHCA’s agency representative, testified about how facilities need to be more self-sufficient during natural disasters such as Hurricane Irma. In other words, facilities should be able to take care of their residents on-site if disaster strikes and emergency response personnel are unable to quickly restore public services. None of the Petitioners argued that requiring nursing homes and ALFs to be more self-sufficient was not a good idea or that they had already achieved an adequate amount of self- sufficiency. However, even if one were to conclude that a lack of self-sufficiency for nursing homes and ALFs requires prompt action, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that it is not an “emergency” that can be resolved by November 15, 2017. As demonstrated from the findings of fact above, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that it is impossible for the vast majority of nursing homes and ALFs currently noncompliant with the Emergency Rules to achieve compliance by November 15, 2017.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether proposed Rules 10-5.002, 10-5.0025, 10-5.003, 10-5.004, 10-5.005, 10-5.008, 10-5.0085, 10-5.010, 10-5.0105, 10-5.020, and 10- 5.024, published in Volume 16, Number 13, Florida Administrative Weekly, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 10-5.002(1) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) defines the term "acquisition" to mean "the act of possessing or controlling, in any manner or by any means, a health care facility, major medical equipment, an institutional health service or medical office building as one's own." The proposed rule is HRS's attempt to clarify the term's meaning as used in Section 381.706, Florida Statutes. It is based on dictionary definitions, primarily, Webster's Dictionary, Ninth Edition, but also Black's Law Dictionary. Armond Balsano, an expert in health planning, did not believe the definition to be reasonable and thought it was unclear, ambiguous, and open ended. However his opinion in this regard was not persuasive. Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) is reasonable and sufficiently clear to withstand this challenge. 10-5.002(13) and 10-5.008(2)(d)--Skilled Nursing Issues Proposed Rule 10-5.002(13) defines "community nursing home beds" as relevant to this proceeding to include "acute care beds licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., but designated as skilled nursing beds, which are reviewable pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [the nursing home bed need methodology]." Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) relates to fixed need pools and states: (d) Skilled Nursing Units in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units which are a distinct part of a hospital will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as acute care beds. Essentially, proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) requires that skilled nursing beds in a distinct unit in a hospital be categorized as hospital "general" beds on the hospital license, but that they be carried at the same time on the inventory of community nursing home beds for purposes of projecting need under "pool" projections utilized by HRS for evaluating need for new beds. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) attempts to codify what has been HRS's policy. This rule proposes that licensed acute care beds, which form a distinct part of a hospital-based skilled nursing unit, be counted in the nursing home bed inventory to project future need with respect to the nursing home bed need formula. Thus, these beds will no longer be counted or used in the acute care bed need formula to project the acute care bed need. From a health planning standpoint, several reasons exist for and against the inclusion of these hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. A hospital cannot use its acute care beds as skilled nursing beds without a certificate of need. However, pursuant to this rule, to obtain these distinct unit beds a hospital is forced to compete with nursing home applicants for those beds. Skilled nursing beds in hospitals are "general" beds set up in a special category for which there is no specialty hospital bed methodology. Applications are reviewed under the nursing home bed methodology. A skilled nursing unit in a hospital is a unit, certified under the Health Care Finance Administration program, to identify a distinct part of the hospital as being a service in which there is 24-hour nursing with an RN nurse on the day shift. There also must be skilled nursing multi-disciplinary treatments and therapy services provided. The Health Care Finance Administration categorizes such beds as hospital beds, a distinct part of a hospital. Skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds in a hospital are used to treat acutely ill patients with an average length of stay of 20 days, who are different from the extended care patients found in community nursing homes, who have lengths of stay of one year or longer. Hospital skilled nursing patients are overwhelmingly Medicare patients, whereas community nursing home patients are overwhelmingly Medicaid patients. In Florida, Medicaid does not reimburse for care provided in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on a cost-based method. This system of reimbursement is also used with respect to non-hospital-based skilled nursing facilities. Furthermore, this means that hospital-based units are no longer reimbursed under the DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system. Medicare limits the patient benefit period to 100 days, regardless of the patient setting. Except for hospitals having higher allowable costs, federal guidelines do not differentiate between hospital and non-hospital-based skilled nursing units. The level of staffing is higher in a hospital nursing unit than in any community nursing home. Specialized equipment and services are offered in the hospital skilled nursing unit which are not offered in the community nursing homes. There are different conceptual approaches to care in the skilled nursing unit in a hospital as compared to those provided in community nursing facilities. Acutely ill patients on intravenous feeding or hyperalimentation, and those with multiple diagnoses require the hospital level nursing care. These units are not intended to provide residential care. Hospital beds are licensed under Rule 10D-28, whereas nursing home beds are licensed under Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Although the proposed rule requires skilled nursing beds in distinct units of hospitals to be comparatively and competitively reviewed with community nursing home applications, the two types of beds are not comparable. This creates an unfair comparison. As a matter of good health planning, these skilled units in hospitals should be reviewed differently and separately from regular community nursing home beds. By their nature, SNF beds in distinct units in hospitals are in fact "hospital" beds under Chapter 395 and not nursing home beds under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are not considered special care units as defined in Rule 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, special care units deal with very specialized intensive care settings. However, pursuant to some federal guidelines and state licensing requirements, a skilled nursing unit is considered a custodial type setting. For example, special care units are surveyed about once every two years and skilled nursing facilities once every year. However, failure to conduct a survey is not a determinative factor for special care units continuing under the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Skilled nursing units are not as fortunate. In fact, failure to survey a skilled nursing unit leads to the expiration of its enrollment in the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds and states that beds not covered under any specialty bed need methodology, which a skilled nursing unit is not, shall be considered general beds. This is why these hospital-based skilled nursing units are licensed as general acute care beds. The proposed rule amendments also present logistical problems. Hospitals and nursing homes are licensed under different chapters of the Florida Statues and the Florida Administrative Code, and those standards do not match. Their projects are in different planning cycles. HRS intends that hospitals apply for skilled nursing units on the nursing home application currently in use, but admits that the application does not really fit this type of project. The proposed rule amendments regarding skilled nursing units will be costly and burdensome. Although skilled nursing units offer valuable services and few currently exist, under the nursing home need rule it will be difficult to prove need for these projects. A hospital desiring to establish one will likely find itself having either to challenge the fixed need pool for nursing home beds or litigate the almost inevitable denial of its application for lack of need. Either course of action would involve time and expense over and above those usually encountered in the CON process, particularly because such an application would likely draw the opposition of existing nursing homes, even though their services are not really comparable. The proposed rule amendments do not comport with the basic health planning policy of reducing over-bedding by encouraging conversion to other services. It is unlikely a hospital could get a skilled nursing unit by showing a numeric need under the nursing home need methodology, and any attempt to show exceptional circumstances would be hampered by the lack of utilization data. Such beneficial conversions will probably also be chilled by the difficulty in converting a skilled nursing unit back to general acute care use, should it not be successful. Given the extreme acute care over-bedding which exists throughout the state, it is not anticipated that there will be any need for additional acute care beds for the foreseeable future. Since a skilled nursing unit would not be counted in the acute care bed inventory, the reconversion to acute care use would have to undergo CON review and would almost certainly be denied. 10-5.002(52) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(52) defines refinancing costs, which Rule 10- 5.004(2)(c) states are subject to expedited review under Section 381.706(2). The purpose of this definition is to provide guidance to applicants by identifying examples that are often encountered in either bond refunding or refinancing. The definition is straightforward in nature and encompasses the elements common in refinancing. Mr. Balsano, testifying for Adventist, readily acknowledged the preciseness of this definition, but faulted the definition for its absence of any discussion as to the potential benefit of refinancing. However, Mr. Balsano's concerns were misplaced. Distinctions exist between the benefits of refinancing and the meaning of refinancing. Indeed, the benefits of refinancing go to the merit of whether or not the certificate of need should be granted. Since every applicant is required to address the review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, the proper forum for addressing the benefits of refinancing is in the CON application itself. Proposed Rule 10- 5.002(52) is simply a definition. 10-5.004(2)(g)--Projects Subject to Expedited Review: Capital Expenditure Projects This proposed rule allows applicants who propose a capital expenditure project to improve, repair, or correct their existing facility to apply for a certificate of need on an expedited basis. This proposed rule is conducive to encouraging existing facilities to make needed improvements by seeking approval of the expenditure expeditiously and without the delays associated with batching cycles. It is important for a provider to make and complete corrections or improvements quickly in order to minimize the disruption of patient care. Some of the more common capital expenditures include expansion of emergency departments or emergency rooms and the renovation or expansion of other patient care areas. An application to relocate a hospital is also considered a capital expenditure. Under extreme circumstances of pervasive physical plant deficiencies, coupled with a lack of practical renovation options to overcome plant deficiencies, an existing health care facility might apply for a replacement facility. Only when such replacement facility would (1) involve no new beds or changed bed use (e.g., from general acute care to comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds), (2) involve no substantial change in services, and (3) involve no substantial change in service area would HRS consider such an application to be solely reviewable as a capital expenditure and thus entitled to expedited review under the proposed rule. HRS reviews replacement facility applications by carefully assessing the applicants' claims of pervasive physical plant problems. HRS sends a team of experts, including architects, to the existing facilities to independently judge whether the physical plant is in such a condition as would warrant replacement and whether renovations could serve as a practical alternative from a physical standpoint. HRS also performs an economic assessment to compare the alternatives of replacement versus renovation in order to determine the most cost-effective alternative. Replacement facility applications typically involve a determination not of whether dollars will be spent, but rather, how they are best spent--by replacement or by renovation. As such, HRS helps to contain health care costs without participation by competitors in these institution- specific decisions. Pursuant to Section 381.709(5)(b), Florida Statutes, competitors do not have standing to challenge a proposed capital expenditure and, therefore, there is no adequate reason to defer review of these projects until a future application cycle. Further, when a capital expenditure approval is sought to replace or relocate an existing facility, no one other than the applicant/existing facility can apply to spend or make those expenditures. An unrelated entity cannot compete to replace another entity's existing facility. Conducting a comparative review with respect to a capital expenditure project for the replacement of a hospital is illogical, unworkable, and futile. 10.5.008(1)(c)3 and 10-5.008(3)(b)--Capitalized Costs Proposed Rule 10-5.008(1)(c) requires that a letter of intent describe the proposal with specificity. Subsection (1)(c)3 sets forth the following requirement: 3. A proposed capital expenditure must be rounded to the nearest dollar . . . . If no capital expenditure is proposed, the applicant must so indicate. If the actual capital expenditure has already been incurred, either wholly or in part, and the project will account for such expenditures as capitalized costs, regardless of the purpose, then the total capital expenditure of the project shall be indicated. As related to this same subject, proposed Rule 10-5.008(3)(b) states: (b) Capital expenditures incurred for projects not originally subject to Certificate of Need review must be identified as a proposed expenditure when such expenditure will be capitalized in a project for which a Certificate of Need is required. HRS asserts that this proposed rule codifies HRS's existing policy and that the purpose of this provision is to develop consistency in how applicants treat an already incurred capital expenditure. It is also allegedly intended that this proposed rule give uniformity concerning how project costs are calculated and allocated. For example, if an applicant is going to convert space from one use to another, the value of the space must be included in the applicant's capital expenditure estimate. While Ms. Gordon-Girvin, HRS's health planning expert, opined that this proposed rule is consistent with current practices in the health care market place concerning how capital expenditures are treated and that it forms a common basis of comparison for comparing the applicants' treatment of capitalized costs, the greater weight of the credible evidence does not support these opinions. Actually, the effect of these proposed rules is that a certificate of need applicant, who has previously made capital expenditures and later pursues a certificate of need project utilizing such prior capitalized costs, must identify and include those prior capital expenditures as a portion of the certificate of need project, even though no actual incremental funds will be necessary or spent in connection with the project. One of the problems with proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) is that they both ignore a distinction between fixed costs and variable costs which is fundamental to a financial evaluation of any project. Specifically, it is inappropriate to require an applicant who will have no incremental costs in implementing a project to allocate a portion of prior capital expenditures, where such an application is measured against a competing application in which the entire outlay for capital costs will be necessary. This distorts the evaluation due to inappropriately comparing prior fixed costs to future variable costs. An example of the illogical result of the proposed rules provides guidance. If a hospital has already spent one million dollars to add a CON- exempt outpatient cardiac cath lab, and later seeks to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program, under these proposed provisions, that hospital would have to represent a cost of one million dollars in its application to convert the outpatient cardiac cath lab to an inpatient project. From a health planning and financial standpoint, this is inappropriate. Having to include capital costs which have already been incurred and viewing those costs in the context of the decision to approve or reject a CON project is misleading. Ultimately, the purpose and objective of the CON process is to minimize duplication of health care resources. The proposed rules work in conflict with that goal. Conversion of underutilized resources to resources that could be more beneficially utilized is a policy that is encouraged by HRS. This policy is encouraged in the various need methodologies. One of the reasons to encourage a conversion is that often zero dollars are involved to convert a project from one CON-approved use to another CON-approved use. Proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) would eliminate consideration of the minimal cost involved in a conversion project and are therefore unreasonable. Moreover, the proposed rules could end up creating excess resources in the system simply because they would eliminate the preference for conversion as opposed to new construction. With respect to allocating prior capital expenditures, the proposed rules, as alleged by HRS, are intended to codify existing HRS policy as well as provide uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs. These proposed rules do neither. In point of fact, HRS has accepted, within the last three years, conversion projects indicating a zero project cost in the application. The proposed rules are thus inconsistent with current HRS policy of accepting and evaluating these applications and are contrary to HRS's stated intention in this proceeding. However, with respect to providing uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs, the proposed rules provide no methodology by which prior capital cost allocations are to be determined. Indeed, there is no uniformity proposed regarding how a health care facility or applicant accounts for capital expenditures. Generally, a capital expenditure is one that is "material" and the useful life of the item capitalized exceeds one year. What is material to one applicant may be entirely different from that which would be material to another applicant. Thus, the uniformity of presentation of prior capitalized costs contained in CON applications submitted to HRS for review will not and cannot exist as envisioned by HRS in its proposed rules. 10-5.005(2)(e) Proposed Rule 10-5.005 relates to exemption from CON review and Subsection (2)(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to initiate the exemption within twelve months after it appears in the Florida Administrative Weekly will result in the notice of exemption being void. The alleged basis for this proposed rule is to protect those persons pursuing an exemption by ensuring that they are still eligible for it under the same facts and circumstances. Additionally, HRS has encountered problems in the past when entities have received a determination of exemption for a project but have failed to implement the project. In one case, HRS gave a nursing home an exemption to replace a facility on site. After discharging the patients, the nursing home took no further action. However, these beds are still licensed and are included in the bed inventory. Such a situation artificially suppresses the need for nursing home beds in that district for the planning horizon. The proposed rule is an attempted response to this problem. The laws implemented by the proposed rules are Section 381.706 and 381.713(1). Pursuant to these sections, HRS must grant an exemption if the applicant meets the statutory definitions. Further, if a project is exempt, it is not subject to review. Exemption requests may be made at any time and are not subject to batching requirements. Once a project is deemed to be exempt and not subject to review, HRS ceases to have jurisdiction over the project and HRS, accordingly, has no jurisdiction to void an exemption. 10-5.008(2)(f) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(f) establishes a procedure for HRS and applicants to follow when a departmental need methodology does not exist for a proposed project. The proposed rule attempts to clarify for applicants how best to present themselves when applying for a project for which no methodology has been adopted in an existing rule. This is particularly useful to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute. Policy utilized but not yet adopted by HRS will be provided to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute; however, applicants are not bound by that policy and may tender their need calculations. This proposed rule gives credence to the fact that there may be different methodologies and allows applicants the opportunity to make all the necessary arguments to demonstrate the nature and extent of entitlement to a certificate of need. 10-5.0085(4) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) describes shared service arrangements and delineates the procedures applicants must follow to initiate or terminate a shared service. The part of the proposed rule challenged by FHA and the area on which it focused concerned the termination of a shared service arrangement. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) provides in pertinent part: (4)(a) The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: * * * Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved by the department, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. * * * 6.b. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: * * * e. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. * * * If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. (Emphasis added) The basis for requiring CON review for a termination of a shared service as delineated above is found in Section 381.706(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). If a shared service arrangement terminates, the party who originally had the service would retain the service. This is reasonable because the entity would have already been granted a certificate of need for the service, singularly offered. The party would be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Conversely, in situations where neither party originally had the service, the remaining parties would have to apply for the service in a batched review. This, too, is reasonable in that the service would no longer be shared and the ability to provide it singularly would be evaluated anew. Here, the party would also be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Additionally, a shared service arrangement (and approval of it) is based on certain benefits present within that arrangement. Upon termination the same benefits may not be present. The identity of the parties and their relationships to each other will have changed. Review at this point provides an applicant the opportunity to compete again to establish the service in its own right under a different set of circumstances, and it allows other providers to compete either for the service in their own right or through another shared arrangement. Such a policy is prudent because the very reason for the shared service was to produce benefits that were not otherwise obtainable singularly. Indeed, even FHA's own witness, Mr. Bebee, acknowledged that certain advantages to a shared services arrangement might not be present when such an arrangement terminates. 10-5.010(2) Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) concerns what local health plan is to be used and addressed in a CON application, and it provides as follows: The applicable local health plan is the most current plan adopted by the appropriate local health council and which has been accepted and approved in writing by the Department at the time letters of intent are due or, if not accepted by the Department, as reviewed and commented on by the Department. The agency will provide to all prospective applicants those items of the local health plan which must be addressed in the application. HRS asserts that the purpose of this amendment to existing Rule 10- 5.010 is to assist applicants by identifying various components of the plan to which they should address their application and thereby maximize their time and effort and, ultimately, their chances for approval and that this proposed rule codifies current departmental practice of providing those items of the local health plan which must be addressed by the applicant. Contrary to HRS's assertion that this proposed rule is clarifying in nature, the rule in fact goes far beyond those parameters. "Reviewed and commented on by the Department" means that the local health council's adopted plan has been reviewed for consistency with existing need methodologies and has been commented on by HRS. HRS maintains that "commented on" does not mean verbal comments. The proposed rule does not, however, specify that only written comments were intended. Indeed, HRS admitted that the way the rule is drafted it takes into account oral as well as written comments. Statutorily, HRS is required to adopt as a rule the local health plans or portions thereof to be used in the CON review regulatory process. Local health plans generally contain allocation factors, preferences, and policies with respect to the particular district. Within the last several months, HRS has sought to adopt as a rule preferences and policies set forth in the various local health plans around the state of Florida. HRS withdrew those proposed rules. Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) does not make reference to or account for the fact that the local health plans must be adopted as rules by HRS. HRS cannot circumvent statutory requirements by proposing that an applicant address "approved plans," nor can it require an applicant to address local health plans with which HRS is not in full agreement with the local health council as to whether the plan is consistent with statutory guidelines. Indeed, where HRS and the local health council are in disagreement, an applicant is pulled between HRS and the local council. This proposed rule allows HRS to simply reject the expressed wants of the local health council and to insert its own comments and views, thereby inserting itself into a province exclusively reserved to the local health councils. 10-5.020 Proposed Rule 10-5.020 involves addition of one sentence to the existing rule. The added language provides that HRS will issue a license to the CON holder in accordance with the CON and will not issue a license for fewer beds than the total on the CON. The proposed addition to this rule addresses a problem currently facing the Department, and it reflects a change in agency policy for HRS. Basically, the added language clarifies for an applicant or certificate of need holder that the Office of Licensure and Certification shall only issue a license consistent with the terms of the certificate of need. The proposed rule addition conforms to several health planning goals. First, it requires the implementation of a project in accordance with the certificate of need. Second, the language addresses HRS's current problem of need suppression by industry members. Third, it seeks to ensure uniform development of services. This proposed rule does not penalize hospitals who want to do phase-in type projects. On the contrary, the language seeks to ensure that needed beds and services will be implemented in the horizon year in accordance with the application and entitlement demonstrated by the applicant. Economic Impact Statement The Summary of the Estimate of the Economic Impact states in relevant part: The proposed amendments are expected to have no adverse impact either on existing and new applicants for certificate of need, or on small and minority businesses . . . . The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the cost to the agency of implementing the proposed rules, an estimate of the cost to persons directly affected by the proposed rules, an estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition, a statement of the date and method used in making those estimates, and an analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Specifically, the EIS states that the proposed rules "will have a minimal economic impact on current or future certificate of need applicants and the public at large." There is no competent, substantial evidence to establish with specificity the existence of any defects in the EIS which impaired the fairness of the rulemaking proceeding or the correctness of the agency actions related to the EIS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 1. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(1) and (52), 10-5.004(2)(g), 10-5.008(2)(f), 10-5.0085(4), and 10-5.020 are valid. 2. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(13); 10-5.008(1)(c)3, (2)(d), and (3)(b); 10- 5.005(2)(e); and 10-5.010(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners Venice Hospital and Adventist Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3); 5(5); 6(6); 10(14); 12(15 and 16); 15-17(25-27); and 19(28). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 2 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 14, 20, 23, and 26 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner FHA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(7); 5(10); 6(11); 8-12(12- 16); and 13-17(19-23). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 18, 19, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 20 is unsupported by the credible, competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Humana Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(34, 35, and 38). Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 7-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 4, and 14-19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners NME and PIA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(34, 35, and 38); 3-6(39- 42); 8(53); and 9(54 and 55). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 10 and 11 are irrelevant because these Petitioners dismissed their challenge to the EIS in the Stipulation of the parties admitted as Joint Exhibit 2. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Sarasota Proposed findings of fact 1-4, 6, 7, and 13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 5 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent HRS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 and 2); 2(28); 3(46); 4(47-49); 5(51); 7(29); 8(32 and 33); 9(33); 11(8); 13(17); 14(18); 15(23); 16(23 and 24); 17(36); 19(37); 21(57); and 22(58). Proposed findings of fact unnumbered paragraph re: 10-5.005(2)(e); 10; 12; 18; 20; and unnumbered paragraph re: Economic Impact Statement are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1A and 6 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor HCA DOCTORS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(30) and 7(31). Proposed findings of fact 2-5 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 9-11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8 is irrelevant. *NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER'S EXHIBIT "A" [RULE 10-5.002, 10-5.004(2), 10-5.005(2), 10-2.008(1)(n), 10-5.008(5)(h), 10-5.010(2), 10-5.020] IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Attorney at Law Robert P. Mudge, Attorney at Law 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Attorney at Law 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 James C. Hauser, Attorney at Law 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Attorney at Law Stephen C. Emmanuel, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Theodore C. Eastmoore, Attorney at Law 1550 Ringling Boulevard Post Office Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 34230 Robert A. Weiss, Attorney at Law John M. Knight, Attorney at Law The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Thomas R. Cooper, Attorney at Law Edward G. Labrador, Attorney at Law Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Radey, Attorney at Law Elizabeth W. McArthur, Attorney at Law Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, FitzGerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House--Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
