The Issue Whether a need exists for an additional hospice in Agency for Health Care Administration service area 1. Whether the certificate of need application of Bay Medical Center to establish the hospice, on balance, meets the criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) is the state agency which administers the certificate of need (“CON”) program for health care facilities and services in the state. AHCA published a need for one additional hospice program in service area 1, in Volume 22, Number 5 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (February 2, 1996). Bay Medical Center (“BMC”), which currently operates a hospice in service area 2A, is the applicant for CON 8377 to establish the additional hospice program in service area 1. Hospice of Northwest Florida, Inc. (“HNWF”) is an existing provider of hospice services in both service areas 1 and 2A. Service area 1 encompasses Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. Adjacent service area 2A includes Bay, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun and Gulf Counties. Hospice care is provided to terminally ill persons, defined as those with a life expectancy of six months or less if their disease runs its normal course. It is palliative and comfort-oriented, rather than curative. Clinical, pschosocial, and spiritual services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, which includes a physician, nurses, social workers, home health aides, chaplains, and bereavement counselors. In addition to paid staff, hospices also use volunteers. Social workers, chaplains, and bereavement counselors work with patients' families for up to a year following death. Services are provided in patients' homes, nursing homes, or acute care hospitals. Hospice care is less expensive than aggressive acute care for the terminally ill. It is estimated that every dollar of hospice care saves a dollar and a half in Florida. Hospice services began in the United States in the 1970’s and were approved for government reimbursement in the 1980’s. Routine home hospice care is reimbursed at a per diem rate, for which the hospice provides care, and pharmaceutical drugs and supplies. Hospices also receive financial support from fund raising activities, and typically provide substantial community services which are otherwise unfunded and not reimbursed. These include community outreach programs in churches and schools, and services to families in which a death was accidental. In 1985, the national hospice penetration rate or P Factor (the percentage of total deaths in which patients received hospice care) was approximately 8 percent. By 1995, the P Factor had increased to 17 percent, with the greatest rate of growth in the most recent five years. In Florida, approximately 29.6 percent of all deaths occur after a person has been admitted to a hospice program. In service area 1, the P Factor is 21 percent. Bay Medical Center BMC is a legislatively - created independent special governmental district, authorized initially to provide health care services to Bay County, but now also to surrounding areas. It operates a 353-bed public, not-for-profit full service hospital in Panama City, Florida, but does not receive tax support. Over 190 physicians staff BMC’s hospital with every specialty, except rheumatology, endocrinology, and neonatology. BMC’s tertiary services include an open heart surgery program. BMC also provides ambulatory or outpatient services. Since 1992, BMC has operated a hospice program in service area 2A, with offices in Panama City (on the campus of the BMC hospital) and in Marianna. The Marianna office opened in February 1997, as a result of the Florida Legislature's 1995 amendment to the enabling legislation allowing BMC to offer services beyond Bay County. The 1995 legislation also expressly authorizes BMC to provide hospice services and to create other organizations to further its mission. The Board of Directors of BMC created the Bay Medical Center Hospice (BMCH). BMCH is governed by a board of directors which is separate and distinct from the board of BMC, although BMC is the entity licensed to operate the hospice program in service area 2A. The BMCH board members live and work in each of the six counties of service area 2A. BMC, which holds the existing license, is the applicant in this proceeding. The board of BMC met on the day that the letter of intent was due, February 19, 1996. A few days prior to the meeting the Chairman of the Board executed the letter of intent, and sent it to a health planning consultant in Tallahassee. After the Board met and passed the resolution authorizing the filing of the letter of intent, the consultant filed the letter of intent with AHCA in Tallahassee. In service area 2A, BMCH has an average daily census of 58-64 patients. BMC projected and HNWF stipulated that BMC can reasonably attain 250 admissions for a total of 12,471 patient days in year one, and 300 admissions for 18,706 patient days in year two of operation in service area 1. BMCH currently advertises its hospice services on television and radio stations, and in newspapers with coverage extending into service area 1. Fund-raising events, including the holiday tree lighting program, are used to market hospice services. Hospice services are also explained in newsletters which reach 27,000 households and all physicians in the area. BMC purchased over 100 sixty-second radio spots, which aired on three stations over a two month period in 1996. The hospice radio spots reached an estimated 87,000 people an average of five times each. BMC estimates a total project cost of $129,591, if CON 8377 is approved, to extend hospice services into service area 1. BMC proposes to condition CON 8377 on the provision of a minimum of 12.8 percent Medicaid and 3.65 percent charity care by the end of the second year of operation, and the care of 7 AIDS patients (with a minimum of 350 total visits) each year. Hospice of Northwest Florida HNWF is an existing provider of hospice services in AHCA service areas 1 and 2A. It is the only licensed hospice in service area 1 and competes with only BMC in 2A. HNWF, organized by hospitals in Pensacola, was issued a CON in December 1982 and a license in 1983, to operate a hospice in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington and Jackson Counties. The home office of HNWF is located in Pensacola. HNWF admitted its first patients and families in January 1984. In 1987, HNWF opened a branch office in Fort Walton Beach, later apparently consolidated with a Niceville office, to serve Okaloosa and Walton Counties. An additional branch office was opened in Marianna in 1991. An adjunct medical director for the Marianna and Niceville offices was hired in 1996. In December 1995, HNWF received a CON waiver and its license was amended to allow it to operate in the remainder of service area 2A, in Bay, Gulf, and Calhoun Counties. HNWF then opened a branch office in Panama City, in August 1996. HNWF also operates, and is expanding from six to eight beds, a residential facility in Pensacola, to house hospice patients without homes or without at-home caregivers. Prior to opening the Panama City office, HNWF historically served Holmes, Washington, and Jackson Counties, while BMCH served patients in Bay, Gulf, Washington, and Calhoun Counties. From 1993 to the present time, HNWF has increased its contracts or agreements from the Pensacola hospital to all of the hospitals in the service areas, including two military hospitals, from none to virtually all assisted living facilities, and from five to all except two or three nursing homes. HNWF operates an extensive outreach and educational effort, including a monthly half-hour television show, which is estimated to reach over 200,000 people in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Other efforts include radio talk show appearances, speaking engagements reaching over 5,000 people in 1996, and extensive direct physician contact. HNWF also relies on it chaplaincy and bereavement programs to extend information about hospice care, particularly to culturally diverse groups of people. Despite these efforts, the number of hospice patients in service area 1 has remained relatively constant. HNWF served 969 patients in calendar year (CY) 1995, and 963 in CY1996. HNWF contends that its lack of growth is due, in part, to declining referrals from nursing homes despite increased referrals from other sources. HNWF attributes the nursing home decline to government investigations of suspected excessive nursing home reimbursements. There is no waiting list for HNWF's services, and its goal is to admit patients within 24 hours of referral. HNWF criticized BMCH’s outreach efforts as inadequate and misdirected, attracting only “easy” patients, those easily diagnosed as qualified for hospice care by well-informed referral sources. On this basis, HNWF expects BMC to take hospice patients from HNWF and not from any growth in hospice patients. HNWF also expects competition from BMC to adversely affect its ability to provide enhanced and unfunded services, including bereavement services in schools, on military bases, and in work- places, and its ability to operate satellite offices and the residential facility. Revenues from patient care are supplemented by donations and grants. In 1992, HNWF established a foundation to coordinate fund raising efforts. The approval of the BMC application, according to HNWF, will also affect the types of hospice services available in the area. In general, more sophisticated hospice services can be provided by larger hospices, including palliative chemotherapy and radiation. BMC’s expert testified that HNWF will continue to be a large hospice with or without the approval of a CON for BMC, and that the additional program will create additional demand for the service. The parties stipulated that subsections 408.035(1)(m) and (3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.0355(7) and (8), Florida Administrative Code, are not applicable to this proceeding. At hearing, the parties also stipulated that BMC's list of capital projects meets the requirements of subsection 408.037(2)(a). Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(a) - Numeric Need; Subsections 408.035(1)(b) - like and existing services; (d) - available alternatives Rule 59C-1.0355, the hospice rule, includes the formula for calculating the numeric need for hospice programs. Numeric need exists if the projected total number of hospice patients in service area one for the planning horizon (1400 for July 1997) minus the actual number of hospice patients in the base year (969 in calendar year 1995) is equal to or greater than 350 (in this case, 431). The statewide P Factor, 29.6 percent, is used in the formula to calculate the ratio of projected hospice patients to projected total deaths. The statewide rate represents the normative minimum applied to each service area by operation of the formula in the rule. In service area 1, the P Factor in the base year was 21 percent. The statewide P Factor is an average of rates for various disease categories and ages. Those rates range from a high of hospice care for 70.9 percent of deaths due to cancer in people 65 and over, to a low of 14.1 percent for people under 65 with all other diseases. BMC cites HNWF's relatively low hospice penetration rate as proof of the need for an additional hospice program to create and accommodate additional potential demand. HNWF asserts, however, that certain local circumstances cause the deviation from the statewide P Factor. HNWF also contends that more people received hospice services than the number used in the formula for the base year. The result, according to HNWF is an excess projected demand for hospice services by the July 1997 planning horizon. The extenuating local circumstances cited by HNWF, are the sizable active duty military population, the strong Medicaid AIDs program, the aggressiveness of home health agencies, the prevalence of cancer centers, and the established practice parameters of medical doctors in the service area. The number of active duty military in service area 1 is 23,162. The number of those who die from terminal illnesses is statistically insignificant, because it is military policy to retire personnel who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses, which enhances death benefits to survivors. BMC's expert confirmed that policy and the improbability of serving military patients, although HNWF has served military base families after active duty casualties. Military families represent some of those served by HNWF in the base year, who are not included in the numeric need formula as hospice admissions. In the numeric need formula, according to BMC's expert, military personnel are included in projected deaths to younger age cohorts from causes other than cancer. Of the 431 projected additional hospice admissions, BMC’s expert calculated that, at most, 3 projected hospice deaths of those result from including the active duty military population. By contrast, HNWF's expert testified that the military population of 23,162 multiplied by the statewide death rate of .008 results in an estimated 186 deaths, or approximately 62 hospice patients. The background information in support of the fixed need pool, prepared by AHCA, shows that AHCA calculates projected hospice patients by age and disease. The actual base year service area non-cancer deaths under 65 (1010) divided by the actual service area total deaths (4562), times total projected deaths (4816) gives the total projected deaths non-cancer under 65 (1066). Of the 1066 deaths, 150 are expected to be hospice patients. It is not reasonable to assume that 186 deaths will occur among active duty military, or that 62 of the 150 non- cancer hospice patients under 65 will be in that group. It is more reasonable to assume, as BMC's expert did and as the state numeric need methodology does, that the age cohort of that group has and will continue to have a significantly lower death rate and lower hospice admissions than the 65 and over population. HNWF's expert health planner was unable to distinguish service area 1 from the rest of the state in terms of the strength of the Medicaid AIDs waiver program, the presence of prisons, the existence of home health agencies, the presence of cancer centers, or physicians' practice patterns. Similarly, BMC's expert found no statistical relationship between home health agency visits and hospice utilization. BMC's expert also noted that some hospices provide services to prisoners. HNWF's expert agreed that there is no prohibition to providing hospice services to prisoners. In some areas of the state, such as Gainesville and Tampa, cancer centers co-exist with high levels of hospice utilization. There was no evidence to distinguish physicians' practice patterns in service area 1 from the areas of the state. The argument that HNWF served more than the reported 969 in the base year, through it AIDs support groups, in schools, and for families in which deaths were accidental also does not distinguish HNWF. The evidence shows that hospices typically provide services to persons other than patients and their families, and benefit in terms of marketing and fund-raising. The incidence of AIDS in service area 1 is below that of the state. That could affect the gap between 21 percent and 29 percent, by approximately 3 or 4 percent. Late referrals to hospice services can adversely affect utilization rates. The federal government program, Restore Trust, initiated a HCFA Inspector General's investigation into charges of waste, fraud, and abuse in nursing homes and home health agencies. The decline in referrals to hospice programs coincided with the investigation, while hospice referrals and admissions in non-nursing home settings increased. There is no evidence, however, that service area 1 nursing homes were subject to more intense scrutiny than any others in the state. In fact, the Executive Director of HNWF testified that the effects of Restore Trust were national. The active duty military population difference of 3 fewer projected hospice deaths, and the 3 or 4 percent gap in the P Factor due to the lower incidence of AIDs are insufficient to explain the gap between P Factors of 21 and 29 percent. BMC's expert's estimate that ninety percent of the gap results from the lower than average P Factor is, at most, reduced to eighty-six percent. From 1994 to 1996, as the hospice utilization statewide reached 27.7 percent, the rate increased from 22 to 27 percent in service area 2A. By contrast, the rate increased from 17 to 22 percent in service area 1. For the six months ending December 31, 1996, the rate in service area 1 declined to 18 percent, while that in service area 2A increased to 24 percent. One of the highest rates in service area 2A is in relatively rural Washington County, in which BMC and HNWF have the greatest overlap in services. HNWF has approximately 60 percent and BMC has 40 percent of the hospice market in Washington County. In western Washington County, hospice rates range from 27 to 100 percent, with the remainder of the county in the 18 to 27 percent range. In service area 2A, there has been a steady increase in hospice admissions for HNWF and BMC, except for a decline at BMC immediately after HNWF opened an office in Panama City. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans; Rule 59C- 1.0355(5) and (4)(e) District health plan allocation factor one favors applicants having hospice services available seven days a week, district-wide for 24 hours a day as needed, regardless of a client’s ability to pay. BMCH currently complies with the requirement in service area 2A and can do so in service area 1. By carefully selecting patients, hiring staff in appropriate locations to serve the patients, and expanding slowly geographically, as HNWF has done, BMC can meet the requirements. Initially, BMC will focus on adjacent Okaloosa and Walton Counties. District allocation factor two, for proposals to add beds or use existing inpatient facilities rather than construct new facilities, is met by BMC. By proposing to contract with existing hospitals and nursing homes, BMC also meets the preference in Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)2. State health plan preference one, for applicants who seek Medicare certification, is consistent with BMC’s current and proposed operations. State health plan preference two favors members of the National Hospice Organization ("NHO") and applicants accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). BMCH is a member of the NHO. BMC is JCAHO-accredited, after receiving a rating of ninety-six of a possible one hundred in the scoring system in December 1996. Recently, BMCH was separately surveyed by the JCAHO, and received favorable exit comments. BMCH is also annually surveyed by AHCA, which identified no deficiencies in its January 1996 report. BMCH and HNWF each had one complaint regarding practices and procedures in 1996. A BMCH nurse disposed of controlled drugs when no longer needed in the patient's home, without the required signature of the patient's family representative on the disposal record. HNWF received a complaint and disciplined the responsible admitting nurse who failed to convene the appropriate staff to timely prepare an Interdisciplinary Care Plan. Neither incident indicates that the hospices are not providing a high quality of care. It is reasonable to expect BMC hospice to meet the requirements of the preference and to provide appropriate hospice care. See, also, subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (c), on the quality of care of the existing hospice and the applicant’s ability to provide quality of care. In proposing to establish a physical presence in rural, underserved Walton County, BMC meets state preference three and the preference in Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)4. State health plan preference four for applicants proposing to meet unmet needs of specific groups, such as children, is consistent with BMC's current and proposed operations. The same preference is also a requirement of Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)1. State health plan preference five favors applicants proposing residential services to patients without at-home assistance. BMC proposes to provide caregivers or to use existing inpatient facilities to provide residential services. The proposal is, therefore, also consistent with Rule 59C- 1.0355(4)(e)3 as it relates to those who are without primary caregivers at home or who are homeless. The sixth and final state health plan preference, for hospices proposing to use additional beds in existing facilities rather than new construction, is not applicable to the BMC proposal. On balance, the BMC application meets the preferences in the rule, and in state and district health plans. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability and quality of like and existing services; other alternatives Alternatives to hospice care include home health, acute, and nursing home care, all of which are available. The state policy, as reflected in numeric need methodology, encourages the use of hospice services until every service area achieves the state norm. Consistent with that policy, theoretically, HNWF could be even more aggressive in marketing and outreach than it has been. Historically, for BMC and HNWF, however, hospice services are more available, more accessible, better utilized, and higher in quality of care in areas in which they compete. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - economics and improvements of joint, cooperative or shared resources Because BMC operates an existing hospice, it is reasonable to expect economics of scale and improvements based on its experience, if it establishes a second hospice. BMC expects to use existing human resources and billing departments. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - need for special equipment or services not available in adjoining areas The statutory criterion is inapplicable to the case. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) and (h) - need for research, educational, health professional training BMC's is not a proposal which is intended to assist a research or educational program. In-service and volunteer training programs are proposed for the benefit of its staff and to assure the quality of its own services. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - available manpower, management personnel; (1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal BMC has over $21 million in cash, and revenues and gains in excess of $4 million for the year ending September 30, 1995. BMC has and continues to generate sufficient funds to provide over $24 million for planned capital projects over the next two years, including $129,591 in costs for the additional hospice program. BMC’s proposal is financially feasible in the short term. HNWF claims that the BMC proposal is not financially feasible in the long term, based on understated salaries, wages, and benefits, travel expenses, depreciation, and interest. Salaries, wages, and benefits are based on the staffing ratios at BMCH, which, according to HNWF, serves a more concentrated population in Panama City. Initially, BMC plans to serve Okaloosa and Walton Counties from a Destin office, with staff appropriately located throughout the areas to timely and efficiently serve patients. BMC plans to hire 6.6 full time equivalent (FTEs) administrative staff and 11.4 FTEs patient care staff. HNWF asserts that BMC will need an additional 1.7 FTEs for nurses, 2.6 for home health aides, and 1 FTE for a social worker. HNWF also questioned the ability of BMC to implement its proposed children's programs without a registered nurse with pediatric experience. HNWF asserted that .4 FTE for a chaplain was inadequate, as is reliance primarily on volunteer chaplains. The adequacy of the proposed staffing is supported by calculating the 50 day average length of stay times the annual volume of 250 patients, times 1.6 (the projected worked hours per patient day), which equals 10.85 FTEs for patient care. BMC's 11.4 FTEs for patient care in year one is a reasonable, conservative complement of staff. In addition, HNWF received 19 percent of its 1996 hours worked from volunteers, and has a history of hiring specialized staff and establishing specialized programs and departments when justified by the demand for those services. For its first seven or eight years, HNWF was well- served by a volunteer medical director. The bereavement coordinator was hired in 1990. The children's bereavement specialist was hired in 1993, when bereavement and social services became separate departments. Travel expenses, projected by BMC, were also criticized by HNWF. HNWF would increase miles for each visit from 13.9, as estimated in BMC’s CON application, to 18.3 miles per visit as experienced by HNWF. One assumption, which invalidates HNWF’s projection of travel distances, is that each separate visit will originate and end at the Destin office, not that BMC staff would make some visits going directly from their residences to the patient's home, or that they would arrange schedules to make several visits without returning to the office between each visit. In addition, BMCH will initially cover two counties rather than the entire service area. As a result of a mathematical error in the BMC CON application, the depreciation expense for year one of operations is $25,578, not $21,962. HNWF's expert's adjustments to interest expenses assumed that any additional expenses would require additional borrowing. BMC, however, has not materially underestimated expenses, considering the $3,616 difference in depreciation. The pro forma is conservatively based on revenues and expenses without reliance on charitable donations, although hospices typically depend on donations to break-even financially. In 1996, HNWF received a total of $339,780 in contributions. To estimate what BMC might expect in District 1, it is reasonable to exclude from HNWF's experience, approximately $80,000 in interest on reserve invested income (used by HNWF in 1996) and $90,000 in grants, since BMC has not applied for any grants. The balance, representing memorials and fund-raising of $240,000 reasonably indicates the level of contributions which a new BMC hospice might expect in service area 1. That level, for BMC, is proportionately half that projected by BMC, or $60,000 to $80,000 in year one, and $130,00 to $185,000 in year two of operations. With a projected loss in income of $28,091 in year one, a projected profit of $74,054 in year two, and considering historical hospice fund-raising, BMC's operation of a hospice in service area 1 is reasonably expected to be financially feasible in the long term. Adverse Impact Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact on costs, effects of competition. Using BMC's experts' utilization projections for service area 1, HNWF projects that its net operating income will decline from a negative $408,070 to a negative $655,712 in year one, and from a negative $355,404 to a negative $612,696 in year two. Approximately $420,000 in total contributions to HNWF is expected each year, although that number has increased annually since 1993, from 183,750, to $224,415 in 1994, to $282,368 in 1995, and $339,780 in 1996. BMC suggests that the adverse impact analysis should consider HNWF's total operations in service areas 1 and 2A to determine financial feasibility. Health planning experts for both BMC and HNWF acknowledge that there are up to 431 more people available for hospice admissions than are currently receiving hospice services. They also agree that number will increase by approximately 100 a year as the population increases, and that the presence of a new hospice provider will increase hospice penetration rates. In addition, as HNWF's witnesses emphasized, nursing home hospice admissions were depressed temporarily due to a government investigation. BMC’s expert also noted that, as long as available admissions exist, increasing hospice utilization is largely a function of how the hospice delivers its services. For example, the historic requirement that patients have a caregiver at home has adversely affected HNWF’s penetration rate. As recently as November 1996, at least one referral source, Sacred Heart Hospital, in Pensacola was distributing an HNWF brochure which specifically required an eligible hospice patient to have “[a] capable caregiver in the home to meet the patient’s day-to-day basic needs." Essentially, the same requirement is included in a list of admissions criteria on page 49 of BMC's CON application. HNWF and BMC have both changed their policies and now admit patients without caregivers, which is reasonably expected to increase admissions of patients. With competition to identify and alleviate access barriers, HNWF and BMC are better able to increase hospice utilization rates by eliminating self-imposed constraints. Based on the rapid increase in hospice utilization in service area 2A after HNWF began to compete with BMC, it is reasonable to assume the same effect of competition in service area 1. By the year 2000, BMC's expert reasonably projects hospice penetration rates of 29 percent in service area 1, equaling the current statewide average. As the late entrant into a limited geographical area within the market, BMC is projected to capture approximately one-third of that market by the years 2000 to 2001, leaving two thirds for HNWF. At the same time BMC and HNWF are reasonably expected to divide in half the market in service area 2A. At those levels, HNWF will range, in total projected admissions for both service areas, from 1,186 to 1,400, from 1997 to 2001. The evidence that a BMC hospice in service area 1 will not adversely impact HNWF is more persuasive. The suggestion that health care providers or the public will be confused by the presence of BMCH in service area 1 is rejected. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. BMC is a disproportionate share Medicaid provider, having historically provided over 97 percent of all indigent care in Bay County. In 1995, the charity care write-off was over $8.5 million. The effect of approving BMC’s CON is increased hospice penetration in service area 1, caused by an expanding market for hospice services. As a disproportionate share provider of inpatient acute care services, BMC is uniquely capable of identifying and referring low income patients for hospice care. Subsection 408.035(1)(0) - The applicant’s past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system, which may include, but is not limited to, acute care, skilled nursing care, home health care, and assisted living facilities. BMCH is a part of a multilevel system with levels of care ranging from a 353-bed acute care tertiary hospital to a home health agency. Because of 1995 legislation, these services are available to persons beyond the boundaries of Bay County. Consistent with this statutory criterion, hospice services should also be extended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration enter a Final Order issuing CON 8377 to Bay Medical Center to establish a hospice program in service area 1, conditioned on providing annually a minimum of 12.8 percent Medicaid care, 3.65 percent charity care, and service to a minimum of 7 AIDs patients with a minimum of 350 visits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1997. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 19th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Ellis, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-2174 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin & Associates, P.A. 2559 Shiloh Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)3. is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Background This is a challenge to the facial validity of the 48-hour rule. It is not a challenge to the 48-hour rule as applied.2 Nonetheless, the following background provides the context that produced the challenge. See also Findings of Fact 14-16. LifePath, Suncoast, and Palm Coast (or related entities), as well as the Agency, are parties in pending proceedings at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) involving Palm Coast's (or related entities) challenges to the Agency's preliminary determinations to deny CON applications (hospice) filed by Palm Coast (or related entities). These cases have been abated pending the outcome of this proceeding. In each proceeding, Palm Coast (or related entities) contends that a "special circumstance" exists under the 48-hour rule to justify approval of each CON application. Moreover, in support of its position, Palm Coast (or related entities) relies, in part, on data compiled by LifePath and Suncoast. It is the use of this data, in light of the 48-hour rule and interpretation thereof, that caused LifePath and Suncoast to file the rule challenges, notwithstanding that the Agency has not definitively interpreted the 48-hour rule. Parties The Agency administers the CON program for the establishment of hospice services and is also is responsible for the promulgation of rules pertaining to uniform need methodologies, including hospice services. See generally §§ 408.034(3) and (6) and 408.043(2), Fla. Stat.; Ch. 400, Part IV, Fla. Stat. Suncoast is a not-for-profit corporation operating a community-based hospice program providing hospice and other related services in Pinellas County, Florida, Hospice Service Area 5B. Suncoast has provided a broad range of hospice services to residents of Pinellas County since 1977. Suncoast has implemented an electronic medical records system and has developed a proprietary information management software system known as Suncoast Solutions. LifePath is a not-for-profit corporation operating a community-based hospice program providing hospice services in Hillsborough, Polk, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, Hospice Service Areas 6A and 6B. LifePath has provided a broad range of hospice services for the past 25 years. Palm Coast is a not-for-profit corporation currently operating licensed hospice programs in Daytona Beach, Florida, Hospice Service Area 4B and in Dade/Monroe Counties, Hospice Service Area 11. Palm Coast, as well as other related entities such as Odyssey Healthcare of Pinellas County, Inc., e.g., CON application No. 9984 filed in 2007, for Hospice Service Area 5B, has filed several CON applications to provide hospice services. It is also a party in pending proceedings before DOAH, challenging the Agency's preliminary decisions to deny the respective applications. Palm Coast's sole member is Odyssey Healthcare Holding Company, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. (Odyssey). (Palm Coast and Odyssey shall be referred to as Palm Coast unless otherwise stated.) Standing Petitioners provide hospice services in Florida and have not applied for a CON to provide hospice services outside their current service areas. In the absence of a numeric need,3 an applicant for a hospice CON is afforded the opportunity to demonstrate a need for a new hospice program by proving "special circumstances." These include circumstances described in the 48-hour rule. The applicant must document that "there are persons referred to hospice programs who are not being admitted within 48 hours (excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested)."4 The parties have cited no law that requires an existing hospice provider to maintain records documenting when a person is referred to a hospice program. Public documents are not available that may otherwise provide information regarding when a person is referred to a hospice program.5 Existing providers do not uniformly maintain data that reflects the length of time between when a person is referred to and later admitted to a hospice program. By rule, existing licensed hospice providers in Florida are required to report admissions data every six months to the Agency. The Agency uses the information to calculate numeric need under the rule methodology. Petitioners keep records indicating, for their record keeping purposes, e.g., when a person contacts the hospice program and when the person is admitted. Petitioners use software to assimilate this type of information. Petitioners also maintain patient records that contain this type of information. However, this information is not specifically gathered and maintained for the purpose of determining when a person is actually "referred" to a hospice program and later "admitted" and whether "persons" are admitted within 48 hours from being referred. During discovery in pending CON proceedings following preliminary agency action, Petitioners produced information, related to this record, to Palm Coast or related entities. Palm Coast or related entities have used this information in their CON applications to justify a "special circumstance" under the 48-hour rule. See generally Pet 6, 17, 17A and PC 75-78. See also T 987-995. It is a fair inference that Palm Coast or related entities have and will use this information in CON application cases pending at DOAH. See generally Palm Coast's February 14, 2008, Request for Judicial Notice, items 1-18. It is the use of the information by Palm Coast or related entities, coupled with Palm Coast's or related entities interpretation of the 48-hour rule that caused Petitioners to file the rule challenges in this proceeding. LifePath and Suncoast are regulated by and subject to the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0355. See generally Pet 30 at 2, item 2. The 48-hour rule is a CON application criterion, a planning standard, that is not implicated unless and until an applicant relies on this provision in its hospice CON application and uses data provided by, e.g., existing providers such as Petitioners. Subject to balancing applicable statutory and rule CON criteria, application of the 48-hour rule may provide an applicant with a ground for approval of its CON application by indicating a need for a new hospice program. This may occur either leading up to the Agency's issuance of its SAAR, see Section 408.039(4)(b), Florida Statutes, stating the Agency's preliminary action to approve a CON application, or ultimately with the entry of a final order following a proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. This information may also be considered during a public hearing if the Agency affords one. § 408.039(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Existing hospice providers, such as LifePath and Suncoast, may be substantially affected by the Agency's consideration of this information, especially if the Agency preliminarily concludes (in the SAAR) that a CON application should be approved based in part on application of the 48-hour rule. At that point, existing hospice providers have the right to initiate an administrative hearing upon a showing that its established program will be substantially affected by the issuance of the CON. See § 408.039(5)(c), Fla. Stat. Existing providers may also intervene in ongoing proceedings initiated by a denied applicant. Id. Petitioners have proven that they are substantially affected by the application of the 48-hour rule. Rule 59C-1.035(4) Prior to the Agency's adoption of Rule 59C-1.0355 in 1995, the Agency adopted Rule 59C-1.035, which included, in material part, a numeric need formula. In a prior rule challenge proceeding, it was alleged that Rule 59C-1.035(4) and in particular the numeric need formula was invalid. Paragraph (4)(e) provided: (e) Approval Under Special Circumstances. In the absence of need identified in paragraph (4)(a), the applicant must provide evidence that residents of the proposed service area are being denied access to hospice services. Such evidence must demonstrate that existing hospices are not serving the persons the applicant proposes to serve and are not implementing plans to serve those persons. This evidence shall include at least one of the following: Waiting lists for licensed hospice programs whose service areas include the proposed service area. Evidence that a specifically terminally ill population is not being served. Evidence that a county or counties within the service area of a licensed hospice program are not being served. Rule 59C-1.035(4), including paragraphs (4)(e)1.-3., was determined to be invalid. Catholic Hospice of Broward, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 94-4453RX, 1994 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 5943 (DOAH Oct. 14, 1994), appeal dismissed, No. 1D94-3742 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 1995). However, other than quoting from paragraph (4)(e) because it was included as part of the rule, there was no specific finding or conclusion regarding the validity of paragraphs (4)(e)1.-3. The successor rule, Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)1.-3., changed the preface language and substantially retained paragraphs (4)(e)2. and 3., now paragraphs (4)(d)1.-2., but omitted paragraph(4)(e)1. (waiting lists) and added paragraph(4)(d)3. (the 48-hour rule). Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)1.-3. Elfie Stamm has been employed by the Agency in different capacities. Material here, Ms. Stamm was the health services and facilities consultant supervisor for CON and budget review from July 1985 through June 1997. Since 1981, Ms. Stamm has had responsibility within the Agency for rule development. In and around 1994 and prior to the former hospice rule being invalidated, a work group was created for the purpose of developing a new hospice rule. Input was requested from the work group. Various hospice providers throughout the state participated in the rule development process. It appears that there was an attempt to replace the waiting list standard in the prior rule with the 48-hour standard. (There had been general objections made to the waiting list standard in this and other Agency rules.) The language for the 48-hour rule apparently came from the work group, rather than from Agency staff, although there is no evidence indicating which person or persons suggested the language. The Agency kept minutes of a meeting conducted on June 30, 1994, to discuss the proposed hospice rule, including the 48-hour rule. The minutes were kept to record any criticisms or comments regarding the proposed hospice rule. The minutes of a rule workshop "only addresses issues where people have concerns and varying opinions." The record does not reveal that any adverse comments were made regarding the 48-hour rule. In 1995, the Agency, adopted Rule 59C-1.0355, including Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)1.-3. that provides: (d) Approval Under Special Circumstances. In the absence of numeric need identified in paragraph (4)(a), the applicant must demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of a new hospice. Evidence submitted by the applicant must document one or more of the following: That a specific terminally ill population is not being served. That a county or counties within the service area of a licensed hospice program are not being served. That there are persons referred to hospice programs who are not being admitted within 48 hours (excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested). The applicant shall indicate the number of such persons.6 The 48-hour rule, in its present iteration at issue in this proceeding, has been a final rule since 1995.7 The Agency's hospice need methodology is set forth in Rule 59C-1.0355(4), which is entitled "Criteria for Determination of Need for a New Hospice Program." Rule 59C-1.0355(4) is comprised of four paragraphs, (4)(a) through (4)(e). Paragraph (4)(a) sets forth the process for the Agency's calculations of a numeric fixed need pool for a new hospice program. Paragraph (4)(b) provides that the calculation of a numeric need under paragraph (4)(a) will not normally result in approval of a new hospice program unless each hospice program in the service area in question has been licensed and operational for at least two years as of three weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. Paragraph (4)(c) similarly states that the calculation of a numeric need under paragraph (4)(a) will "not normally" result in approval of a new hospice program for any service area that has an approved but not yet licensed hospice program. Paragraph (4)(d) of the need methodology sets forth the three "special circumstances" quoted above. Paragraph (4)(e) sets forth preferences that may be applicable to a CON application for a new hospice program. The purpose of the 48-hour rule is to establish a standard by which the Agency may determine whether there is a timeliness of access issue that would justify approval of a new hospice program despite a zero fixed need pool calculation. Under the hospice need methodology, "special circumstances" are distinguishable from "not normal" circumstances, in part, because the three "special circumstances" are comprised of three delineated criteria rather than generally referencing what has been characterized as "free form" need arguments. Also, "not normal" circumstances may be presented when the Agency's numeric fixed need pool calculations produces a positive numeric need. Once an applicant demonstrates at least one "special circumstance" in accordance with Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)1.-3., the applicant may then raise additional arguments in support of need, which may be generally classified as "not normal" or as additional circumstances. Although the 48-hour rule has existed since 1995, it has rarely been invoked as a basis for demonstrating need by a CON applicant seeking approval of a new hospice program. In this light, the Agency has rarely been called upon to interpret and apply the 48-hour rule. The Agency recently approved a CON application filed in 2003 by Hernando-Pasco Hospice to establish a new hospice program in Citrus County (CON application No. 9678). The application was based, in part, on the 48-hour rule. In its SAAR, the Agency mentions that the applicant presented two letters of support, stating that some admissions to hospice were occurring more than 48 hours after referral. The number of patients was not quantified. There was no challenge to the Agency's preliminary decision. The Agency's decision does not provide any useful guidance with respect to the Agency's interpretation of the 48-hour rule. The Challenges Petitioners allege that the 48-hour rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the terms "referred" and "persons" are impermissibly vague and vest unbridled discretion with the Agency. For example, Petitioners point out that the term "referred" is not defined by statute or rule and contend it is not a term of art within the hospice industry. As a result, Petitioners assert the starting point for the 48-hour period cannot be determined from the face of the rule. Petitioners also contend that the 48-hour rule is arbitrary and capricious because the language, "excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested" (the parenthetical), is the only exception that may be considered when determining whether there has been compliance with the subsection, when, in fact, there are "other facts and circumstances beyond the control of the hospice provider that may result in delay in admission of a hospice patient." Petitioners also contend that the use of a 48-hour time period for assessing the need for a new hospice provider in a service area notwithstanding the Agency calculation of a zero numeric need is arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Petitioners allege that the 48-hour rule contravenes the specific provisions of Section 408.043(2), Florida Statutes, which is one of the laws it implements. Specifically, Petitioners further allege that "[b]ecause of its vagueness, its lack of adequate standards, its vesting of unbridled discretion with the Agency, and its arbitrary and capricious nature [the 48-hour rule] fails to establish any meaningful measure of the 'need for and availability of hospices in the community,' as required by [S]ection 408.043(2), Florida Statutes, and in violation of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2007)." Joint Prehearing Stipulation at 2-4. The Agency's and Palm Coast's Positions The Agency and Palm Coast contend that Petitioners do not have standing to challenge the 48-hour rule, but otherwise assert that the 48-hour rule is not invalid. In part, Palm Coast and the Agency contend that there is a common and ordinary meaning of the term "referred," which is "that point in time when a specific patient or family member on behalf of a patient or provider contacts a hospice provider seeking to access hospice services. Once a patient, patient family member on behalf of [a] patient, or provider contact [sic] a hospice provider seeking to access services, the 48 hour 'clock' should begin to run." See Joint Prehearing Stipulation at 6; AHCA/Palm Coast PFO at paragraph 79. With respect to the term "persons," Palm Coast and the Agency suggest that whether there are a sufficient number of "persons" that fit within the special circumstance "is a fact-based inquiry, which should be evaluated based on a totality of the circumstances." The Agency and Palm Coast contend that circumstances other than as stated in the parenthetical may be considered. Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)3. and Specific Terms Referred The term "referred" is not defined either by AHCA rule, in Chapter 400, Part IV, Florida Statutes, entitled "Hospices," or in Chapter 408, Part I, Florida Statutes, entitled "Health Facility and Services Planning." The terms "referred" or "referral" are not defined in any Agency final order or written policy. No definition of "referred" appears in at least three dictionaries, Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 2005) at 1203, Webster's II New College Dictionary (1999) at 931, and Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1985) at 989, although "refer" is defined, id. For example, "refer" means, in part "[t]o direct to a source for help or information." Webster's II New College Dictionary (1999) at 931. The term "referral," as a noun, means: "1 a referring or being referred, as for professional service, etc. 2 a person who is referred or directed to another person, an agency, etc." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 2005) at 1204. Referral also means: "The practice of sending a patient to another practitioner or specialty program for consultation or service. Such a practice involves a delegation of responsibility for patient care, which should be followed up to ensure satisfactory care." Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary at 1843 (19th ed.). Pet 18A. Pursuant to the Patient Self-Referral Act of 1992, "'[r]eferral' means any referral of a patient by a health care provider for health care services, including, without limitation: 1. The forwarding of a patient by a health care provider to another health care provider or to an entity which provides or supplies designated health services or any other health care item or service; or 2. The request or establishment of a plan of care by a health care provider, which includes the provision of designated health services or other health care item or service." § 456.053(3)(o)1.-2., Fla. Stat. Essentially, this Act seeks to avoid potential conflicts of interest with respect to referral of patients for health care services. In the absence of any authoritative definition of "referred," it is appropriate to determine whether the word has a definite meaning to the class of persons within the 48-hour rule. It is also appropriate to consider the Agency's interpretation of the 48-hour rule. As noted, hospice services are required to be available to all terminally ill patients and their families. Under the 48-hour rule, a CON applicant has the opportunity to prove that persons are being denied timely access to hospice services after 48 hours elapses from when they have been referred and they have not been admitted, absent some a reasonable justification. The issue is what elements are necessary for a person to be deemed "referred" and are those elements commonly understood well enough to enable the 48-hour rule to withstand a challenge for vagueness. If a person calls a hospice organization and inquires about the availability of hospice services, does this call start the 48-hour period? If the same person calls a hospice organization and states that he or she is the caregiver/surrogate for an elderly parent in need of hospice services, does this call start the 48-hour period? If the same person calls a hospice organization and states that he or she is the caregiver/surrogate of an elderly parent in need of hospice services, that the elderly parent is terminally ill, and further requests hospice services, does this call start the 48-hour period? If the same person calls a hospice organization and states that he or she is the caregiver/surrogate of an elderly parent in need of hospice services, that the elderly parent is terminally ill based on a prognosis by a licensed physician under Chapters 458 or 459, Florida Statutes, and further requests hospice services, does this call start the 48-hour period? Does eligibility for hospice services have a bearing on when a person is referred? If so, what factor(s) constitute eligibility? Petitioners contend the term "referred," as used in the 48-hour rule, can not be defined with any precision; hence the term is vague.8 Petitioners describe "referred" and "referral," for operational purposes, but not with respect to how the term "referred" is used in the 48-hour rule. Agency experts define the term differently, although none suggest the term is vague. Palm Coast offers a definition of "referred" or "referral" as part of its standard of admitting patients within three hours after referral. But, Palm Coast has a more generic and broader definition for the terms when used in the 48-hour rule. It is determined that "referred" can be defined with some precision and is not vague. But, the various positions and thought processes of the parties are described below and help in framing the controversy for resolution. LifePath and Suncoast Over the years, LifePath developed an administrative/operational manual pertaining to policies and procedures. One such policy is the "referral/intake procedure" that is the subject of a two page written policy, PC 55, revised March 2006. LifePath does not have a written definition of the terms inquiry or referral. LifePath does not believe it is reasonable to define referral as the point in time when a patient, a patient family member, or a physician requests hospice services on behalf of a patient. It is too general. In and around March 2006, LifePath considered a referral to occur when a first contact to LifePath was made by a person requesting hospice services. LifePath used the term referred "to anybody requesting services as a referral source." The admissions staff was directed to gather from the referral source, physician, and/or family any information needed to complete the patient record in the Patient Information System, and contact the patient/family on the same day of referral if available to discuss Lifepath hospice services. Sometime after December 2006, and the final hearing that was held in the Marion County hospice case, LifePath began revising its referral and intake procedure. According to LifePath, its process did not change, only its manner of characterizing certain terms, such as referral. At this time, LifePath wanted to track more precisely different occurrences within LifePath's process, including providing a more accurate label for referral as a request for assessment (RFA) rather than a referral. For LifePath, a referral and a RFA are not synonymous. A RFA is the first contact with the hospice program, which enables staff to follow- up with the prospective patient. A referral is a written physician's order for admission. At the same time, it had come to LifePath's attention that hospice providers (Palm Coast) defined referral differently. It became clear to LifePath that "Palm Coast had a very different definition of referral than [LifePath] did at that particular time. [LifePath] wanted to be able to clearly track each event during that time process so that [LifePath] would be able to compare with [Palm Coast's] definition of referral at that time." Stated somewhat differently, LifePath wanted to create a process that would capture several events (e.g., dates and times) consistently and measurable in the intake process rather than comb through paper charts to verify what they were doing. In April 2007, LifePath made several changes and updates to its written policy/procedure manual and software system, including using the term RFA instead of referral. According to the revised April 2007 policy, "Intake means: the initial demographic and patient condition information that is necessary to initiate the process for 'request for assessment.'" PC 56-57. In summary, for LifePath, a RFA for services is different from and precedes a referral. A RFA occurs when a person makes an initial contact with LifePath inquiring about access to hospice services. At this point LifePath has a name and an action to follow up with, and the information is entered into LifePath's system. The intake process begins. A RFA could be made by a physician in the community who orally or in writing requests LifePath to assess a patient for hospice care and/or issues an assess and admit order if appropriate. A call from a physician requesting LifePath to determine whether a person is appropriate for hospice services begins LifePath's RFA process. An RFA could arise when a person calls LifePath and says that their neighbor is really sick and gives LifePath the neighbors name and telephone number. RFA used in the April 2007 policy revision (PC 56) means the same as the term referral as used in the March 2006 policy revision (PC 55), i.e., the same point in time when LifePath received the patient's name and began the intake process and ability to follow up. Again, LifePath's intake process did not change; Lifepath's policies became more specific describing the events that occur during the entire intake process. According to LifePath, LifePath's revised policy of April 2007 is not reflective of LifePath's interpretation of the 48-hour rule. LifePath's revised policy "outlines the process in the organization in which [Lifepath] begin the intake process and how [LifePath follows] up and then certain moments in time within that process that [LifePath tracks] and monitor[s] as an organization." The April 2007 revision was followed by a May 2007 revision. LifePath characterized Palm Coast exhibits 55 through 57 as an "interim pilot process" that has been made permanent without any apparent significant changes. LifePath also perceived Palm Coast as defining referral to mean when a physician issues an admission order. As a result, LifePath began capturing data reflecting that moment in time so that the Agency could compare LifePath's data -- an apples-to-apples approach -- with another provider's data based on a definition that equated referral with a physician's order, but not for the purpose of defining what referred means to LifePath under the 48-hour rule. LifePath now considers a referral to occur when a physician issues an order to admit for the purpose of gathering data that is to be used to compare other providers, not for the purpose of applying the 48-hour rule. An assess and admit order in LifePath's view is not a referral until LifePath assesses the patient, obtains consent of care, determines that the patient is appropriate for hospice services, receives certification, and receives an order to admit the patient at that time. The RFA process is completed when either the patient is admitted to the program or it is determined that the patient cannot be admitted to the program. LifePath will admit a patient in lieu of having an admitting order when LifePath receives a verbal order to admit the patient from a physician. The verbal order for admission is a referral. LifePath admits at least 75 percent of its patients within 48 hours of the RFA. However, LifePath gave several reasons outside of a hospice program's control that would delay admission greater than 48 hours from the RFA. LifePath believes that the Agency's rule is a good rule, but that the language has been taken out of context and used inappropriately. Like LifePath, Suncoast's interest in the 48-hour rule was stimulated when Palm Coast filed two CON applications requesting approval to provide hospice services in Pinellas County and both applications claim a need for an additional hospice program based, in part, on the 48-hour rule. Suncoast was concerned with the manner in which referral was being used by Palm Coast in light of data provided by Suncoast and further believes that the 48-hour rule is being manipulated by Palm Coast. Suncoast uses an elaborate software product that uses terms such as referral. Suncoast does not have a formal policy definition of referral. Suncoast believes that there are differing definitions of referral among hospice programs. Suncoast filed its rule challenge because according to Suncoast the 48-hour rule is nonspecific; because there is no commonly understood definition of referral in the hospice rule or in the Agency that Suncoast and other hospice providers can depend on. Given the lack of a specific definition, Suncoast and others are unable to determine when the 48-hour clock begins. As used in its business and not for the purpose of defining the term in the 48-hour rule, Suncoast defines referral to mean "that first contact with [Suncoast's] program where [Suncoast gets] a name and [Suncoast gets] other information about the client so that [Suncoast] can go see them." This definition is not limited Medicare reimbursed hospice services. Inquiry and referral are the starting points. But, Suncoast states that there is no consistent definition of referral across the hospice industry. Suncoast also views a referral and an admission as "processes," "not really events." Sometimes the process takes a period of weeks to evolve with many variants, e.g., eligibility, consent, etc. Palm Coast In this proceeding, Interrogatories were answered on behalf of Hospice of the Palm Coast - Daytona and by Hospice of the Palm Coast - Waterford at Blue Lagoon with respect to the referral, intake, and admission of patients for hospice services to such facilities. Several terms are defined. "Referral" is an industry term, referring to contact by an individual or entity including but not limited to a patient, family member on behalf of a patient, HCS, POA, guardian, ALF, nursing home, or hospital seeking to access hospice services. "Referred" is an industry term, having a plain and ordinary meaning within the hospice field which generally describes when a patient, patient family member or personal representative, or provider contacts a hospice program seeking to access hospice services. "Intake" [] a general term of art describing the process from referral to admission. Admission is a general term of art describing that point in time when a patient meets all eligibility requirements including clinical requirements for hospice services and is admitted to a hospice program. [Assessment is t]he process by which patients are evaluated regarding clinical appropriateness for hospice services including eligibility requirements as set forth by state regulation, Medicare, Medicaid or other third party payors. [First Contact and initial contact, a]s it relates to referral, intake, and admission of patients, are defined above as referral and referred. For Palm Coast's purposes, a referral occurs when someone, e.g., a physician, discharge planner, family or a friend, contacts the hospice agency seeking hospice services. If the first contact comes from a physician, Palm Coast seeks that physician's approval to admit the patient if the patient is eligible or qualifies for hospice. For Palm Coast, it is typical to obtain a physician's written order for evaluation and admission before the patient is evaluated by the hospice provider. If a physician calls with a referral of a patient, the call goes to the admission coordinator. Calls from patients or family of a hospice patient would be routed into the clinical division. A referral does not include contacting a hospice requesting information where a chemotherapy wig or a hospital bed could be purchased. For Palm Coast, the admissions coordinator determines when an inquiry is an inquiry only or is a referral. The phone call may turn into a referral when the caller is asking for hospice services to be provided or a family member or to a patient who is at their end of life as opposed to a general request for information about hospice services. But, Palm Coast does not have written criteria for use by the admissions coordinator in determining whether a phone call is an inquiry or referral, or when an inquiry becomes a referral. Odyssey also does not have a written definition of referral, although it is a term used in policies and procedures. A referral results when they have a patient's name and a physician's name and someone is calling for hospice services. Ms. Ventre states that order and referral are not interchangeable. A physician's order is not a referral. For the purpose of describing Palm Coast's hospice operations and referring to page four of the "referral process" page within Palm Coast's Admission and Patient/Family Rights Policies, a referral begins when a written physician's order is received by the hospice program. Receipt of a physician's written order and referral are synonymous regarding the three- hour standard. Receipt of a telephone call from a potential patient does not qualify as a referral. It is classified as an inquiry. It is unusual for a patient or a patient's family would make a referral themselves. (Ms. Ventre characterized an inquiry as someone calling for an explanation of hospice services. A phone call could be classified as an inquiry or referral depending on the depth of the call. It may be an inquiry where there is no follow-up.) Palm Coast uses Odysseys service standard providing that all patients are admitted within three hours from a written physician's order to admit -- 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (This three hour standard is one of 14 standards adopted by Palm Coast/Odyssey.) A clinical assessment is performed within this three hour period. For Palm Coast, if it has a written physician's order to admit and if the family is available, Palm Coast believes it can meet the three-hour standard. Palm Coast (and Odyssey) does not track the time between receipt of a physician's order to evaluate and the admission of the patient nor does Odyssey track the time between the receipt of a physician's order to admit and the time the admission of the patient. Palm Coast (and Odyssey) maintains internal mechanisms that are reviewed on a daily basis to evaluate the referral process and if patients are being admitted in a timely fashion. Sometimes the three-hour standard is not met. The most frequent reason is that the patient and/or the family are not available to meet. Another is the time it may take to gather documentation from the referring physician. The Agency Agency experts defined "referred" differently. During the final hearing, Ms. Stamm stated that in order for a person to receive hospice services, the person must be qualified or eligible. Eligibility occurs when a physician certifies that the person has a six months or less (for Medicare) or (pursuant to Florida law) one year or less life expectancy. Ms. Stamm clarified her deposition testimony during the final hearing and stated that a person is referred to a hospice program when a request for hospice services is made to the hospice program by or on behalf of the person, coupled with the physician's written certification. A referral would not occur when, e.g., the person or someone on their behalf simply asks for hospice services without the physician's certification. Ms. Stamm was not aware whether this interpretation reflected the Agency's interpretation. She never thought there was a problem with defining "referred" or that it was an issue, so it was not discussed. Also, Ms. Stamm was not aware of how the Agency has interpreted the 48-hour rule. Mr. Gregg confirmed that there is no written definition of referred, but that it is commonly used in healthcare, i.e., "referral is a mechanism by which a patient is channeled into some specific new or different provider." Having considered his prior deposition testimony, see endnote 9, and in preparation for the final hearing in this proceeding, for Mr. Gregg, the 48 hours starts "[a]t the point of initial contact," "the point when some person representing a potential patient calls a hospice or contacts a hospice and says I believe we have a person who is appropriate for your service." The first contact could be made by a hospital discharge planner or nursing home social worker. Mr. Gregg does not believe that a physician's certification is required to start the 48-hour period or is part of the initial contact.9 Rather, the physician's certification would come at the end of the process, although the "physician is going to be a part of a successful referral." In other words, in order to start the 48-hour period, it would not be necessary for the hospice program to be advised that a patient was terminally ill. The latter determination is required to assess whether "the patient is appropriate and eligible." Generally, Mr. Baehr agrees with Mr. Gregg's view. For Mr. Baehr, there is a transfer of responsibility that occurs when the first contact is made at a point in time when either the patient or a family member or some institution, whether it be an assisted living facility, nursing home, hospital, or a physician, makes a contact with a hospice, and in a sense initiates a process that requires the hospice program to respond and do something so that this process can get underway. Mr. Baehr opines that referral has a common understanding; it is similar to when a patient is provided with a different medical service, whether it be hospice or some other form of healthcare service, from the one they are currently receiving. Mr. Baehr differentiates this scenario from one that occurs when a person merely seeks information about hospice versus someone who is seeking eventual admission to a hospice program. Admitted There is no rule or statute that requires a hospice provider to admit a patient within a certain time period. In Big Bend Hospice, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 01-4415CON, 2002 Fla. Div. Hear. LEXIS 1584 (DOAH Nov. 7, 2002; AHCA April 8, 2003), aff'd, 904 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), a proceeding involving a challenge to a numerical need (under the fixed need pool) for an additional hospice program, it was expressly found: "40. An admission consists of several components: (a) a physician's diagnosis and prognosis of a terminal illness; (b) a patient's expressed request for hospice care; (c) the informed consent of the patient; (d) the provision of information regarding advance directive to the patient; and (e) performance of an initial professional assessment of the patient. At that point, the patient is considered admitted. A patient does not have to sign an election of Medicare benefits form for hospice care prior to being admitted." 2002 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS at *26- 27(emphasis added). See also § 400.6095(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. This finding of fact was adopted by AHCA in its Final Order. A patient cannot be admitted for Medicare reimbursement without a physician's order. In order to be eligible to elect hospice care under Medicare, an individual must be entitled to Part A of Medicare and be certified by their attending physician, if the individual has an attending physician, and the hospice medical director as being terminally ill, i.e., that the individual has a medical prognosis that his or her life expectancy is six months or less if the illness runs its normal course, and consent. 42 C.F.R. §§ 418.3, 418.20(a)- (b), and 418.22(a),(b),(c)(i)-(ii). AHCA has defined the term "admitted" by and through its Final Order in Big Bend Hospice and there is no persuasive evidence in this case to depart from that definition, although the definition of the term was discussed during the hearing. The Agency's definition of "admitted" establishes the outer time limit when the 48-hour period ends for the purpose of the 48-hour rule. Persons The 48-hour rule requires the applicant to indicate the number of persons who are referred but not admitted to hospice within 48 hours of the referral (excluding cases where a later admission is requested). The term "persons" is not defined by AHCA statute or rule. However, the term is generically defined by statute. "The word 'person' includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations." § 1.01(3), Fla. Stat. "The singular includes the plural and vice versa." § 1.01(1), Fla. Stat. The term "persons" used in the 48-hour rule is not vague, ambiguous, or capricious. In context, it refers to individuals who are eligible for hospice services within the meaning of the 48-hour rule as discussed herein and who request hospice services. The Agency has not established by rule or otherwise a specific number of persons that can trigger a special circumstance under the 48-hour rule or the specific duration for counting such persons. The numeric need formula does not encompass every health planning consideration. The need formula is based on general assumptions such as population, projected deaths, projected death rates applying statewide averages, and admissions. The special circumstances set forth in Rule 59C- 1.0355(4)(d) compliment other portions of the rule and the statutory review criteria and allows an applicant to identify factors that may be unique to a particular service area, such as a particular provider not providing timely access to persons needing hospice services or a service area that is rural or urban that affects access. One size may not appropriately fit all. Rather, the term is capable of being applied on a case-by-case basis when (hospice) CON applications are reviewed by the Agency prior to the issuance of the SAAR and thereafter, if necessary, in a de novo proceeding, through and including the issuance of a final order. The Agency's exercise of discretion is not unbridled. Excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested10 The 48-hour rule provides in part: "3. That there are persons referred to hospice programs who are not being admitted within 48 hours (excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested). The applicant shall indicate the number of such persons." There is some testimony that the parenthetical may be interpreted broadly by the Agency, although Mr. Gregg suggested that the parenthetical was literally limited to when a specific request is made for a later admission date. There are numerous circumstances beyond the control of a hospice that delay an admission other than when a later admission date is requested under the rule. These circumstances do not necessarily indicate an access problem.11 Petitioners provided examples of situations (other than when a later admission date is requested) that may arise when a person would not be admitted with 48 hours after being referred such as when a patient or family is unresponsive to a contact made by the hospice provider; a patient was out of a hospice program's service area when the initial request for hospice services was made and no immediate plans to transfer to the service area; the patient/family/caregiver chose to stay with another benefit, e.g. skilled nursing facility, versus electing their hospice Medicare benefit; a patient residing in a non-contract hospital, e.g., VA Hospital, when the initial request is made and patient admitted to hospice service when the patient is transferred out of that facility into a contract facility, hospice inpatient setting or home; patient meeting the admission criteria at a later date; a delay in obtaining a physician order for assessment; or when a patient is incompetent at the time the initial request to consent for care or other delays in obtaining consent. There are also factors where a referral does not end in an admission. Persons falling in this category would not be counted under the 48-hour rule. The Agency and Palm Coast suggest that the Agency may consider these non-enumerated factors, whereas LifePath and Suncoast suggest the Agency's discretion is limited. Compare Agency/Palm Coast PFO at paragraphs 90-95, and 141 with LifePath/Suncoast PFO at paragraphs 61-67. The persuasive evidence indicates that the Agency should consider these factors. Nevertheless, the plain language of the parenthetical excludes from consideration legitimate circumstances that would reasonably explain a delay in admission other than the affirmative request for a later admission date and, as a result, is unreasonably restrictive. 48 hours Licensed hospice programs are required to provide hospice services to terminally ill patients, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It is important that terminally ill persons who request hospice services (or if requested on their behalf), receive access to hospice services in a timely fashion. There is evidence that approximately 30 percent of patients that are admitted to hospice die within seven days or less after admission, i.e., an average length of stay of seven days or less. While the opinions of experts conflict, the 48-hour period is a quantifiable standard assuming that there is a precise and reasonable definition of referred and admission. Ultimate Findings of Fact Having considered the entire record in this proceeding, it is determined that the term "referred" is not impermissibly vague or arbitrary or capricious. A person is "referred" to a hospice program when a terminally ill person and/or their legal guardian or other person acting in a representative capacity, e.g., licensed physician or discharge planner, on their behalf, requests hospice services from a licensed hospice program in Florida. This definition presumes that prior to or contemporaneous with the request for hospice services a determination has been made by a physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 458 or Chapter 459, Florida Statutes, that the person is terminally ill, i.e., "that the patient has a medical prognosis that his or her life expectancy is 1 year or less if the illness runs its course." §§ 400.601(10) and 400.6095(2), Fla. Stat. This determination may be made by, e.g., the hospice's medical director, who presumably would be licensed pursuant to one of these statutes. The Agency and Palm Coast implicitly suggest that a referral (pursuant to the 48-hour rule) does not include a determination by a physician that the person is terminally ill. When it comes to "referral" in the generic, non- emergency physician/patient setting, the patient is examined by a physician; the physician determines that the patient needs a further evaluation by a specialist; and the physician refers the patient to the specialist.12 This is usually followed with a written order. The patient, or his or her authorized representative on the patient's behalf, must consent to and request any further examination for the ensuing service to be provided. The point is that the physician makes the referral. In order to apply the plain and commonly understood meaning of the term "referred" in the context of the 48-hour rule, the physician's determination is a critical component of the referral process, coupled with the patient's request and ultimate consent for services. Access to hospice services and the time it takes to deliver the service is of the essence for the prospective hospice patient. Having a written and dated physician certification of terminal illness would likely make recordkeeping easier and more predictable to assist in determining when the 48-hour period starts, in conjunction with the request for services. However, the potential delay in obtaining a written certification from a physician who has determined the patient is terminally ill should not be required to begin the 48-hour period and the referral in light of the purpose of the 48-hour rule. Thus, while a determination of terminal illness is necessary to start the running of the 48 hours under the 48-hour rule, reduction of that determination to writing is not. This definition, coupled with the 48 hour admission requirement and consideration of other factors affecting an admission, provides a sufficient standard for determining whether a person is receiving hospice services in a timely fashion.13 Whether access has been denied to a sufficient number of "persons" under the rule for the purpose of determining whether a special circumstance may justify approval of a hospice CON application in the absence of numeric need can be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Agency in the SAAR or later, if subject to challenge in a Section 150.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding in light of the facts presented. See generally Humhosco, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 476 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The use of the word "persons" in the rule is not vague or arbitrary or capricious. The time period of "48 hours" is not vague or arbitrary or capricious. Given the plight of terminally ill persons needing hospice services, it is not unreasonable for the Agency to have chosen this time period, in conjunction with "referred" and "admitted" as the beginning and stopping points for determining whether access is being afforded on a timely basis. The parenthetical language "(excluding cases where a later admission date has been requested)" is arbitrary and capricious because it precludes consideration of other factors that reasonably demand consideration given the rule's purpose. There is persuasive evidence that persons may not access hospice services (be admitted within 48 hours after being referred) within the 48-hour period based on circumstances that are outside the control of the hospice provider and arguably outside the parenthetical language. To the extent the parenthetical language is construed to limit consideration to one circumstance, the failure to consider other circumstances could unreasonably skew upward or overstate the number of persons that may fit outside the 48-hour period and indicates a lack of timely access when the contrary may be true, having considered the circumstances. The 48-hour rule can remain intact notwithstanding severance of the parenthetical language. The remaining portions of the rule provide an applicant with a viable avenue to demonstrate a lack of timely access based on a special circumstance. Finally, even if the 48-hour rule was not in existence, under applicable statutory and rule criteria, see, e.g., Subsections 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, an applicant may provide evidence that persons are being denied timely access to hospice services in a service area. However, such evidence would not necessarily be classified as a special circumstance unless the evidence fit within Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)1. and 2.
The Issue In the first batching cycle of 2006, Hospice of the Palm Coast, Inc. ("Palm Coast") and Catholic Hospice, Inc. ("Catholic Hospice"), applied to the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") for a certificate of need to establish a new hospice program in Broward County. Palm Coast's application number is CON 9931; Catholic Hospice's is CON 9928. The issues in this case are whether either, both or neither of the applications should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA "[D]esignated as the state health planning agency for purposes of federal law," Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, AHCA is responsible for the administration of the CON program and laws in Florida. See § 408.031, Fla. Stat., et seq. As such, it is also designated as "the single state agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with present and future federal and state statutes." § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. Catholic Hospice Catholic Hospice, Inc., has been a licensed provider of hospice services in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Hospice Service Area 11 which adjoins Service Area 10 along the Broward/Miami-Dade County line) since 1988. It is faith-based and mission-driven; in keeping with its nature as such, it is a section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. Catholic Hospice has two corporate members: the Archdiocese of Miami and Mercy Hospital, a part of Catholic Health East. Neither of its two members provide it with funding. Catholic Hospice is governed by a board of directors with autonomous authority to govern its activities. The members of its board live and work in the local community. Palm Coast Palm Coast is a not-for-profit Florida corporation currently licensed to operate hospice programs in Hospice Service Area 4B and, like Catholic Hospice, in Hospice Service Area 11 (Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties). Palm Coast's provision of hospice services in Service Area 11 is new relative to Catholic Hospice's service for nearly 20 years in the service area. Palm Coast has been licensed as a hospice in Service Area 11 since March 2006. Palm Coast is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a its management affiliate and parent organization, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. ("Odyssey"), which is a for-profit national chain of hospices. The sole member of Palm Coast is Odyssey HealthCare Holding Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Odyssey. Palm Coast's Board of Directors are managers of Odyssey all of whom live and work in or near Dallas, Texas. Numeric Need for a Service Area 10 Hospice Program Hospice Service Area 10 Hospice Service Area 10 consists of Broward County. Referred interchangeably by the parties at hearing as either Service Area 10 or Broward County, Hospice Service Area 10 will also be referred to in this Order as either Service Area 10 or Broward County. AHCA's Determination of Numeric Need To determine need in Service Area 10 in the "Other Beds and Programs" First Batching Cycle 2006, AHCA employed the numeric need methodology found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355 (the "Hospice Programs Rule"). The Agency's methodology calculates need using a number of factors. Among the factors are four categories of deaths in the service area: U65C, 65C, U65NC, and 65NC, described by the rule as follows: (a) Numeric Need for a New Hospice Program * * * U65C is the projected number of service are resident cancer deaths under 65 . . . 65C is the projected number of service area resident cancer deaths age 65 and over . . . U65NC is the projected number of service area resident deaths under age 65 from all causes except cancer . . . 65NC is the projected number of service area resident deaths age 65 and over from all causes except cancer . . . Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.0355(4). (Consistent with these four factors, data was introduced at hearing that is discussed further in this order that relates to four categories of patients grouped by diagnosis and age in much the same way: "65 and Over Cancer," "65 and Over Non-cancer," "Under 65 Cancer," and "Under 65 Non-cancer." See paragraph 16, below.) According to the Hospice Programs Rule, "[n]umeric need for an additional hospice program is demonstrated if the projected number of unserved patients who would elect a hospice program is 350 or greater." Id. Application of the Agency's methodology to the factors relative to Service Area 10 yielded more than 400 projected unserved patients who would elect a hospice program ("Net Need"). Palm Coast presented a hybrid methodology that yielded a Net Need of 1,340. In Palm Coast's view, the Net Need produced by its hybrid methodology demonstrated need for at least two new hospice programs. The Agency, however, interprets the Hospice Programs Rule to allow only one new hospice program to be added in any one batching cycle no matter what number is yielded by its methodology. True to its calculation of numeric need and its interpretation of the rule, the Agency duly published its fixed need pool of one. The fixed need pool was not challenged. In response to the published need, Catholic Hospice and Palm Coast submitted timely applications for approval of a new hospice in Broward County. In its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"), AHCA approved Catholic Hospice's application and denied Palm Coast's. Overview and Approaches of the Applications The applications of Catholic Hospice and Palm Coast comply with the application content and review requirements in statute and rule. Both applications include information related to "special circumstances" that would justify approval of a hospice program in the absence of numeric need. Catholic Hospice, however, did not attempt to demonstrate the existence of "special circumstances" at hearing. Palm Coast, on the other hand, attempted to show that more than one new hospice program could be approved in Broward County. Palm Coast's case for approval of more than one hospice program has two bases. The first is justification under the Special Circumstances provisions art of the Hospice Programs Rule found in Subsection (4)(d) of the rule. The special circumstances advanced by Palm Coast are discussed below in paragraphs 138 to 140. The second base is the "hybrid need methodology" discussed above and developed by its expert health planner. Palm Coast's Hybrid Need Methodology Palm Coast's hybrid methodology follows the assumptions of AHCA's methodology in three categories based on age and diagnosis: "Under 65 Cancer," "Under 65 Non-cancer," and "65 and Older Cancer." It differs from AHCA's methodology in that it assumes that penetration in the "65 and Older Non- cancer" population will remain stable. Palm Coast's "hybrid" need methodology suggests that the need in Service Area 10 is greater than the need forecast by AHCA's approved methodology. The hybrid methodology yields a net need of 1,320 admissions rather than the 441 projected by the Agency's methodology. Stipulated Facts Prior to hearing, the parties filed a joint pre- hearing stipulation.1 In Section E.,2 of the document, entitled "Statement of Facts Which Require No Proof," the parties stipulated to following facts: [a.] Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2005) sets forth the statutory CON review criteria at issue in these proceedings. The parties agree that the following subparagraphs of Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2005) are either not applicable or not at issue to consideration of the application: (8) and (10); [b.] The Parties agree that the CON review criteria and standards applicable in this proceeding are set forth in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2005), and Rules 59C- 1.0355 and 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code. The parties agree that the following criteria in Rule 59C-1.0355, Florida Administrative Code, are either not applicable or not at issue to consideration of the application: (7), (8), (9), and (10); [c.] The parties agree that CATHOLIC HOSPICE and PALM COAST's Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI") and CON applications were timely filed with the Agency. [d.] The CON Applications filed by CATHOLIC HOSPICE and PALM COAST comply with the Application content and review process requirements of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (2005) and Rule 59C-1.0355, Florida Administrative Code, and the Agency's review of the Application complied with the review process requirements of the above-referenced Statutes and Rule. [e.] A FNP of one (1) was projected and published for Hospice Service Area 10 for the 2006 - 1st Batching Cycle in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 32, No. 14. [f.] The FNP publication of one (1) was not challenged. [g.] The parties agree that Schedules 1 through 10, contained in each of the two CON applications (Nos. 9928 and 9931), may be admitted into evidence as reasonable projections without a sponsoring witness. [h.] The parties agree that the audited financial statements of the two applicants and parent entities, presented in the CON applications are true and accurate copies of the respective entity's audited financial statements and may be admitted into evidence without a sponsoring witness. [i.] As to Schedule 5, the parties agree that the figures presented by both Applicants are reasonable, and each applicant is likely to meet their respective utilization projections presented in Schedule 5. * * * [j.] As to Schedule 6, the parties agree that each applicant can provide hospice services with the staffing positions and volumes presented in Schedule 6, and that the staffing and salaries proposed are reasonable for the services proposed by each applicant. [k.] The stipulations, referenced in paragraphs 8 through 11 above, shall not preclude the parties from presenting comparative evidence about any aspect of the information presented or assumptions contained in Schedules 1 through 10 of either of the two remaining applications. [l.] Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes (2005) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The need for the healthcare facilities and health services being proposed." Pursuant to AHCA's Florida Need Projections for the hospice program, background information for use in conjunction with the April 2006 Batching Cycle for the July 2007 Hospice Planning Horizon, a need was identified for one (1) additional hospice program in AHCA Service Area 10. Thus, CATHOLIC HOSPICE, PALM COAST, and the Agency agree there is a need for one (1) program. * * * [m.] Section 408.035(3) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care." Section 408.035 is not at issue with respect to either CATHOLIC HOSPICE or PALM COAST's compliance with the above-referenced statutory criteria. The parties agree that both of the proposed programs can provide quality care and satisfy the criterion in Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes. [n.] Section 408.035(4) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation." [o.] Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes (2005) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare for residents of the service district." The parties agree, that to the extent there is a published need, approval of either CATHOLIC HOSPICE or PALM COAST would enhance access to healthcare for residents of the Service Area. Notwithstanding the fact that both CATHOLIC HOSPICE and PALM COAST believe that approval of either program will enhance access to healthcare for residents of the Service Area, nothing herein shall preclude the parties from presenting comparative evidence as to which program would provide better access. [p.] Section 408.035(6) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal." Section 408.035(6) is not at issue in these proceedings. The parties agree that both proposed hospice programs are financially feasible in the short- and long-term, and satisfy the criteria in Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes. [q.] Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (2005), provides in pertinent part as follows: "The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction." Section 408.035(8) is not at issue with respect to a review of the CON applications filed by CATHOLIC HOSPICE or PALM COAST. [r.] AHCA is the state agency responsible for issuance of licenses to hospice providers, and is the sole state agency authorized to make Certificate of Need ("CON") determinations. [s.] North Broward Hospital District is a special hospital taxing district created by Special Act of the Florida Legislature, chapter 27438, Laws of Florida (1951), and operates in the northern geographical area of Broward County. GOLD COAST is an operating unit of North Broward Hospital District. [t.] CATHOLIC HOSPICE is a not-for-profit Florida corporation and existing provider of hospice services in Florida. [u.] PALM COAST is a not-for-profit Florida corporation and existing provider of hospice services in Florida. [v.] CATHOLIC HOSPICE and PALM COAST are each currently providing services through licensed hospice programs in Hospice Service Area 11 (Miami - Dade and Monroe Counties). [w.] Hospice Service Area 10 is Broward County, Florida. [x.] The current hospice providers in Hospice Service Area 10 are VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida, Hospice By the Sea, Inc., HospiceCare of Southeast Florida, Inc., and GOLD COAST. Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed May 9, 2007. The Applicants in Other Service Areas; Existing Providers in Service Area 10 Catholic Hospice is currently licensed and operating in Service Area 11, Dade and Monroe Counties. Palm Coast has programs that are currently licensed and operating in Service Area 4B, comprising of Flagler and Volusia Counties and, like Catholic Hospice, in Service Area 11. Service Area 10 has four existing providers of hospice services. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of Florida (Vitas) is a for-profit hospice. The other three, Hospice By the Sea, Inc., HospiceCare of Southeast Florida, Inc., and Gold Coast, are all community-based not-for-profit hospices. Of the four existing providers, Vitas is by far the dominant provider of hospice services in the service area. Affiliations and Sponsors Palm Coast Affiliation with Odyssey Palm Coast is affiliated with Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., a for-profit corporation. Despite the affiliation, Palm Coast is a distinct entity in accordance with Florida law. It has its own Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, its own audited financial statements and its own local governing board. It complies, moreover, with all state and federal requirements for AHCA and Medicare licensure and certification. Additionally, each of the individual Palm Coast programs has its own bank account into which all of its revenues are deposited and out of which all of its expenses are paid. If the proposed Palm Coast hospice program in Broward County exhibits a positive cash flow from its operations, those fund will remain with the program to be used for patient care and operations. This is the practice followed by Palm Coast at its existing programs in Service Areas 4B and 11. The Palm Coast model, therefore, which Palm Coast will follow should it be approved in Broward County, will be to act and operate as a community-based hospice. While it will "act locally," it will also benefit from its affiliation with Odyssey. It will be able to take advantage of Odyssey's resources, experience and successful management tactics. These benefits include economies of scale based on Odyssey's buying power and operation of 80 programs in 26 states, Odyssey's experience with a multitude of startup programs, identification and treatment of minority population and non-cancer patients, treatment of cancer patients (traditionally served by hospices), extensive educational tools developed over 10 years of operation, continuing education for all staff members, accessibility to a large clinical database, and access to centralized services such as billing and foundation funds. Through its affiliation with Odyssey and with the assistance Odyssey is reasonably expected to provide, Palm Coast possesses the necessary management and clinical experience, operational systems and corporate resources to efficiently, effectively and successfully implement a new hospice program in Service Area 10. Indeed, the benefit of combining local resources and knowledge with Odyssey's nationwide experience, assets, buying power and success has been demonstrated with the successful establishment of Palm Coast programs in Service Area 4B and Service Area 11, the service area in which Palm Coast's rival in this proceeding gathers its own support and sponsorship. b. Catholic Hospice's Corporate Sponsors in Service Area 11 Catholic Hospice has two corporate sponsors in Service Area 11: the Archdiocese of Miami and Mercy Hospital. The Archdiocese consists of Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. It places a priority on health care as a large part of its mission. The Archdiocese is the sole corporate sponsor of a substantial network of post-acute health care facilities in Dade and Broward Counties, including rehabilitation hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, HUD elderly housing facilities and cemeteries. This health care network is managed from its headquarters in Broward County by Catholic Health Services (“CHS”), and extends throughout the geographic boundaries of the Archdiocese. Founded in 1988, Catholic Hospice is the realization of the aspirations of the Archdiocese's Monsignor Walsh. At the time, the hope was for Catholic Hospice to serve the entire geographic area of the Archdiocese; a CON, however, could only be secured for Service Area 11. Hospice services in Broward County is missing from the continuum of care in which the Archdiocese is engaged. There will be a benefit to the patients in the CHS network of care because continuum of care increases continuity of care and is better for patients. The gap in the Archdiocese's continuum of care is therefore significant to the patients it serves. Mercy Hospital, the second corporate sponsor of Catholic Hospice in Dade County, is an acute care hospital managed by Catholic Health East. Catholic Health East is a Catholic network of over 35 acute care hospitals that extends along the east coast of the United States from Maine to Florida. The network includes Holy Cross Hospital in Broward County. Support for Catholic Hospice by Catholic Health and Elder Care Entities The Archdiocese of Miami, Mercy Hospital, Holy Cross Hospital in Broward County and Catholic Health East all share a common identity as faith-based, not-for-profit organizations with the mission of demonstrating reverence for the human body and spirit by bringing the healing and comfort of the Lord to those in need throughout their respective communities. The common mission and identity that Catholic Hospice and the related Catholic health care entities share naturally cultivates collaboration among them. These collaborations within an extended network of health and elder care services are significant. They will allow Catholic Hospice to expand into Broward County quickly and efficiently. Palm Coast's Benefits from Affiliation with Odyssey Palm Coast has available to it through its management agreement with Odyssey, all the resources of the two existing Palm Coast programs as well as the nationwide resources of Odyssey. Due to its experience with new market development, Odyssey has the ability to enter the market rapidly; programs, policies, and operations are already in place, and the strong support resources provide the wherewithal for Hospice Palm Coast to do their job of rapidly, efficiently, and appropriately upon entering the Broward County marketplace. Odyssey has started over thirty hospice programs since 1995, with five new programs established in the 2006 calendar year, evidence of experience in development of new hospice programs, in addition to their experience with hospice acquisitions. The proof of likely success in Broward County as the result of Palm Coast's affiliation with Odyssey can be seen, moreover, in the success of Palm Coast's programs in District 4A and 11, implemented under the guidance and direction of Odyssey. In the marketplaces where Odyssey and Palm Coast have historically initiated new hospice programs, they have become proficient at determining the traditional or existing core of business for the existing providers, and utilized their experience and success to come in and fill the gaps, otherwise known as providing "Hospice Services Beyond the Traditional Model." The addition of Hospice of the Palm Coast in Broward County will allow for the expansion of the Odyssey way of life, through its not-for-profit affiliate, utilizing its successful operational philosophy and Fourteen Service Standards. Odyssey has a dedicated start-up team that, upon CON approval, plans to work with the local providers and other individuals or entities within the local market, to guide the Palm Coast's Broward program from the CON approval, up through Medicare certification. Operationally, based on its size in terms of programs and economies of scale, there are significant benefits to Palm Coast's proposed program in Broward; the ability to contract on a national level for corporate wide benefits including a variety of medical equipment, medical supplies, and pharmacy supplies, due to the operation of over 80 hospice programs nationwide, which yields significant economies of scale. The Odyssey Support Center provides the Palm Coast start-up programs with policies and procedures, forms, educational materials, and training, in addition to centralized services efficiently operated for all the Odyssey programs from the Dallas corporate headquarters. Specifically, Odyssey supports each individual hospice location by providing coordination, centralized resources, and corporate services, including, but not limited to: Financial accounting systems, including billing, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and payroll; Information and telecommunications systems; Clinical support services; Human resource administration; Regulatory compliance and quality assurance; Marketing and educational materials; Training and development; and Start-up licensure and certification. In return for these services provided by Odyssey, the Palm Coast programs pay a management fee, which is calculated as seven percent of the local hospice's net revenue. The same arrangement will be implemented upon Palm Coast's approval for the CON in Broward. These resources allow each local office to focus on Odyssey's primary mission to provide responsive, quality care to patients and their families. Once the Palm Coast entities, including the proposed Broward program, become "cash positive," a separate and distinct bank account will be opened to ensure the funds of the not-for- profit Palm Coast entities are not co-mingled with that of its management affiliate Odyssey. Broward County Diversity and Need The population of Broward County is becoming increasingly diverse. The population that is dying is also becoming more diverse. For example, from 1996 to 2004, Hispanic deaths in Broward County increased by 50 percent whereas deaths of the non-Hispanic population declined. At the same time, African-Americans and non-Caucasians had significant increases in deaths while Caucasian deaths declined. Since 2000, existing providers have not met the needs of all of the age and diagnosis groups in the District. "[P]art of the reason for that is that the underlying nature of the service area has been changing, becoming more diverse … [and] younger, with a growing ethnic population." Tr. 620. While Service Area 10 has been changing, the existing providers have not been able to adapt to the changes in the population. Catholic Hospice's History of Dealing with Diversity For almost 20 years, Catholic Hospice has refined its expertise in ascertaining and meeting the needs of the diverse, multi-cultural population within Dade County, including Hispanics, Haitians, Caribbeans, Jamaicans and African Americans. This history demonstrates Catholic Hospice's ability to ascertain and meet the needs of the diverse population in Broward County if approved. One of the strengths of Catholic Hospice is its culturally and ethnically diverse staff, many of whom are bilingual. Having bilingual staff is significant. For example, Catholic Hospice’s Medical Director, Dr. Kiedrowski speaks Spanish fluently and has seen only one patient whose primary language was English in the year and a half he has been on staff. In fact, seventy to eighty percent of Catholic Hospice’s patients in Service Area 11 are Hispanic. Catholic Hospice is particularly sensitive and responsive to the needs of the Hispanic community – the majority of which identify themselves as Catholic. Palm Coast's History of Dealing with Diversity Palm Coast does not have Catholic Hospice's multi- decade experience of dealing with diversity in Service Area 11 that will be of such benefit in Service Area 10. In contrast to Catholic Hospice in Service Area 11, Palm Coast is a start up that has only been in existence for about a year. Palm Coast is not lacking in the ability to deal with diverse populations, however, because of its affiliation with Odyssey and experience in Service Areas 4B and 11. This ability is demonstrated by Palm Coast's practice while its programs have been in a start-up phase in these service areas. Upon entering a new community, Palm Coast hires caregivers and administrative personnel for the hospice office from the community. These new employees reflect different local cultures, whether Hispanic, African American or other. In Service Area 11, for example, Palm Coast's new employees include Haitian employees to reflect the Haitian component of the diverse local culture in the area. In addition to diversity in hiring practices, cultural diversity training is offered to Palm Coast employees by Odyssey. The training involves education with regard to local cultures, religions, and customs unique to the area. Palm Coast's intent, therefore, is to hire and train a diverse group of individual from the same locale as the patients in order to facilitate the service to patients and increase the patients' comfort levels. Palm Coast makes an effort to recruit a staff that mirrors the racial and ethnic make-up of the community it serves. The effort and experience that Palm Coast has had in Service Area 11 in particular will serve Palm Coast well in Service Area 10 should its application be approved. But Catholic Hospice’s long history with serving the multicultural needs in Dade County is predictive of better capability to deal with Broward County's diversity than Palm Coast's one-year experience in the County and its intent to follow in the footsteps of that experience in Broward County should its application be approved. Hospice Services and Programs Hospice is both a philosophy and method of care for terminally ill patients, their families and loved ones. Hospice services provide palliative care for pain and management of symptoms of a terminal disease process or processes, as well as supportive care to ease the psychological and social strains of a patient and his or her family confronting mortality. Palliative medicine focuses on relieving suffering and symptoms, not curing a patient. Usually provided in the home, hospice services are required to be capable of being tailored based on individual need and are required to be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays. Catholic Hospice meets these requirements. Palm Coast meets the requirements as well. Palm Coast's Program Palm Coast's program is reflective of a spirit and idea of caring that emphasizes comfort and dignity for the dying, making it possible for them to remain independent for as long as possible and in familiar surroundings. Palm Coast utilizes an interdisciplinary team approach of physicians, nurses, social workers, and others to provide services including palliative care in the home, short-term inpatient services, mobilization and coordination of ancillary services and bereavement support. The patient's plan of care is developed and regularly modified by the interdisciplinary team: a physician, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and bereavement coordinator. The team may include a volunteer coordinator, volunteers, nursing assistants and home health aides. The Palm Coast interdisciplinary team meets on a specific timetable. Paula Toole, an Odyssey Healthcare regional vice president who covers Odyssey's south region described the timetable at hearing and the content of the meetings: "Generally its every two weeks. If [the patient] is on a higher level of care, it may be every week or . . . day." Tr. 962. The interdisciplinary team discusses the patient and the family to determine what services are being provided and whether they are appropriate to provide the patient and the family with the best hospice care. Catholic Hospice’s Continuum of Quality Services There are four levels of hospice care: continuous care, general inpatient care, routine home care, and inpatient respite care. Continuous care and general inpatient care are considered “intensive” services as they involve the most complex, medically unstable patients and a higher level of services. Continuous care is often used when a patient is in crisis and requires more frequent physician visits. A key factor that has improved availability of hospice care is the Medicare Hospice benefit. To be eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit, a patient must be certified by two physicians to have a life expectancy of less than six months if the patient’s disease process runs its normal course. Statutory standards require that a hospice implement home care within three months after licensure and inpatient care within twelve months. Catholic Hospice will be able to make routine and continuous home care visits immediately upon licensure in Broward County. Catholic Hospice can manage operations from its existing office in Miami Lakes and a new office to be almost immediately established in Lauderdale Lakes through a lease with CHS. Catholic Hospice reasonably expects to enter contracts for the provision of inpatient hospice care with existing hospitals and nursing homes immediately upon licensure –- making inpatient hospice immediately available. In addition, Broward residents may choose to access a freestanding inpatient hospice unit in northwest Dade County for which Catholic Hospice has been approved and plans to open in 2008. Upon approval and licensure of Catholic Hospice’s proposed Broward County program, CHS will contract with Catholic Hospice to provide hospice services to persons in its Broward facilities as it does currently for its Dade County facilities. The plans for Broward County will not be the first collaboration between Catholic Hospice and CHS. Catholic Hospice has an approved CON for a 13-bed free-standing inpatient hospice facility in Dade County. The inpatient hospice facility will be on the third floor of a building that will also house a rehabilitation hospital for CHS. That facility is located so that it will be accessible to persons in southern Broward County that require an inpatient level of care, or lack a caregiver or are homeless and require residential care. Catholic Hospice will employ existing policies and procedures to administer its offices and direct patient care. Hospice services are typically provided through the use of an interdisciplinary team that provides, at a minimum, core services, including physician services, nursing services, nutrition services, social services, pastoral care or chaplain services, volunteer services, and bereavement services. In addition, services such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, home health aide services, infusion therapy, medical supplies and equipment, and homemaker services should be provided as needed. Catholic Hospice complies and provides core services as well as additional services such as radiation therapy and chemotherapy as each patient requires. Catholic Hospice has divided its current service area into four sections and provides a full spectrum of hospice services through four interdisciplinary teams that provide high quality care. Each team is responsible for one section of the county. The number of visits a patient receives from members of the interdisciplinary team is determined by the plan of care. Once a patient enters the program, they are admitted by an admissions nurse who collaborates with the physician and family to develop the plan of care. As a patient’s health declines, the patient will receive visits by the interdisciplinary team members, including nurses and physicians as needed. Catholic Hospice has no limitation or hard rules on the number of visits -– it is based on patient need. The interdisciplinary teams have regular meetings to re-evaluate patients’ plans of care. Physician Services Physician services are a strength of Catholic Hospice -– ensuring that any patient that needs to see a physician does, and promptly. Catholic Hospice has four staff physicians who work in the community making house calls and seeing patients at nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In addition, Catholic hospice has contracted physicians at hospitals within its service area to cover patients in its contract hospitals. Patient care and particularly physician services at Catholic Hospice are overseen by Dr. Brian Kiedrowski, a Certified Medical Director, board-certified in geriatric medicine and a diplomat of the American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Catholic Hospice has policies for the credentialing of its physicians to verify education and experience, ensuring the continued quality of Catholic Hospices’ physician services. A physician is assigned to each interdisciplinary team at Catholic Hospice, including Dr. Kiedrowski, the Medical Director. This has added to his credibility with the facilities in Service Area 11 and improved collaboration with community providers. At a minimum, each Catholic Hospice patient is seen by a physician within three days of coming into the program because hospice is urgent. Following that, patients are seen at least once a month, but it depends on the needs of the patient and may be more often. Nothing substitutes for a physician’s presence with the patient while performing an examination to determine appropriate treatment. For example, if a patient is short of breath, the physician needs to see the patient to determine what is happening and appropriate treatment. Catholic Hospice also has protocols for the communication among its physicians and between its physicians and attending physicians, should an attending physician want to continue to follow the patient. This improves quality of care by increasing communication and ensuring that patients are not in limbo if an attending physician cannot be reached at a time of crisis. Physicians, like other Catholic Hospice employees, participate in orientation which facilitates team-building and increases physicians’ sensitivity to the various cultures and religions in South Florida. In addition, Dr. Kiedrowski will go into the field with nurses or other staff physicians to exchange training and provide monitoring or proctoring of clinical skills. In contrast, most of Palm Coast’s clinical education is performed through standardized self-directed online training modules through its parent corporation in Dallas, Texas. Nursing Services Catholic Hospice provides high quality nursing services and has policies in place to ensure that quality continues, including such clinical details as the care of central venous access (“CVA”) devices and subcutaneous infusions. Catholic Hospice can immediately implement its comprehensive nursing policies in Broward County upon approval. Nutrition Services Catholic Hospice provides nutrition services to its patients through two pooled dieticians, one for the northern part of Service Area 11 and one for the southern portion. The dieticians perform nutritional risk assessments on all non- cancer patients and patients under eighteen who are having total parenteral nutrition -- meaning they are being fed intravenously. The dieticians are a great asset and comfort to patients and families. Catholic Hospice cares about nutrition for its patients eating. It provides patients and their families with nutrition education and prepares them for what to expect as the patient’s disease progresses. Nutrition, as with many areas within hospice services, requires particular sensitivity to cultures, including Hispanics and others. Catholic Hospice has successfully accommodated the nutritional needs of the various cultures it serves. Catholic Hospice will implement these same policies for providing nutrition services in Broward County upon approval. Social Services Social Services at Catholic Hospice are provided by a group of graduate level social workers which is a requirement of Catholic Hospice. The services are broad in scope, including everything from family counseling to coordinating for caregivers and facilitating the securing of other resource needs of the patient and family. Catholic Hospice has policies in place for the provision of these services that can be immediately implemented in Broward County. Catholic Hospice has written and received a caregiver grant in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars that is renewed annually and administered locally through Dade County. The grant targets individuals and families that are facing the choice of having to place a loved one in a nursing home to be able to hold a job or attend appointments because they cannot financially afford a private caregiver and, in part counteracts caregiver fatigue. Volunteers can provide respite for caregivers as well. Catholic Hospice will seek similar opportunities in Broward County if approved. State and local regulations require hospices have emergency management plans. These plans are submitted to the Agency and local government. The plans are required to have certain elements to ensure that patients and families will not experience interruptions in hospice service in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. Catholic Hospice is capable of successfully developing and implementing a similarly comprehensive plan in Broward County if approved. Serving All Faiths -- Pastoral Care or Chaplain Services Catholic Hospice serves persons regardless of religion or lack thereof. Patients include those who are Catholics (as expected), Buddhists, Seventh-day Adventists, Santerians, Jewish, Baptists, and Pentecostals. The staff of Catholic Hospice reflects a diversity of religious beliefs as well. Ms. Murray, for example, the Vice President for Nursing Services is of the Jewish faith. All of the staff are comfortable, however, with the Catholic identity and mission of Catholic hospice as a faith-based organization. Catholic Hospice has six chaplains who take care of persons of all faiths or no faith according to each patient’s needs and desires. In fact, the very first patient ever cared for by Catholic Hospice was Jewish. The chaplains are not all Roman Catholic. Chaplains are required to complete Clinical Pastoral Education (“CPE”) training, which is chaplaincy training. CPE training assists clergy with providing spiritual direction to persons of all faiths, independent of that clergy member’s own religious identity or affiliation. It helps them view spirituality from a universal standpoint to provide pastoral care and spiritual direction. At Catholic Hospice, chaplains also provide a connection to patients’ own faith communities -– mobilizing those relationships for the benefit of the patient and family. Additionally, each orientation includes a component of general spiritual care training to enable employees to reach out and connect with patients and families whatever their religious beliefs may be. One of Catholic Hospice’s chaplains is a Rabbi who provides particular assistance with Catholic Hospice’s L’Chaim program. The L’Chaim Program is a Jewish Hospice program emphasizing sensitivity to Jewish beliefs, customs and holiday traditions. Developed in response to community need, the L’Chaim program has its own mission statement and brochures geared to persons of the Jewish faith. Catholic Hospice’s orientation similarly includes a segment on L’Chaim. Catholic Hospice can successfully implement its current chaplain services policies upon approval of its proposed Broward program. Volunteer Services Catholic Hospice has a comprehensive program for the recruitment and training of volunteers. Volunteers provide respite services within the home setting –- often allowing a caregiver the opportunity to go to appointments and uphold other obligations they otherwise could not do. Catholic Hospice also has an “Angel Program” of volunteers that accompany patients during their final hours of life. These volunteers provide companionship to patients without family, and comfort to patients and families who are together in those final hours. Volunteers undergo comprehensive training similar to an employee orientation. Training is 16 hours long and is provided over two consecutive Saturdays. The training provides an overview of the organizational structure, the culture of Catholic Hospice and provides a breakdown of each volunteer’s role in the interdisciplinary team to ensure a complete understanding of the volunteer’s function and the limits that each works within. Catholic Hospice has developed training manuals for volunteers and because Catholic Hospice has volunteers fluent in both English and Spanish, training can be presented in either language, including the training manuals. Catholic Hospice has volunteers in its Dade program that are residents of Broward County. A condition of participation in the Medicare program for hospices requires that volunteer service match at least five percent of the overall care hours provided by hospice employees. Catholic Hospice surpassed that last fiscal year as ten percent of direct care hours were matched by volunteer hours. Catholic Hospice can adopt the same strategy and policies to successfully implement its volunteer program in Broward County. Bereavement Services Medicare guidelines require that some form of contact be maintained with families of hospice patients for up to 13 months following the death of their loved one. Catholic Hospice far surpasses that minimum. Catholic Hospice has a corps of graduate level clinicians specializing in grief work and each is assigned to a team. All of Catholic Hospice’s bereavement counselors are affiliated with the Association of Death Education and Counseling. Bereavement counselors preside over all bereavement activities and all family members are invited to establish a clinical relationship with that counselor to address his or her grief. Many hospice families experience what is called “complicated grief” -- grief that is particularly emotionally or spiritually complex due to the relationship with the patient, and much of the counseling work addresses those issues so that a survivor is not carrying regrets or guilt. Often a family member experiencing complicated grief will continue to work with the clinician over the course of several months. Catholic Hospice also provides bereavement services and support groups to the community. Such support groups are in parishes, nursing homes, and various community and institutional settings. The groups are open to members of the community as well as family members of patients and meet for a set period of time, usually 10 to 12 weeks. This allows Catholic Hospice to spread its resources throughout the community for maximum accessibility and responsiveness. On other occasions, bereavement counselors have visited local schools following student suicide. There the counselors not only intervened with the children trying to understand that loss, but provided education to school staff on responding to the children’s needs. A memorable example involved a group of accountants at the Loews Hotel in Miami Beach who were attending a workshop during the 911 attacks and lost many of their colleagues. Counselors were rotated to provide blocks of time over a two-day period to help those accountants with their grief. Catholic Hospice has conditioned its CON on providing community bereavement support groups at senior housing facilities in Broward county and is prepared to successfully provide those programs. CHS and Holy Cross have already volunteered its facilities for such programs. Catholic Hospice provides “Camp Hope” an annual bereavement camp for children who have experienced the loss of a family member, usually a parent. Camp Hope is volunteer-driven and provided free of charge to children throughout the community, not just children of hospice patients. The camp receives many referrals through the Dade County School system. The children are taken to a local camping facility and are provided a variety of therapeutic activities and recreation –- all presided over by professionals in their respective specialization. In the past, people from Broward have participated in the camp as a result of requests from within the community. Catholic Hospice has bereavement services policies that can be implemented in Broward County upon approval. Education Education is a strength of Catholic Hospice, including education of its own employees, its contract facilities, physicians and other health care providers, as well as the community at large. Catholic Hospice has a full-time nurse educator who is certified in hospice and palliative care nursing. Each employee participates in a week-long orientation familiarizing himself or herself with Catholic Hospice and the diverse ethnic and religious community he or she is about to serve. Clinical staff may be oriented for an additional week or more. Following orientation, there is a new employee follow-up and periodic additional training. As part of the orientation process and thereafter in continuing education presentations, the employees demonstrate competency with various skills. The competency packet also contains a post-test and, if an individual has a particularly low post-test score, a copy is sent to that person’s supervisor for follow-up. The goal is for employees to feel comfortable training patients and families about hospice. During the orientation, employees are trained on how to perform a cultural assessment for any patient who chooses Catholic Hospice’s Services. This includes general information on tendencies within certain ethnic groups and leaving one’s assumptions and beliefs “at the door” so that each individual patient may express his or her beliefs. The goal of Catholic Hospice is for each employee to be able to engage in active listening to help differentiate the needs of individuals within the Hispanic population or any other population. The education manager is also responsible for two hours of continuing education for the interdisciplinary staff every month. The education manager holds a provider number issued through the Board of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance for providing education for nurses, social workers and mental health workers; accordingly, all presentations at Catholic Hospice are geared toward allowing professional staff to accumulate medical education credit. Medical education is likewise offered to contract and non-contract facilities in the community for their staff. The nurse educator oversees university students who come to Catholic Hospice as part of their medical education training. Catholic Hospice has enjoyed long-standing relationships with various universities, including the University of Miami, Florida International University, and Barry University. Catholic Hospice has contracts with each university for nursing students and other health and counseling program interns for rotations with Catholic Hospice as part of the students’ community experience and training in end-of-life care. Working with the students provides Catholic Hospice valuable information on how it is perceived within the community it serves. Outreach Catholic Hospice recognizes that cultural factors can prevent access to hospice care and is organizationally sensitive to those factors providing employee education to counteract them -– such as the cultural assessments described earlier, through facility education with its contracted facilities and insurance providers, and through community outreach to the general population. Catholic Hospice’s goal is to reduce barriers to hospice care overall. For example, Catholic Hospice is part of a pilot program, “Partners in Care,” to provide palliative care services for children with life-limiting illnesses. Catholic Hospice has two community liaisons who conduct community outreach with hospitals, nursing homes, physicians and various civic organizations to provide presentations on hospice. As a condition to its CON, Catholic Hospice has agreed to provide outreach to Hispanics and persons under 65 and to provide bereavement support groups and has a proven ability to do so. Much of Catholic Hospice’s outreach includes persons under 65 years old and Hispanics. The composition of participants in facility education, insurance provider in- services, caregiver education initiatives, support groups, community health fairs, parish and community bereavement groups are attended by persons under 65. Catholic Hospice has also provided care outreach and training for lay ministers within the parishes to increase sensitivity to specific needs of patients facing illness. Brochures and other materials are available in English and Spanish. Providing outreach in existing community facilities increases Catholic Hospice’s visibility in the community. Most of Catholic Hospice’s patients are Hispanic and the majority of those persons are Roman Catholic. As an organization of the Archdiocese, the individual parishes throughout Dade County have been opened for Catholic Hospice to visit Mass or smaller groups to provide education on end of life care and hospice. Catholic Hospice has a radio show on Radio Paz, the Archdiocese’ radio station. Called “Caminando Contigo” or “Walking with You,” the show is presented in Spanish each Monday from 2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The program is an educational presentation on hospice services broadcast throughout Miami-Dade and Broward County into West Palm Beach. In addition, Catholic Hospice’s community relations manager regularly appears on public television shows to speak about hospice services. Catholic Hospice engages in modest fundraising to supplement its mission of caring for all those in need. Catholic Hospice’s two main fundraisers are an annual golf tournament and the Tree of Hope where people contribute by purchasing or sponsoring memorial holiday ornaments. Catholic Hospice can successfully duplicate its outreach and fundraising programs in Broward County upon approval. Different Orientations Catholic Hospice's organization is "faith based." “Faith based” is not just providing chaplain services. All hospices are required to do so. Rather, "faith based" is the spirit of mission that drives every decision at Catholic Hospice from the top of the organization down. Catholic Hospice’s stakeholders are the community it serves and its employees. Palm Coast's affiliation with Odyssey gives it different orientation from Catholic Hospice's. A for-profit company such as Odyssey Health Care has a fiduciary duty to increase profits for its shareholders and will be motivated by that fiduciary duty or “mission” of profitability. Although organized as a not-for-profit, Palm Coast nevertheless shares that mission of profitability acting like a for-profit company. For example, Palm Coast offers stock options to its employees. Palm Coast’s billing and banking are done at the Dallas headquarters, consolidated with the ledger for Odyssey Healthcare. Palm Coast pays a management fee to Odyssey because that is the only way for the cash to flow upstream under Florida law and Palm Coast’s assets, along with those of other Odyssey programs, secures a 20-million dollar line of credit for Odyssey. Odyssey assesses a management fee of seven percent of net revenue monthly therefore the higher net revenue to Palm Coast the greater the contribution to Odyssey's profitability. Currently, the profits from Palm Coast are used to develop additional hospices in Florida. In contrast, Catholic Hospice is likely to spend more on patient care and provide the choice of faith-based hospice services that currently do not exist in Service Area 10. Palm Coast's Community and Employee Education When entering a community, Palm Coast hires a team of community education representatives ("CERs"), along with the program's general manager, their function is to primarily provide day-to-day education to the community at large. It is not unusual to find people in the community who are completely unfamiliar with hospice and its benefits. The CERs concentrate on educating referral sources, not just on the availability of hospice services, but also patient eligibility and provide information not only on cancer but the numerous non-cancer terminal diseases for which hospice care is potentially appropriate. The Palm Coast CERs seek to educate the members of the medical profession at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, doctors offices, professional buildings, as well as educating those within the community, by speaking at churches, community organizations, Kiwanis clubs, rotary clubs, Chambers of Commerce and other community activities. The CERs utilize any opportunity to educate about hospice in general (not necessarily regarding Odyssey or Palm Coast), because as evidenced by the increasing number of patients accessing hospice care and current penetration rates, the service is still underutilized and to some degree misunderstood. Palm Coast - Broward plans to initially hire a minimum of three CERs to concentrate its efforts on community education in Broward before it serves its first patient. The CERs travel throughout the community and evaluate the areas in which the existing providers are providing sufficient hospice education, and where they may be lacking, seeking to find the holes in the system or gaps in the network, in which to offer their services. Palm Coast provides education to employees of nursing homes, hospitals, and assisted living those facilities, many of whom require bereavement counseling following the death of patients. The CERs have also proven to be a resource to grief stricken individuals seeking hospice care; if a patient or family calls and inquiries, the CERs help walk them through the process of how one is admitted to hospice care. The Palm Coast educational team is comprised of an array of individuals, including the receptionist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, home health aides, and volunteers, along with the CERs; everybody involved talks about hospice and educates those in the community. With respect to Palm Coast's interdisciplinary team members, there is ongoing follow-up training in each office by the Quality Improvement Manager, in addition to monthly educational sessions company-wide. As one educational tool, Odyssey and Palm Coast have developed pocket-sized "Slim Jims," which are clinical indicators or educational reference material that detail various disease processes and the criteria that would make an individual hospice appropriate. The front of each individual "Slim Jim" details the clinical indicators for each terminal disease, and the flip slide illustrates the benefits hospice care through Odyssey or Palm Coast could provide. These clinical indicators, incorporating CMS guidelines, have been successful in determining when hospice is appropriate for patients. The clinical indicators are regularly updated, along with any new guidelines published through CMS. Palm Coast in Miami has used the "Slip Jims" in helping to educate families on disease progression, what to expect, and the general characteristics of hospice care. In order to meet the cultural needs of the community, the laminated cards are currently being translated into Spanish, for use with Hispanic patients and families in Miami-Dade, Broward, and any other Palm Coast or Odyssey location with a significant Hispanic population. All hospice disciplines, including the members of the interdisciplinary team and the CERs utilize the "Slim Jims" to educate the community on various levels. As an educational tool to assist in the orientation and continual education of its employees, Palm Coast has access to "Odyssey University," as online program created by Odyssey that allows employees to participate in various educational courses and nursing modules, specifically tailored to each individual hospice professional (i.e., nursing manager, chaplain, social worker, etc.). There are a multitude of different modules, spanning the realm of topics from clinical to management. Palm Coast's Affiliation with Nova Southeastern University Palm Coast has executed a memorandum of understanding with Nova Southeastern University ("NSU"), by which it will be a partner with NSU's college of osteopathic medicine, geriatric program, dental program, and law program. The purpose of the partnership will be to develop ways for NSU's students to rotate through or to work with Palm Coast's patients and families. As the largest independent institution of higher education in Florida, and the seventh largest nationally, NSU educates its students using non-traditional methods, including, but not limited to utilizing external clinical settings to supplement what is taught in the classroom with real life settings and situations. The affiliation will create clinical settings for NSU's students that will afford benefits to Palm Coast, NSU, and the community at large. The program will offer the College of Osteopathic Medicine student clinical rotations with Palm Coast's patients; it will offer a Mental Health Counseling Program with NSU's Center for Psychological Studies; it will provide College of Pharmacy students experience with elderly patients; it will provide College of Dental Medicine with the opportunity to ease oral pain of a patient exacerbated by tooth decay, gum disease, or other "ortho-ailments;" and it will allow the Shepard Broad Law Center student to work with Palm Coast patients, reviewing forms and policies for legal sufficiency and accuracy. Patient benefits from the affiliation between Palm Coast and NSU include, but are not limited to: relief of symptom distress, understanding of the plan of care, assistance in coordination and control of care options, simultaneous palliation of suffering along with continued disease modifying treatments, ease of transition to hospice, and providing practical and emotional support for exhausted family caregivers. Odyssey, and specifically Ms. Toole, Odyssey Regional Vice President of the Southeastern Region, has established similar beneficial relationships with universities such as University of Alabama Birmingham, working together and involving them in certain aspects of the patient's care; a similar arrangement will be developed in Broward County upon approval. Ms. Toole, the expert witness in the fields of hospice operations and hospice administration, has observed a significant benefit to not just the hospice program, but to the students as well, providing an experience of dealing with patients with terminal illness and dying in the hospice setting. Odyssey and Palm Coast Charity Funds and Foundations As hospice staff cares for their patients, non- hospice needs are frequently identified; Odyssey has established the "Special Needs Fund" to assist their patients or families with extraordinary requests and needs. As an affiliate of Odyssey, Palm Coast has access to Odyssey's Special Needs Fund, from which it can request money for use to benefit patients in each local program. The fund is designed to provide assistance situations, for example, when it is cold and a patient is unable to pay his/her heating bill, or when the patient has no money available to purchase groceries. In those situations, Palm Coast request funds from the company, along with the justification, and that money will be provided, as needed. In 2005, over $60,000 in Special Needs Funding was use to meet the needs of 278 families. Palm Coast Bereavement Groups The Palm Coast team continues to care for the family even after the patient's death. In actuality, this program begins with an assessment upon admission of the patients into hospice. During the initial assessment, the registered nurse assess the grief of the family, and provides anticipatory "pre- bereavement" services based on need. Palm Coast seeks to identify people early on who are likely going to have a more difficult time in grieving the inevitable loss, so a plan for the family unit is initiated and included in the patient's plan of care. A bereavement plan of care is initiated within 72 hours of a patient's death. The bereavement coordinators offer support groups and memorial services for those who have had a loss, regardless of whether their loved ones were on hospice with Palm Coast, or never admitted to hospice at all. Support groups and memorial services offered by Palm Coast are held in nursing homes and ALFs, both for the facility as a whole and anyone who has had a loss, including staff members or residents, regardless of whether they were on hospice; it is not only those involved in hospice but for people in the community as a whole who may benefit from bereavement. Odyssey operates, "SKY Camp," a weekend camp in Amarillo for children who have experienced a loss, and is open to families of all Odyssey patients, as well as any other individuals who may inquire. Funded by the Odyssey Healthcare Foundation, SKY Camp is a free weekend camp for children ages seven to seventeen grieving the death of a loved one. The camp provides the children an opportunity to feel safe, nurtured, and most importantly, not alone, as many do in their time of grieving. Three Offices vs. One CHS will contract with Catholic Hospice for office space in Broward County at a fair market rate allowing Catholic Hospice to rapidly and efficiently establish an office centrally located within Broward County. This contrasts with Palm Coast’s plans for three offices. "[H]ospice care is primarily a home-based service, so the number of offices is not of particular importance[;] . . . [the number of] offices can be as many or as few as the provider would like . . . as long as they have at least one." Tr. 1409. The number of offices may play a part in rural areas in a multi- county service area. But Broward County is densely populated making more than one office an insignificant factor. Furthermore, because hospice services are provided in the home and hospice education can occur in any community facility, additional offices are not only not necessarily beneficial, they may be inefficient. For example, Palm Coast proposes to spend substantially more on rent and administrative costs than on patient care, whereas Catholic hospice spends on patient care and has low rent and administrative costs –- providing more benefit to the community consistent with its mission. Access: A Difference in Emphasis Catholic Hospice fulfills its mission to all patients regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, religious belief or lack of belief, ability to pay or level of need for care. While Catholic Hospice has an undeniable appeal to the Hispanic population that is predominantly Roman Catholic and an appeal to other Roman Catholics eligible for hospice services in Service Area 10, on the bases of age and diagnosis, Catholic Hospice does not emphasize service to "65 and over non-cancer" patients as does Palm Coast. In contrast to Palm Coast, Catholic Hospice outreach efforts are directed at persons under 65 and Hispanics. Consistent with conditions of Medicare participation that require hospice providers to accept all patients who meet eligibility requirements regardless of disease or ability to pay, Palm Coast also treats all patients. But Palm Coast emphasizes serving non-cancer patients 65 and older and seeks to emphasize penetration of the market segment represented by the population seeing it as underserved. Many non-cancer patients 65 and older in need of hospice service are recipients of care in long-term care settings such as assisted living facilities, supportive housing type programs and nursing homes. Odyssey has had great success in developing these programs. Such development as a goal for Palm Coast is consistent with Palm Coast's belief that non- cancer patients 65 and older are underserved. Yet, patients in Broward who are non-cancer patients 65 and older appear to be served as well as patients in other hospice-typical groups based on age and diagnosis. It is apparent that Vitas Healthcare-Broward, an existing hospice provider in Broward County, for example, already places an emphasis on serving the "65 and over non-cancer" patient that Palm Coast targets as underserved. Furthermore, Vitas has had greater success in serving this population relative to other hospice-typical groups than the three other existing providers in Broward County. This is illustrated by the chart at page 37 (Bate-stamped 00038) of Catholic's application proved up by the testimony at hearing of Mr. Cushman. The 2005 data on the chart shows Vitas Healthcare- Broward, a for-profit hospice organization like Palm Coast's parent, to be the dominant hospice provider in Service Area 10. Its market share for calendar year 2005 is 74 percent, dwarfing the market shares of the three other providers led by Hospice by the Sea at 13 percent with less than one-fifth of total market share enjoyed by Vitas. Dividing market share by age ("Under 65" and "65 and Over") and diagnosis (Cancer and Non-cancer), as is done by the Hospice Programs Rule, the highest market share for Vitas is in the "Non-cancer 65 and Over" category" at 77 percent. As Mr. Cushman explained: [Market share]'s nine percentage points less for those who have diagnoses other than cancer who are under 65; it's seven percentage points less for cancer diagnosis for elderly patients; and again, nine percentage points less for the patients with cancer under 65. . . . [T]he significance … is that the patients who are … the least costly to care for are the noncancer patients who are elderly. And that is the area where the for-profit program in Broward County [Vitas] Tr. 647. has sought and obtained the highest market share. Palm Coast's Claim of Special Circumstances Palm Coast claims that the "65 and Over Non-cancer" population in Service Area 10 is underserved. With regard to Special Circumstances to support approval of hospices, AHCA's rule provides: (4) Criteria for Determination of Need for a New Hospice Program. * * * (d) Approval Under Special Circumstances. In the absences of numeric need identified in paragraph (4)(a), the applicant must demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify approval of a new hospice. Evidence submitted by the applicant must document one or more of the following: 1. That a specific terminally ill population is not being served. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.0355. Palm Coast did not demonstrate that the "65 and Over Non-cancer" population in Service Area 10 is not being served. To the contrary, Catholic Hospice showed that it is being served by existing providers. Palm Coast's Affiliation with a For-profit Parent Palm Coast's emphasis on the "65 and Over Non-cancer" population in Broward County is consistent with the nature of its affiliation with its for-profit parent, Odyssey. If a hospice can spend less per patient day on patient care, it can be more profitable. Non-cancer patients tend to be less costly. Further, hospice care is generally more expensive at the beginning of care -– when the patient is being set up on a plan of care including medications, equipment and the like, and at the end of care when the patient and family may require additional visits and medications. Therefore, a hospice can increase its profits by increasing the number of patients with longer lengths of stay. Non-cancer patients over 65 tend to have longer lengths of stay. Thus, by heavily marketing to non-cancer patients over 65, Palm Coast can maximize its profitability. It will do so, however, to the detriment of other providers in its service area at the same time that the dominant provider in the service area is already doing so. Since Medicare reimbursement for hospice services is based on the assumption that all hospices will accept all patients, hospice programs will be able to redistribute costs from costly patients by having a balance between the more costly and less costly patients. When a hospice takes a disproportionate number of profitable patients, however, it leaves only the more costly patients for other providers who are not able to distribute costs over a full spectrum of expensive and less expensive patients. The effect is magnified because for-profits tend to be larger than not for profits. Indeed, Palm Coast’s new Dade program has ramped up quickly and doubled its budget projections. Palm Coast’s focus on profitability will negatively impact existing providers within the service areas it operates. Catholic Hospice, on the other hand, is likely to serve populations in the four categories of "under 65 non- cancer," "under 65 cancer," "65 and over non-cancer," and "65 and over cancer" without an emphasis on the more profitable "65 and over non-cancer" population segment, the group that Palm Coast will emphasize serving in order to maximize profits for its parent, a for-profit organization. Community Support for Catholic Hospice Letters of support demonstrates deep support for Catholic Hospice' application. One hundred twenty-five of them were received, a "high number . . . for a hospice program." Tr. 1406. Five were from physicians who indicated a willingness to refer patients to Catholic Hospice; two were from hospitals and one from a skilled nursing facility. In addition, Vitas recommended that if an additional hospice program for Broward County were to be approved that it should be Catholic Hospice, an "unusual" letter of support in Mr. Gregg's view. See id. CHS, itself, has received numerous requests for Catholic Hospice in its Broward facilities and has had to make other arrangements for those in its nursing homes, ALFs, and other facilities in Broward County since Catholic Hospice is not available in Broward County. Due to this recognized need, CHS has openly supported Catholic Hospice’s application and, through administrators of its various Broward health and elder care facilities, has provided letters of support, including letters from the administrator of St. John’s Nursing Center, the administrator of St. Joseph’s Residence, an ALF, the administrator of St. Anthony’s Rehabilitation Hospital, and an administrator at the HUD elderly housing facilities for CHS, including the five in Broward County. Similarly, Holy Cross Hospital is highly supportive of Catholic Hospice’s application and the need for a faith-based option for hospice in Broward County. Like CHS, Holy Cross intends to contract with Catholic hospice for inpatient hospice beds if Catholic Hospice’s Broward program is approved. Holy Cross has the capacity to provide more hospice inpatient beds without having to disrupt contracts and relationships it currently has for hospice beds; thus, relationships with existing providers will not be impacted. Physicians at Holy Cross support Catholic Hospice’s application, noting in particular Catholic Hospice’s sensitivity to the needs of Hispanic patients,--a growing segment of the population in Broward County-- and will refer patients to Catholic Hospice if it is approved. Memorial Healthcare System, a group of five hospitals that comprise the South Broward Hospital District, supports Catholic Hospice’s application noting that it will provide patients with a choice for a faith-based provider and emphasizing Catholic Hospice’s sensitivity to the needs of the Hispanic community and the growing Hispanic population in southern Broward County. Of the existing hospice providers in Broward County, one supports Catholic Hospice’s application and two others prefer Catholic Hospice if a new program is approved. In sum, Catholic Hospice is a diverse, long-term provider with a proven record of quality services and community responsiveness that fits within a continuum of care offered through the Archdiocese. Accordingly, Catholic Hospice can quickly move into Broward County with outstanding community support and improve the situation for residents of Service Area 10 with minimal impact to existing providers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order that approves Catholic Hospice's CON application for a new hospice program in Service Area 10 and denies Palm Coast's CON application for a new hospice program in Service Area 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 26th day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or “the Agency”) should approve Continuum Care of Sarasota, LLC’s (“Continuum of Sarasota”), application for a Certificate of Need (“CON”) to provide hospice services in Sarasota County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating and rendering final determinations on CON applications. See § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. In order to establish a hospice program in Florida, one must apply for and receive a certificate of need from the Agency. See § 408.036(1), Fla. Stat. Tidewell is a not-for-profit corporation that is the sole hospice provider in Service Area 8D, which consists of Sarasota County. Tidewell has been providing hospice services in Sarasota County since 1980. Tidewell is also the sole hospice provider in: (a) Service Area 6C, which consists of Manatee County; and (b) Service Area 8A, which consists of Charlotte and DeSoto Counties. Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto Counties are all contiguous to Sarasota County, and there is no other Florida hospice that is the sole provider in three adjacent service areas. Continuum of Sarasota is a for-profit development stage corporation formed for providing hospice services in Sarasota County. When Continuum of Sarasota filed the CON application at issue in the instant case, it was affiliated with six other hospices in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, and Rhode Island. At that time, all of the aforementioned hospices were owned by Samuel Stern. After the application at issue was filed and prior to the final hearing, Mr. Stern sold his ownership interest in the California, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire hospices. Now that he has been awarded a CON to operate a hospice in Broward County, Florida, Mr. Stern intends to focus his energies on the Washington and Florida hospices.4 Overview of Hospice Services In Florida, hospice programs must provide a continuum of palliative and supportive care for terminally ill patients and their families. Under Medicare, a terminally ill patient is eligible for the Medicare Hospice benefit if his or her life expectancy is six months or less. “Palliative care” refers to services or interventions that are not curative, but are provided in order to reduce pain and suffering. 4 The Continuum organization as a whole will be referred to herein as “Continuum.” There are four levels of hospice services: routine home care; continuous care; general inpatient care (“GIP”); and respite care. Routine home care is provided where patients reside and describes a situation in which the patient is not receiving continuous care. Routine home care accounts for the vast majority of hospice admissions and patient days. Continuous care is provided wherever the patient resides for short durations when symptoms become so severe that around-the-clock care is necessary for pain and symptom management. GIP care is provided in either a hospital setting, a skilled nursing unit, or in a freestanding hospice inpatient unit. GIP care occurs for short durations when symptoms become so severe that they cannot be managed in the patient’s home. Respite care is intended for caregiver relief. It allows patients to stay in facilities for brief periods. Hospice services are provided pursuant to an individualized plan of care developed by an interdisciplinary team consisting of physicians, nurses, home health aides, social workers, bereavement counselors, spiritual care counselors, chaplains, and others. As a condition of participation in Medicare, there is a baseline of care that hospices must provide, but hospices can differentiate themselves by using different staffing levels, offering different programs, and utilizing different approaches to pain management and nonessential medication. Sarasota County – Service Area 8D Sarasota County has 417,442 residents, and 34.4 percent of those residents are 65 and older. Sarasota County’s three-year average death rate is among the highest in Florida and is 43 percent higher than the State’s three-year average death rate. Sarasota County’s population is expected to grow, and it is anticipated that people 65 and older will make up at least 39.3 percent of the County’s population by 2030. Sarasota County’s substantial elderly population is significant to the instant case because the elderly are the most frequent users of hospice services. Sarasota County has six hospitals with 1,542 licensed beds, 29 skilled nursing facilities with 3,058 beds, 86 assisted living facilities with 4,858 beds, and 68 home health agencies. With only one hospice provider, Service Area 8D ranks fourth in the State in terms of population per hospice program. Comparing deaths to the number of hospice programs shows that Service Area 8D had 5,873 deaths in 2018 and 5,986 deaths in 2019. As a result, Service Area 8D has the third highest ratio of deaths per hospice program in Florida, and that is two times the State average. With regard to deaths of residents 65 and older, Service Area 8D has the second highest number of elderly deaths to hospice programs. IV. The Fixed Need Pool Calculation and AHCA’s Justification for Granting Continuum of Sarasota’s Application AHCA determines the need for a new hospice program in a service area by utilizing a formula set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4). The formula applies a three-year historical death rate to a service area’s forecasted population to project the number of deaths for a future “planning horizon.” Then, the formula determines the statewide hospice-use penetration rate (i.e., the number of hospice admissions divided by current total deaths for four categories: cancer over age 65; cancer under age 65; non-cancer over age 65; and non-cancer under age 65). By multiplying the statewide penetration rates by the projected number of service area deaths in each of the four categories, the formula derives the service area’s projected hospice admissions in each category. The service area’s most recent published actual admissions are then subtracted from the projected admissions to determine the number of unserved patients for a future planning horizon. If the number of unserved patients equals or exceeds 350, then a new hospice program is needed. AHCA determined in October of 2019 that there would be 4,311 hospice patients in Service Area 8D during the course of 2021. Because Tidewell had recently served 4,410 patients on an annual basis, AHCA calculated that there was a negative net need of 99 for Service Area 8D, and the Agency announced on October 4, 2019, that there was a fixed need pool of zero for new hospice programs in Service Area 8D for the January 2021 planning horizon. The aforementioned fixed need pool calculation was not timely challenged by any party. As a result, the lack of numeric need for a new hospice program in Sarasota County for the January 2021 planning horizon and the underlying date used to make that determination could not be challenged during any subsequent CON cases for the relevant batching cycle. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(a)2. (providing that “[a]ny person who identifies an error in the Fixed Need Pool numbers must advise the Agency of the error within 10 days of the date the Fixed Need Pool was published in the Florida Administrative Register. If the Agency concurs in the error, the Fixed Need Pool number will be adjusted and re-published in the first available edition of the Florida Administrative Register. Failure to notify the Agency of the error during this time period will result in no adjustment to the Fixed Need Pool number for that batching cycle.”). AHCA’s determination results in the creation of a rebuttable presumption that a new hospice program is not needed in Sarasota County for the January 2021 planning horizon. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.0355(3)(b)(providing that “[a] Certificate of Need for the establishment of a new Hospice program or construction of a freestanding inpatient Hospice facility shall not be approved unless the applicant meets the applicable review criteria in Sections 408.035 and 408.043(2), F.S., and the standards and need determination criteria set forth in this rule. Applications to establish a new Hospice program shall not be approved in the absence of a numeric need indicated by the formula in paragraph (4)(a) of this rule, unless other criteria in this rule and in Sections 408.035 and 408.043(2), F.S., outweigh the lack of numeric need.”). Despite the lack of a fixed need for Service Area 8D, Continuum of Sarasota filed an application to provide hospice services in Sarasota County premised on the following circumstances that Continuum of Sarasota characterized as being “not normal and special circumstances”: (a) Tidewell operates a regional monopoly that includes Service Area 8D and two other contiguous hospice subdistricts; (b) Tidewell’s hospice house model of care breaks a patient’s continuity of care; (c) admissions and readmissions to Tidewell have resulted in an artificial suppression of fixed need; (d) Florida’s Medicaid managed care statute requires “hospice choice” to maintain network adequacy and health plans have the right to terminate hospice providers based on quality metrics; and (e) the local community wants choice and competition among its hospice providers. Continuum of Sarasota’s application was buttressed by three letters of support from hospitals, seven from skilled nursing facilities, 14 from assisted living facilities, 15 from other healthcare organizations, and five from community/business leaders. Those letters asserted that the residents of Sarasota County should have more than one hospice provider. James McLemore, the manager of AHCA’s CON unit, presented the following testimony as to why the Agency approved Continuum of Sarasota’s CON application: Q: And overall, in the weighing and balancing, just tell me in your own words, when you are weighing and balancing all the factors, what do you come down to and say this is how we weigh and balance this as an agency, weighing towards approval as set forth in the state agency action report? A: Basically we found that there is a regional monopoly here, and that we felt like and do feel like that there was a possibility that the hospice [house] model of care does indeed break the continuity of care between the ALF patients and the nursing home patients. Again, there was evidence or statements from these people saying that it did. We also agreed that admissions and readmissions could, could result in an artificial suppressing of fixed need. That’s why I keep getting back to [hospice admissions for] cancer 65 and older and 64 and under, because the situation is you’ve got more admissions than you’ve got deaths. We also took into account that Florida’s Medicaid managed program indicates that the Medicaid recipient should have a choice of hospice providers, and in this instance, you can’t, they have to get a waiver to meet that criteria. And we did take into account that there is a lack of competition, and the community voiced a need for such competition and at least an alternative provider. And that’s pretty much how – we basically, on those factors, felt like that that was [sufficient] reason to approve this application, that and [the] care that they proposed. Q: The factor of promoting competition and discouraging regional monopoly, was that a factor that you gave more weight to than some of the other factors? A: I presented all of the information to the deputy secretary, who discussed the recommendations that I made with the Secretary. So, you know, I – a regional monopoly is a very important factor in this, of course, especially in light of the DCA ruling[5]. But the other factors all factored in. AHCA’s approval was premised on Continuum of Sarasota satisfying the following conditions: (a) implementing virtual reality, music therapy, and equine therapy programs at the onset of its hospice services; (b) becoming accredited by the Community Health Accreditation Partner; (c) assuring that each patient has five to seven home health aide visits per week and at least two registered nurse visits per week, provided that is acceptable to the interdisciplinary team, patient, and family; (d) responding to all referrals within one hour, initiating the assessment process within two hours, and expediting admission subject to having a physician order and the patient/family selecting the hospice option; (e) implementing a palliative resources program within six months of receiving Medicare certification; (f) not building or operating any freestanding hospice houses in Sarasota County; and (g) implementing a Veterans outreach program. The Statutory and Rule Review Criteria As will be discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, the evaluation of Continuum of Sarasota’s application is based on the criteria set 5 Mr. McLemore was referring to Compassionate Care Hospice of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 247 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the Compassionate Care case also involved Service Area 8D and is substantially similar to the instant case. In affirming AHCA’s decision to deny a CON to Compassionate Care Hospice, the First District Court of Appeal held that “[i]n this case, Tidewell likes the balance that AHCA has struck, supporting Tidewell’s continued regional monopoly in Sarasota County. But AHCA could alter course policy-wise and give greater weight to eliminating regional monopolies and increasing competition by allowing more entry into Hospice Service Area 8D; that change of policy would alter the dynamics of the hospice marketplace, potentially putting Tidewell in the position of explaining why the issuance of a certificate of need to CCH or another competition was improper.” forth in section 408.035, Florida Statutes, and rule 59C-1.0355. The relevant criteria are discussed below.6 Section 408.035(1)(a) – The Need for the Healthcare Facilities and Health Services being Proposed and the Existence of Special and/or “Not Normal” Circumstances in Service Area 8D. As noted above, AHCA determined that there was no need for an additional hospice in Service Area 8D for the January 2021 planning horizon, and no one timely challenged that determination. Nevertheless, Continuum of Sarasota devoted a substantial amount of time at the final hearing attempting to discredit the data used to determine that there is no need for an additional hospice in Sarasota County. Patricia Greenberg, Continuum of Sarasota’s health planning expert, opined that AHCA’s fixed need pool determination should be given little weight because AHCA allows a patient transferred from one service area to another to be counted as two admissions. Tidewell’s status as the only hospice provider in the contiguous counties of Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto leads to a distortion in the data used to calculate the fixed need for hospice services in Sarasota County. Ms. Greenberg reviewed hospice admission data reported to AHCA (which includes double counts of admissions) and compared it to hospice admission data reported to the Florida Department of Elder Affairs (“DEA”) (which does not include double counts of admissions). Ms. Greenberg found a substantial number of double counted admissions in the AHCA reports for Sarasota County, which she described as “noise” or “distortion” in the data, and that caused her to doubt the accuracy of AHCA’s fixed need calculation. 6 With regard to the criteria set forth in section 408.035, the following subsections were not at issue in the instant case: subsection (8) pertaining to the “costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction”; and subsection (10) pertaining to “[t]he applicant’s designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to s. 400.235, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility.” Ms. Greenberg examined the statewide data and found that the existence and degree of double counting of admissions was unique and far more prevalent in Sarasota County when compared to all other counties in Florida. Overall, the data showed that other than the service areas where Tidewell operates, there were no other areas in Florida where there was a material difference between the data reported to AHCA (with double counts) and the data reported to DEA (without double counts). Ms. Greenberg concluded that this anomaly resulted from the fact that Tidewell is a monopoly provider in three adjoining service areas and transfers patients back and forth. According to Ms. Greenberg, no other hospice in Florida has a comparable ability to transfer patients back and forth between contiguous service areas. In sum, Ms. Greenberg asserts that Service Area 8D is less well-served than AHCA’s fixed need pool would indicate. The double counting described by Ms. Greenberg is not an attempt by Tidewell to manipulate the fixed need pool calculation. Tidewell reports its admission data in the manner required by AHCA. In addition, Armand Balsano, Tidewell’s health planning expert, explained that there are legitimate reasons why a single hospice patient could be counted as two admissions: Q: Mr. Balsano, are you aware of multiple different scenarios where under AHCA’s methodology for counting admissions, the same person may be counted more than one time as an admission? A: Yes. Q: And what are some of those scenarios? A: A patient is in a hospice program in the county, rebounds and goes off hospice. And then at some point in the future, because unfortunately we are all mortal, they realize either the condition or some other condition has reoccurred and they reenter the hospice program. So that admission is appropriately counted twice. If a patient is in a hospice program and transfers to another subdistrict, that admission is counted twice. If a patient goes to a hospice house outside their district, and I am not speaking specifically of Tidewell here, that admission is counted twice. So, there’s a variety of very legitimate reasons which the State has established and has a long- term establishment as to how we count admissions. To whatever extent that Continuum of Sarasota is attempting to undermine AHCA’s determination that there is zero fixed need for additional hospice services in Sarasota County, that argument is rejected as an untimely challenge to the fixed need pool. Accordingly, Continuum of Sarasota must overcome the rebuttable presumption described in rule 59C- 1.0355(3)(b) by demonstrating that “not normal” or special circumstances justify granting its CON application. However, Continuum of Sarasota’s evidence about a distortion in the admission data for Service Area 8D will be considered when considering the accessibility and utilization of hospice services in Sarasota County under section 408.035(2). Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d) sets forth special circumstances that can override the lack of numeric need, and the special circumstance applicable to the instant case pertains to whether a specific terminally ill population is not being served. Continuum of Sarasota argues that African-Americans needing hospice care are a specific terminally ill population that is not being served. In support thereof, Continuum of Sarasota notes that Tidewell’s penetration rate among Caucasians rose from 61.5 percent in 2015 to 68.65 in 2019. In contrast, Tidewell’s penetration rate among African-Americans rose from 35.2 percent in 2015 to 42.4 percent in 2019. Because a Continuum affiliate had success in California with a minority outreach program, Continuum of Sarasota argues that it can increase the number of African-Americans utilizing hospice services in Sarasota County. However, Mr. Balsano explained that the disparity between the Caucasian and African-American penetration rates is not unique to Sarasota County or Florida: Q: Mr. Balsano, do you have an opinion as to whether this exhibit demonstrates the existence of a specifically terminally ill population that is not being served within the meaning of paragraph of (4)(d)? A: It’s my opinion that this exhibit does not, nor the supporting testimony indicate a not-normal circumstance. And why do I say that? Well, if you look at the penetration rates, you can see that for Caucasians, it was roughly 62 percent to 68 percent. And then when you look at the penetration rates for the identified minorities, it’s a high of 49 percent for Asian, high of 45 percent for African-Americans, and for Hispanic, about 41 percent. So clearly the exhibit shows that Caucasians access hospice are to a higher degree, and by that I mean a greater percentage of the population accesses it compared to minorities. Higher penetration rate in Caucasians compared to minorities. What the exhibit – what it fails to recognize or fails to deal with is any identification that somehow this is indicative of a unique situation or not reflective of a broader comparison. In other words – well, let me simplify it for you, Mr. Frehn. Anyone who does hospice work in planning or in operations knows that black and Hispanic patients for cultural or other reasons access hospice to a lesser extent. Much has been written about this in the literature. So this is what’s happening here. There’s no basis of comparison, given this general recognition that minority access to hospice is lower than Caucasian access to hospice. I would also point out this [Continuum of Sarasota Exhibit #95] is looking at the penetration rate by race and ethnicity for all three of the hospice markets that Tidewell serves, all three of the service areas, so it’s not specific to Sarasota. So looking at about half of the numbers that are reflected here, a little bit more than half the numbers that are reflected here are residents and deaths that are occurring outside of Sarasota County. Just to put a finer point on it, I think what is missing here is some recognition that there’s unmet access, indicative of a problem. Q: Now, what evidence did you see or did you hear through the testimony as to why the disparity exists between the usage or the access by minorities versus the white population? A: I didn’t hear any explanation on that and, again, my recognition is that is just a reality in the district. So what was missing, what would have perhaps provided some quantifiable support to that was if there was a comparison to the state of Florida, for example, that says within the state of Florida, we know there is an overall penetration rate of about 60, 66 percent, but for the Hispanic community that number is 50%, and yet Tidewell is only at 42. I mean, something that was a frame of reference beyond just the absolute numbers here. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the disparity in Tidewell’s penetration rates between Caucasians and minority groups is common in the hospice industry, and there is no evidence that Tidewell denies hospice services to any minority group.7 In addition to African-Americans, Continuum of Sarasota identifies the following groups as terminally-ill populations who are not being served: (a) people who had a bad experience with Tidewell; (b) healthcare providers who will not refer patients to Tidewell based on a prior bad experience; and (c) patients who desire the opportunity to select a hospice provider that offers a different model of care. As was the case with African-Americans, there is no evidence that Tidewell denies hospice services to anyone. Also, Continuum of Sarasota’s arguments on this point pertain more to Tidewell’s quality of care than its failure to serve a specific terminally-ill population. While not set forth as a special circumstance that could rebut the lack of numeric need, Continuum of Sarasota cites multiple “not normal” circumstances supposedly demonstrating the need for another hospice provider in Sarasota County.8 Specifically, Continuum of Sarasota cites Tidewell’s alleged status as a “regional monopoly” provider in Sarasota County and two other contiguous subdistricts; an outmigration rate of 35.8 percent that disrupts continuity of care; the readmission data that results in an artificially reduced fixed need pool calculation for Service Area 8D; the fact that Medicaid requires that there be at least two hospice providers; and 7 Tidewell asserts that Continuum of Sarasota is attempting to impermissibly amend its CON application by asserting that African-Americans are not being served. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.010(4)(e)(stating that “[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Agency, no further application information or amendment will be accepted by the Agency, unless a statutorily required item was omitted and the Agency failed to clearly request the specific item in its omission request.”). Because Continuum of Sarasota’s argument on this point has no factual support, the undersigned considers the question as to whether it amounts to an application amendment to be moot. 8 Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 03-2701(Fla. DOAH Sept. 29, 2004), rejected in part, Case No. 2003004778 (Fla. AHCA Mar. 7, 2005) instructs that “[t]here is not a list of enumerated ‘not normal’ circumstances; however, ‘not normal’ circumstances traditionally involve ‘issues related to financial, geographic, or programmatic access to the proposed service by potential patients, and not facility specific concerns.” the desire within Sarasota County for competition and choice among hospice providers. Continuum of Sarasota’s argument regarding Tidewell’s regional monopoly status is summarized in the following excerpt from its proposed recommended order: Tidewell is the sole hospice provider in three adjoining hospice Service Areas encompassing Sarasota County (Service Area 8D), Charlotte and Desoto Counties (Service Area 8A), and Manatee County (Service Area 6C). This situation is unique in the state. There are only 6 subdistricts [consisting of nine counties] Florida with a sole hospice provider. Tidewell is the sole hospice provider in three of those subdistricts, which are all contiguous. The other three sole hospice provider subdistricts are operated by three different providers who do not operate hospices in adjoining subdistricts. Thus, there is no other part of the state consisting of multiple contiguous hospice Service Areas with only a single hospice provider. In fact, there is no other part of the state where there are even two adjoining Service Areas with a single hospice provider. The four counties that comprise the three hospice Service Areas where Tidewell is the sole hospice provider are recognized as a “region” by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Office of Management and Budget. These four counties constitute a recognized combined statistical area (“CSA”) used for federal planning and budgeting decisions. It was found in a prior CON case, Compassionate Care Hospice of the Gulf Coast v. AHCA, DOAH Case No. 15-2005 CON (2016), that Tidewell’s sole hospice provider status in these three contiguous Service Areas was a regional monopoly. The evidence presented in this case consistently demonstrated that five years after the filing of the Compassionate Care CON Application, Tidwell continues to have a regional monopoly in the three adjoining service areas. Regardless of whether Tidewell is a monopoly or a regional monopoly, its status as the only provider of hospice services in a county is not typical in Florida. Of Florida’s 67 counties, only nine are served by a single hospice provider, and three of those nine are served by Tidewell. Therefore, Tidewell’s status as the only provider of hospice services in Sarasota County is a “not normal” circumstance. With regard to the assertion that Tidewell has an excessively high outmigration rate of 35.8, Continuum of Sarasota argues that patients should be treated in their homes and transferring them to hospice houses outside Service Area 8D disrupts the continuity of the patients’ care. This argument will be addressed below when the factors determining whether all of the relevant criteria justify approving or denying Continuum of Sarasota’s application. As for the fact that Medicaid requires that there be at least two hospice providers, AHCA has transitioned its Medicaid program to a managed care delivery model and was thus required to develop “adequate network” standards for healthcare services offered to Medicaid patients, including hospice services. The model contracts developed by AHCA for managed care plans include “adequate network” standards for hospices and mandates that there must be at least two hospice providers per county. This circumstance will be addressed below in the analysis of the factors determining whether all of the relevant criteria justify approving or denying Continuum of Sarasota’s application. Continuum of Sarasota also argues that another “not normal” circumstance includes the strong support among the community in Sarasota County for having a choice in hospice providers. Continuum of Sarasota also cites residents who have had a bad experience with Tidewell and want the ability to choose a different provider if they need to utilize hospice services in the future. The letters of support and the deposition testimony of community members who support the application overwhelmingly cite a generalized need for there to be a choice among hospice providers in Sarasota County. The depositions also cite a belief that the presence of competition motivates providers to stay diligent in their provision of care. In general, the letters of support and the depositions do not claim that Tidewell is a bad provider, but there are descriptions of instances in which Tidewell staff could have been more responsive or acted more quickly. Given that Tidewell serves well over 4,000 patients a year, it is not surprising that there are individual instances when Tidewell could have provided better service. To the extent that Tidewell’s program could be improved, it is reasonable to expect that the presence of a competitor in Sarasota County would encourage Tidewell to be as diligent as possible with ensuring that it provides good service. The undersigned reviewed the Yelp reviews submitted by Continuum of Sarasota. As described above, they were given little weight, but they corroborated the depositions’ recurring theme that there have been individual instances during which Tidewell could have been more responsive to client needs. Section 435.035(2), Florida Statutes – the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing healthcare facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. Sarasota County has a robust healthcare delivery system with 6 acute care hospitals, 29 skilled nursing facilities, 86 assisted living facilities, 68 home health agencies, and 1,606 physicians serving a population of over 400,000 people. However, Tidewell is the only hospice in Sarasota County. Continuum of Sarasota’s application included letters from 30 percent of all nursing home operators and 15 to 20 percent of all assisted living facility (“ALF”) operators in Sarasota County supporting the idea that residents should have a choice in hospice providers. Tidewell’s model of care is substantially based on providing services via hospice houses. Tidewell’s hospice houses are designed and furnished to be home-like settings so that the patient and family feel like they are in the comfort of their own home rather than in an institution. All of the rooms are private and spacious. The hospice houses also have kitchenettes and living- room-like spaces where families can congregate. Hospice houses are costly to operate partially because of the significant staffing that is required to provide GIP care. Each of Tidewell’s hospice houses is staffed with persons from a variety of disciplines who are available to address the needs of patients. The hospice house staffing includes a medical director trained in hospice care, as well as a registered nurse (“RN”), certified nursing assistant (“CNA”), licensed practical nurse (“LPN”), social worker, grief specialist, dietary aide, nurse practitioners, chaplains, and volunteers. The RNs and CNAs remain on site at each hospice house 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Patients also receive complementary service visits by pet therapists, music therapists, and horticulturists. Despite the high cost associated with hospice house care, Tidewell made the decision to establish hospice houses as one part of a comprehensive continuum of hospice services. As expressed by Tidewell’s CEO: [I]f our goal is to make money and drive the bottom line, we would not have hospice houses. This is not . . . about money. This is about giving people the most comfortable, caring and compassionate end-of-life experience that they can have. * * * We were built as a hospice that was committed to serving all of the various levels of hospice services needed across the continuum of the benefit. That certainly includes GIP. . . . We are committed to providing every single component of service necessary to provide the comprehensive hospice benefit so that patients can come in and out of that continuum throughout their end-of-life experience. * * * So this is not about the bottom line, as a not-for- profit community rooted organization. We have invested millions and millions of dollars in these hospice houses because of our mutual commitment to the community. They donate to us so that we can provide the service back to the community for their loved ones at the end of life. I will say it a second time. If our goal was to make money, we would not have hospice houses, which is the way most for- profit hospices are operated. The two hospice houses Tidewell operates in Sarasota County have a total of 18 inpatient beds. Two other Tidewell hospice houses are located in close proximity to Sarasota County and were established to serve communities that include portions of Sarasota County. Any shortage in hospice house availability is about to be corrected by new capacity within Sarasota County. Tidewell opened a new 7-bed inpatient unit in January of 2020, and anticipated opening an 8-bed inpatient unit at a skilled nursing facility in October of 2020. Tidewell has also developed multiple programs that are ancillary to basic hospice care. Examples include a We Honor Veterans program; a grief education and support program intended for families who suffer a loss due to suicide, car accident, or other tragedy; the Blue Butterfly center, which specializes in helping children through grief; a nurse residency program for training new nursing graduates on how to be hospice nurses; the transitions program, which helps pre-hospice patients or those who lose hospice eligibility; and the Partners in Care program, which provides palliative care services to children not in hospice. Complementary services provided by Tidewell include massage therapy, music therapy, a bedside music program, a certified music and memory program, pet therapy, a horticulture program, a humor program, a Reiki9 program, and an expressive arts program. These programs are referred to as “complimentary services” because they are nonpharmacological services that complement traditional medical care and help distract patients from pain. Some of the complimentary services are staffed with volunteers; however, that is only the case for services such as pet therapy and expressive arts that are not licensed or certified therapies. As to complementary services that are volunteer-based, each volunteer receives a comprehensive orientation and training, is subject to ongoing supervision, and receives annual competency and performance evaluations. Many of Tidewell’s special programs and services, which are not part of the Medicare benefit, required a substantial initial capital investment and have ongoing operating costs, which are also substantial and generally must be funded through donations. Tidewell receives high scores from surveys intended to assess a healthcare provider’s quality. One such survey is the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provides and Systems (“CAHPS”) developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to provide consumers with a means of objectively comparing healthcare providers. CAHPS presents a series of 47 questions to the individual most knowledgeable about a patient’s care, and that individual responds to each question by selecting from answers such as definitely, probably, always, sometimes, or never. Respondents can also give ratings from 1 to 10. 9 Reiki is a form of alternative therapy commonly referred to as energy healing. See Reiki, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki (last visited January 6, 2021). Using CAHPS data from August of 2020, Mr. Balsano reported that 82 percent of respondents rated Tidewell a 9 or 10, and 89 percent of respondents gave Tidewell a 9 or 10 with regard to whether they would be willing to recommend Tidewell. Both of the aforementioned scores exceeded like scores for the national average, the Florida average, and the scores for Continuum hospices based in California and Rhode Island. Mr. Balsano also reported that Tidewell’s CAHPS scores have increased in recent years with regard to the following categories: communication with family; getting timely help; treating the patient with respect; providing emotional and spiritual support; helping with pain and symptoms; training family members to care for the patient; and willingness to recommend this hospice. Mr. Balsano testified that 89 percent of respondents indicated they would definitely recommend Tidewell and 7 percent said they would probably recommended Tidewell. Only 4 percent said they would not recommend Tidewell. Mr. Balsano’s CAHPS data also includes ratings from caregivers in which 82 percent of caregivers rated Tidewell a 9 or 10, and 13 percent rated Tidewell a 7 or 8. A rating of 6 or lower is considered to be a poor rating. Continuum of Sarasota is critical of Tidewell’s hospice house-based model of care. Continuum of Sarasota notes that between 23 and 27 percent of Tidewell patients die in hospice houses each year, and over 32 percent of patients spend a portion of their time on hospice in a hospice home. According to Continuum of Sarasota, that is an unusually high percentage of patients to die in a setting that is not their home.10 In addition, Continuum of Sarasota asserts that Tidewell’s hospice house-based model of care is responsible for outmigration and a resulting 10 As will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section, Continuum’s model of care is substantially based on keeping patients in their homes. disruption in continuity of care for patients residing in ALFs and skilled nursing facilities. As explained by Ms. Greenberg: Tidewell reports that [ ] about 33 percent of their patients are served in hospice houses. That means that they are relocated from their home to a licensed hospice facility, whether they are sending them for general inpatient care or even routine care. They have routine patients in there, they would be called residential or routine patients. So they are relocating them out of their homes to a different facility, and many of those facilities are outside of Sarasota County, so they are actually outmigrating them to the other – their other hospice houses in Charlotte, DeSoto, and Manatee Counties. Another criticism leveled by Continuum of Sarasota is that nearly 40 percent of Tidewell patients die while on GIP, which is far in excess of the national average of 8.6 percent. This is significant because the GIP level of care is only appropriate for those patients whose pain and other symptoms cannot be managed at home. While the parties appear to agree that hospice care is best when it is provided in a patient’s home, there is no indication that patients are dissatisfied with receiving care in a hospice house or that any disruption to continuity of care is a significant problem. According to a survey from Healthcare First conducted between October of 2017 and March of 2020, 91.9 percent of residents in Tidewell’s Sarasota Hospice House and 94.2 percent of residents in Tidewell’s Venice Hospice House rated their patient care as a 9 or 10. That compares to a national average of 85.4 percent. As for being willing to recommend a hospice, 93.2 percent of residents of Tidewell’s Sarasota hospice house residents and 96.6 percent of residents in Tidewell’s Venice hospice house gave a rating of a 9 or 10. That compared to a national average of 86.6 percent. As for Continuum of Sarasota’s criticism about Tidewell not providing care in patients’ homes, Mr. Balsano provided data indicating that 45 percent of Tidewell’s patient care in 2019 was provided in a patient’s home as opposed to a nursing home, ALF, hospice facility, or inpatient hospital. In contrast, 37 percent of Continuum Care Hospice, LLC’s (located in California), and 24 percent of Continuum of Rhode Island, LLC’s, care was provided in a patient’s home. With regard to Tidewell patients spending an inordinate amount of time on GIP, Mr. Balsano noted that not all providers offer GIP care. Mr. Balsano also noted that Tidewell receives about half of its patients directly from hospitals, and patients discharged directly from hospitals tend to be more acutely ill and thus more likely to require GIP care. The depositions and letters of support submitted by Continuum of Sarasota indicate there may be areas of Tidewell’s program that could be improved. However, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Tidewell is a quality provider of hospice services. Any problem with availability/accessibility is likely to be resolved by Tidewell’s addition of two new hospice houses. Section 435.035(3) – the applicant’s ability to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care Continuum of Sarasota has no operational history because it is a development stage corporation formed for the purpose of initiating hospice services in Sarasota County. However, inferences about the future performance of a Continuum hospice in Sarasota County can be drawn from the past performance of the other hospices founded by Mr. Stern. Since 2015, Mr. Stern has founded six hospice programs located in five states: California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington. One common characteristic among all of the Continuum hospices is their service intensity model that was described as follows in Continuum of Sarasota’s application: There are several characteristics of Continuum Care Hospice Programs that distinguish [them] from the other hospice programs. But most significant, Continuum Care Hospice prides itself on its service intensity, which far surpasses NHPCO minimum requirements for staffing. If approved to establish services in Sarasota County, Continuum Care of Sarasota will introduce a level of service that extends beyond what is currently available in [the Sarasota County] market. First, every new patient at Continuum Care of Sarasota will be seen within two hours of referral, seven days a week. The two hour turnaround time is a testament to Continuum Care’s dedication to serving the needs of any and all hospice appropriate patients. Most hospice organizations will tell a caller on a Saturday that someone will be out to see the patient first thing Monday. Continuum Care will see that patient within two hours. Second, Continuum Sarasota patients will be visited by a certified nursing assistant (CNA) 5 to 7 days per week which will enable Continuum Care to recognize changes in the patient ahead of the curve and be proactive rather than reactive. This will assist in providing more comfortable outcomes for the patient and dually prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. The 5 to 7 visits weekly are an enormous benefit not only for the patient but for facilities in which the patients reside as it helps with their staffing levels. A third service intensity feature that will be employed by the Applicant is that a registered nurse will visit every patient at least two times weekly, and daily if the patient is actively passing to provide symptom management and proper planning. Lastly, Continuum Care of Sarasota will provide a social worker and chaplain (if the patient and family want a chaplain visit) at least weekly, which helps to keep families and loved ones well supported. The support can be a preventative measure so as to not have a crisis at the end of life resulting in a hospitalization or the patient being moved to an inpatient unit. The social worker and chaplain work vigorously to support the family so they are adequately prepared. Indicative of its commitment to providing a service intense hospice program, Continuum of Sarasota has conditioned its CON application on providing minimum core staffing: The Applicant will assure each patient has 5 to 7 Home Health Aide visits per week, provided this is acceptable to the [interdisciplinary team], patient and family. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA The Applicant will assure each patient has a minimum of 2 RN visits per week, provided this is acceptable to the [interdisciplinary team], patient and family. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA. The Applicant will seek to respond to all of its referrals within one hour, initiate the assessment process within two hours, and expedite admission to the hospice subject to having a physician order in hand and the patient/family selecting the hospice option. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA. In the second year following licensure, Continuum of Sarasota’s proposed staffing model will exceed the guidelines set forth by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (“NHPCO”), a national trade group of hospices. While the NHPCO calls for one nurse manager for every 11.2 patients, a social services employee for every 24.3 patients, one hospice aide for every 10.8 patients, and one chaplain for every 31.4 patients, Continuum of Sarasota expects to have one nurse case manager for every 10.0 patients, one social services employee for every 22.6 patients, one hospice aide for every 6.1 patients, and one chaplain for every 22.6 patients. Nevertheless, Continuum of Sarasota agrees that the amount of care provided to a particular patient will ultimately depend on that patient’s care plan and an individualized assessment of that patient’s needs. As discussed above, Continuum of Sarasota is critical of Tidewell’s percentage of GIP care, and Ms. Greenberg explained how Continuum of Sarasota promises to use high cost GIP care to a much lesser extent: A: With respect to competition, these exhibits relate to GIP and death in a hospice house. And death on GIP is – the national average is eight and a half percent, and Continuum – Tidewell is nearly 40 percent. So that’s five times the ratio. Continuum’s experience has only been between 2 and 3 percent of the patients actually pass while they are on GIP. And GIP means they are not in their own home, and it also means that you have an inability to control their acute pain and manage their symptoms in their own home. And Continuum has been successful in accomplishing that and having basically 1 out of 50 – 1 out of 40 to 50 patients only be on GIP, . . . ; so it’s significant. So again, I would suggest that the people in – the program and the model of care takes people out of their home and puts them on GIP. Because to have 4 in 10 uncontrollable acute symptoms seems unusual when there is only eight and a half percent nationally. And, of course, Continuum is much less than the national average. So disrupting them and taking them out of their home and relocating them as a place to die is the Tidewell model of care, but it seems to be an unfortunate model of care. And Continuum is going to give the population in that market the option to die at home. Q: Is the reimbursement rate under Medicare higher for GIP level of service? A: Yes, significantly higher. Within the market itself, within Sarasota County, the actual – the GIP reimbursement is almost a thousand dollars, $978, versus the routine reimbursement, depending on how long the person is on service, ranges between $147 and 185. So an average of about 160 compared to 978. Continuum hospices have a history of offering unique and innovative hospice programming to improve quality of care. A virtual reality program offered at each of the Affiliates allows patients and their families to experience “bucket list trips,” engage virtually in treasured activities or life experiences, or re-live precious memories such as visits to a family home or favorite vacation spot. A Continuum hospice was the first hospice in the country to implement virtual reality technology for the benefit of hospice patients. Another innovative program offered by Continuum hospices is equine assisted healing or equine therapy. Continuum of Sarasota has already contracted with a horse stable in Sarasota so that it can offer this program upon licensure. Many hospices offer music therapy programs staffed with volunteers. Continuum of Sarasota will have a certified music therapist. Continuum of Sarasota’s application is conditioned on providing virtual reality, music therapy, and equine therapy programs: The Applicant will implement its Virtual Reality Program at the onset of its program. It will be made available to all eligible Continuum Sarasota patients. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA The Applicant will implement its Music Therapy Program at the onset of its program. It will staff a minimum of one Board Certified Music Therapist. It will be made available to all eligible Continuum Sarasota patients. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA The Applicant will implement its Equine Therapy Program at the onset of its program. It will be made available to all eligible Continuum Sarasota patients who are physically able to make the trip to the stable partner. This will be measured by a signed declaratory statement submitted by the Applicant to AHCA. Continuum of Sarasota seeks accreditation from the Community Health Accreditation Program (“CHAP”) for each of its hospices and has conditioned the instant application on obtaining CHAP accreditation. An independent, not-for-profit accrediting body for home health and hospices awards this credential. An examination of the Medicare database for Continuum hospices in California and Rhode Island indicates that Continuum typically exceeds the national average for the following quality of care indicators: (a) percentage of patients getting at least one visit from an RN, a physician, a nurse practitioner, or a physician assistant in the last 3 days of life; (b) patients who got an assessment of all seven Hospice Item Set (“HIS”) quality measures at the beginning of hospice care to meet the HIS Comprehensive Assessment Measure requirements; (c) patients or caregivers who were asked about treatment preferences at the beginning of hospice-care; (d) patients or caregivers who were asked about their beliefs and values at the beginning of hospice care; (e) patients who were checked for pain at the beginning of hospice care; (f) patients who got a timely and thorough pain assessment when pain was identified as a problem; (g) patients who were checked for shortness of breath at the beginning of hospice care; (h) patients who got timely treatment for shortness of breath; and (i) patients taking opioid medication who were offered care for constipation. Tidewell offered critiques of Continuum’s operations. For example, the Continuum hospice programs provide a greater proportion of hospice services to patients residing in ALFs and nursing homes than the norm. In 2019, 63 percent of patient care days provided by Continuum’s California hospice were to patients residing in either an ALF or nursing home. ALFs accounted for 44 percent of that hospice’s total patient care days. Another Continuum hospice provided an even higher percentage of its patient care days to patients in one of these settings, with ALFs and nursing homes accounting for a combined 76 percent of the total days. Continuum hospices’ level of service to ALFs and nursing homes greatly exceeds the national average. Nationally, ALFs only account for 19.74 percent of the total patient days while nursing homes account for 17.27 percent. Continuum’s focus on serving patients in ALFs and nursing homes has resulted in an above average and steadily increasing average length of service (“ALOS”) at its hospices. The ALOS at Continuum’s first hospice, which opened in 2015, increased from 86.2 days in 2018 to 126.4 days in 2019, a 47 percent increase substantially above the 89.6-day national average. A newer Continuum hospice, which had its first full year in 2018, saw a similarly dramatic jump in its ALOS from 60.1 days in its first year to 87.7 days in its second year, which represents a 46 percent increase. For the sake of comparison, the ALOS for all hospices only increased 1.3 percent between 2016 and 2017, and only 1.7 percent between 2017 and 2018. As explained by Mr. Balsano, one critique concerned Continuum’s propensity to focus on residents of ALFs and nursing homes: Q: And can you describe what you view as Continuum’s business model? A: Well, their business model is a very successful one. They have strong operating margins and they seem to focus on the patient population that [resides] within ALFs and nursing homes. Within the Sarasota application they talk about these sources of potential referrals and indeed their letters of support largely come from ALFs and nursing homes. These locations, not specific to Continuum, but these locations tend to produce longer lengths of stay and higher profitability compared to other locations. Q: What is the connection between the length of stay and higher profitability? A: Well, it’s twofold. If you are a longer length of stay, then the whole admission process, initial evaluation, all those upfront activities that need to be on a patient that stays 10 days or [ ] zero days, is the same. So by elongating the length of stay, those kind of upfront activities get distributed over a longer stay at lower cost. And then secondly, given that long length of stay patients reside in nursing homes and ALFs, not exclusively but that’s a big part of it, there is just a very pragmatic consideration. If a hospice program has multiple patients in a nursing home or multiple patients in an ALF, then that part of the nurse or social worker or home health aid activity that is normally spent from going from patient A to patient B to patient C, you don’t have to get in the car to go there if you are simply going down the hall or a different floor. So it adds to the efficiency aspect of care delivery if you have patients concentrated in an inpatient setting like a nursing home or an ALF. Q: And how does the intensity of visits for a hospice patient compare at the beginning and end of a patient’s stay in a hospice as compared to the middle portion of the patient’s stay? A: If I understand your question, I alluded to the fact that there’s a greater cost in the beginning, there’s also greater cost at the end. So the longer the middle part, the more profitable the stay, as a general consideration. Tidewell also points out that Continuum’s provision of care is heavily skewed toward home health aides and away from more expensive care such as skilled nursing. In 2019, Tidewell provided an average of 188 home care minutes a week in skilled nursing and 64 minutes a week of home health aides. In contrast, Continuum Care Hospice, LLC, located in California, provided 136 minutes per week of skilled nursing and 175 minutes a week of home health aides. Likewise, Continuum Care of Rhode Island, LLC, provided 113 minutes of skilled nursing and 225 minutes of home health aides. Tidewell also points out that several of the people responsible for Continuum’s operations are no longer affiliated with the company. Specifically, Continuum of Sarasota’s application relied to a great extent on the experience of its six affiliated Continuum hospice programs and their key employees. This included three key employees (excluding the owner Sam Stern) who were expressly identified in the “Managerial Resources” section of the application: Christi Keith, Continuum’s Chief Operations Officer; Ariel Joudai, Continuum’s Chief Financial Officer; and Patricia Putzbach, Continuum’s Chief Compliance Officer. However, just prior to the final hearing, Mr. Stern sold his interest in all but one of his six hospices. As a result, Ms. Keith no longer works for Mr. Stern, and Ms. Putzbach is waiting for an offer from another hospice provider. Although identified by name in the application, Continuum’s National Clinical Director is now working on a temporary basis for Continuum and another hospice provider as a “shared” employee with her future with Continuum undetermined. Mr. Balsano summarized the impact of a talent drain on Continuum as follows: When you look at the application as a whole, there’s multiple references. It’s very clear the applicant is proud of the job that it’s done in these markets and says we would plan on operating the proposed Sarasota facility in a similar fashion. And also the resources that were part of Continuum Care, folks in administration, clinical, patient care, et cetera, at kind of the corporate or oversight level, it calls into question two things. Could they really commit to operating a hospice in Sarasota County when, in fact, all of the other models that they’ve developed have been successfully sold. And secondly, from [that resource] standpoint, just [to] put it bluntly, who’s left when these hospices were entered into the transaction. Again, my understanding that people were still waiting to figure out what was happening, but a lot of them expected that they would be going to the acquired – the acquiring organization, which I think was Hospice Care was the name of the organization. So, as we sit here today, I am not sure who is still left in the clinical and senior leadership positions at Continuum. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Continuum has a substantial record of being a high-quality provider of hospice services. The greater weight of the evidence also demonstrates that Continuum of Sarasota will be a high-quality provider of hospice services if its CON application is granted. Section 408.035(4) – The Availability of Resources, Including Health Personnel, Management Personnel, and Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures, for Project Accomplishment and Operation Continuum of Sarasota has the resources for project accomplishment and operation, and Mr. Stern has a demonstrated history of successful start- up hospice operations. In terms of health personnel, Schedule 6A of the CON Application provides the proposed staffing plan in terms of full-time employees (“FTEs”) and salaries. The undisputed testimony is that the staffing and salaries are reasonable for the proposed operations. Included specifically within the Schedule are sufficient staff to implement the proposed intensive staffing model for increased hospice visit frequency, as well as specific proposed service programs such as dedicated FTEs for music therapy. The intensive service model is an enforceable condition of the CON Application. With respect to funds for capital and operating expenses, Schedule 1 shows the total project costs of $324,650.00, and Schedule 3 showed $500,000.00 in cash in the operating account, more than sufficient to cover start-up costs. Additionally, Mr. Stern presented evidence of additional financial resources in excess of $4.5 million and his commitment to fund and support the project. At the time of the final hearing, he had made an additional capital contribution of $2 million, with the current cash balance in the operating account of $2.5 million. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Continuum of Sarasota has the resources to be a successful hospice provider in Sarasota County. Section 408.035(5) – The Extent to Which the Proposed Services Will Enhance Access to Healthcare for Residents of the Service Area As discussed above, the opening of two new hospice houses in Sarasota County should eliminate any problems with accessing hospice services. Section 408.035(6) – The Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility of the Proposal The parties stipulated that the proposed project will be profitable and financially feasible in the long term. Section 408.035(7) – The Extent to Which the Proposal Will Foster Competition that Promotes Quality and Cost-Effectiveness Ms. Greenberg is of the opinion that granting Continuum of Sarasota’s application will lead to increases in the quality of hospice services and in the utilization of hospice services in Service Area 8D. As a result of the latter, Continuum of Sarasota and Tidewell will be competing in a growing, as opposed to a static, market of hospice patients. Ms. Greenberg’s opinion is based on an examination of three service areas in Florida in which competitors had entered service areas in the last five years that had previously been served by only one provider. The service areas in question were Lake and Sumter Counties in Service Area 3E, Hillsborough County in Service Area 6A, and Pinellas County in Service Area 5B. Ms. Greenberg examined the HIS scores for the existing providers during the year before the new competition entered the service area and for the two years following the competitors’ entry. Ms. Greenberg also examined the market utilization before and after the competitors’ entry. In Service Area 3E, quarterly hospice admissions averaged 732 during the four quarters of 2014 and then peaked at 976 just when Compassionate Care Hospice of Lake and Sumter Counties initiated services in the first quarter of 2015. While hospice admissions declined during the rest of 2015, they rose to 996 during the first quarter of 2016 and remained above 900 for the remainder of 2016. In Service Area 5B, hospice admissions in Pinellas County were 1,692 during the second quarter of 2018 when Seasons Hospice and Palliative Care entered the market. Hospice admissions increased to 1,755 the next quarter and reached 2,099 by the fourth quarter of 2019. In comparing the incumbent hospice’s HIS scores for quality measures such as treatment preferences, addressing beliefs and values, pain screening, pain assessment, dyspnea screening, dyspnea treatment, and treatment with opioids for the year before and after the competitor entered the market, Ms. Greenberg observed that there was “an uptick in overall quality in just about every measurement ” In Service Area 6A, hospice admissions in Hillsborough County were 1,559 when Seasons Hospice and Palliative Care of Tampa entered the market. Admissions climbed to 1,741 by the first quarter of 2018 and were 1,787 during the first quarter of 2019. In comparing the incumbent provider’s HIS scores during the years before and after the competitor’s entry, Ms. Greenberg observed that nearly all of the scores increased marginally, and a few increased substantially. Ms. Greenberg is of the opinion that Continuum of Sarasota’s service intensity will lead to an across the board increase in Tidewell’s quality. Q: So if Continuum goes forward with the proposed project and meets the conditions that it has set forth in the application and agreed to be conditioned with respect to service intensity, your opinion as a health planner, will that promote competition that fosters quality? A: Absolutely. Because providing that level -- an intensive level of service will have a ripple effect on the community. The existing provider is going to start upping its game, admitting quicker, providing a higher level of service or service intensity. I mean, having an average of less then ten minutes a day on average or 70 minutes a week of nurse’s aides is minimal compared to what’s being proposed and offered by Continuum. As for whether granting Continuum of Sarasota’s CON application will lead to hospice patients in Service Area 8D having a greater variety of programs, Ms. Greenberg testified that Tidewell has already taken actions to address Continuum of Sarasota’s potential entry into the market by duplicating some of the unique services Continuum of Sarasota proposes to offer: Exhibit 110 is entitled Competition at Work, and this relates to criteria that foster competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness. And specifically, relative to the need for the additional competition, if you will, what we have seen in that market is historically when you actually see more competition enter the market, the existing provider will up its game, and I showed how some of those things happen with quality in some prior exhibits. But what I found in the Sarasota market is, in response to Continuum [of Sarasota]’s proposal and discussions in the community, is that Tidewell was already attempting to up its game. Tidewell earlier this year announced it was having a virtual reality program. And again, Continuum had been in the Sarasota market since mid last summer, and so then that appears to be a . . . reaction to the Continuum [of Sarasota] virtual reality program, which Continuum conditioned its application on. Similarly, music therapy, that was a new program that was added at the end of 2019, and historically, the music therapy provided by Tidewell was limited to . . . volunteers, not therapists . . . So the upping game has already started. They recently announced they are going to do equine therapy, and lastly, they’ve just produced a policy that involves a two-hour admission process for patients that are high acuity or are in the hospital. Historically, that’s where the high acuity patients would be. So my conclusion is, even the threat of competition is already demonstrating that Continuum is upping its game in certain areas. As for cost effectiveness, Ms. Greenberg discussed how nearly 40 percent of Tidewell’s patients die while on GIP care. In contrast, the national average is 8.5 percent and between 2 and 3 percent of Continuum’s patients die while on GIP. Therefore, with the daily per diem Medicare reimbursement for GIP care being $978.00 as opposed to $160.00 for routine care, Ms. Greenberg is of the opinion that granting Continuum of Sarasota’s application will increase cost effectiveness. Overall, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that granting Continuum of Sarasota’s application is likely to lead to marginal increases in Tidewell’s service quality and to an increase in the utilization of hospice services in Service Area 8D, especially in light of Continuum’s prior experience with minority outreach.11 The parties offered a great deal of evidence regarding what impact granting Continuum of Sarasota’s application would have on Tidewell’s financial condition.12 In order to understand the potential impact on Tidewell, it is necessary to discuss the creation of Stratum Health Services (“Stratum”). Stratum was established in 2016 to act as a parent/management company for Tidewell. Tidewell’s senior management works under the 11 The fixed need pool calculation and the supporting data suggested that hospice utilization in Sarasota County is close to 100 percent. However, Continuum of Sarasota persuasively demonstrated that the counting of readmissions caused the fixed need pool calculation to be skewed. While that information does not excuse Continuum of Sarasota from demonstrating that special and/or not normal circumstances in Sarasota County justify granting the CON application, it is relevant for demonstrating that utilization of hospice services in Service Area 8D can rise. 12 The statutory and rule-based criteria by which hospice CON applications are judged do not expressly call for an evaluation of how granting the application will impact a current provider’s financial situation. Nevertheless, consideration of the impact on the existing provider is customarily considered in CON cases. See Hospice of Naples, Inc. v. Ag. For Health Care Admin, Case No. 07-1264CON (Fla. DOAH Mar. 3, 2008), rejected in part, Case No. 2007002739 (Fla. AHCA, Apr. 3, 2008)(discussing in paragraphs 251 through 262 and 270 the impact on the existing provider). Stratum umbrella and several of Tidewell’s essential administrative functions are performed by Stratum. In order to reimburse Stratum for those services, Tidewell typically transfers at least $12 million a year to Stratum. When asked why it was appropriate to consider Stratum and Tidewell together when evaluating the impact on Tidewell of granting Continuum of Sarasota’s CON application, Ms. Greenberg testified as follows: A: You have to look at them as a combined entity because the parent – there [are] only two tax returns filed for that combined entity, one is Tidewell and one is the parent. And the parent’s primary business is managing Tidewell. And all of the senior executives and the chief medical officer and chief nursing officer and chief clinical officer, if you look at the tax returns, are identical between the two, and they are identified on both tax returns with the same salaries and same benefits but they’re sitting in Stratum. So it’s not akin to a company that manages a hundred facilities and there’s a CEO at every facility and you have actually support services at the corporate level. This is – it was just a shifting of the whole management team to the parent. And there are a few other small operating businesses, but on a comparative basis, Tidewell is the one that’s $90 million a year in revenues, and these other small businesses are about $5 million in revenues now. So it really – you have to look at it as a combined entity, it’s just a shifting of assets and income that were once Tidewell’s as a corporation. Q: Just so we are clear on that, does Tidewell own the parent company? They gave them $135 million in assets. Do they own it? A: No, they don’t. The parent owns them, or the parent is the sole member. It’s a nonprofit corporation, so the parent is the only stockholder. If you were a for-profit, but it’s the sole member of the corporation. The combined entities of Tidewell and Stratum are very strong from a financial perspective. For the 12 months ending on June 30, 2012, Tidewell had net assets of $113,152,959. For the 12 months ending September 30, 2019, Tidewell and Stratum had combined net assets of $196,940,081. That represents a 74 percent increase and an average annual dollar increase of $13.4 million. Prior to the formation of Stratum, Tidewell’s net income was $12,128,594 for the 12 months ending June 30, 2015. For the 12 months ending September 30, 2018, Stratum and Tidewell’s combined net income was $14,034,322. The impact incurred by the combined entities of Stratum and Tidewell is evaluated via a contribution margin analysis. In the instant case, one forecasts how many patients Tidewell will lose in the second year of hospice operations by Continuum of Sarasota. The next step is to calculate the ALOS for each patient Tidewell will lose to Continuum of Sarasota. Multiplying the number of lost patients by the ALOS results in the number of lost patient days. The next step in the contribution analysis is to determine Tidewell’s variable cost per patient day. This figure is Tidewell’s decrease in daily costs for every patient that it loses to Continuum of Sarasota. With Tidewell’s variable cost per patient day in hand, one calculates Tidewell’s contribution margin per patient day by subtracting the variable cost per patient day from the revenue per patient day. Ms. Greenberg determined that Tidewell could expect its net income to be lower by $565,436.00 by year two of Continuum of Sarasota’s hospice operations. However, her analysis is flawed. First, she assumed that all, or a substantial portion of, the management fee paid from Tidewell to Stratum is 100 percent variable. That assumption is not credible because Tidewell will incur a certain amount of expenses for accounting, budgeting, human resources, and management regardless of its patient volume. It is unreasonable to assume that the aforementioned expenses would decrease in perfect lockstep with a decrease in patient volume. Ms. Greenberg’s analysis is also undermined by basing the calculation on Tidewell’s average length of stay rather than Continuum of Sarasota’s anticipated average length of stay. As discussed above, Continuum has a history of focusing on patients from ALFs and nursing homes who tend to have longer lengths of stay in hospice care. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the patients that Continuum of Sarasota takes from Tidewell will tend to be those with longer lengths of stay than Tidewell’s average. Mr. Balsano calculated that Tidewell and Stratum’s combined net income would be reduced by an amount ranging between $1,426,763 and $2,539,347 by year two of hospice operations by Continuum of Sarasota. Mr. Balsano’s calculation was more reasonable than Ms. Greenberg’s. Given that Stratum and Tidewell’s combined net income was $14,034,322 for the 12 months ending September 30, 2018, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Tidewell will still be able to operate as the dominant provider of hospice services in Sarasota County even if AHCA grants Continuum of Sarasota’s CON application.13 13 Tidewell makes the following assertion in its proposed recommended order: “But based on 2019 financial results, which is the last complete year, a contribution margin loss of only $1.4 million, which is on the low end of the possible range, would reduce Tidewell’s operating income to only $2.7 million (which, again, includes $3.3 million in charitable contributions) and reduces its operating margin to only 2.9 percent. Essentially, without the charitable contributions, Tidewell’s hospice business would be on the verge of breaking even or, perhaps, even losing money. As a result, Tidewell might be forced to use nonoperating income to fund the basic core Medicaid benefits Tidewell is required to provide in addition to the complementary services and programs that are outside the Medicare benefit.” This statement does not seem to account for the possibility that the Sarasota County market is growing and that any patient volume lost to Continuum of Sarasota is likely to be regained in the near future through market growth. In addition, this statement from Tidewell is based on the premise that a financial analysis should only focus on Tidewell and ignore the reality that Tidewell and Stratum are essential components of the same enterprise rather than separate operations. Finally, given that Tidewell’s charitable receipts are likely a product of Ultimate Findings If Continuum of Sarasota was not required by rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d) to demonstrate that a specific terminally ill population was not being served, then the undersigned would conclude that the statutory criteria in section 408.035 and “not normal” circumstances justify granting the CON application. Tidewell’s status as a monopoly provider and the resulting lack of choice for residents of Sarasota County are “not normal” circumstances that weigh heavily in favor of granting the application. As for the statutory criteria, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Continuum of Sarasota will be a quality provider of hospice services and will enable residents to choose between two different models of care. Moreover, even if Tidewell and Stratum’s combined net income would be reduced by an amount ranging between $1,426,763 and $2,539,347 by year two of hospice operations by Continuum of Sarasota, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Tidewell will still be able to operate as the dominant provider of hospice services in Sarasota County. However and as discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, the undersigned’s assessment of the present state of the law indicates that Continuum of Sarasota is required by rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d) to demonstrate that a specific terminally ill population was not being served. Because Continuum of Sarasota was unable to carry its burden of proof on that point, the CON application must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration deny Continuum Care of Sarasota, LLC’s, application for a Certificate of Need to provide hospice services in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey L. Frehn, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Julia Elizabeth Smith, Esquire Julia E. Smith, P.A. 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Smith & Associates 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Susan Crystal Smith, Esquire Smith & Associates 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Sabrina B. Dieguez, Esquire Smith & Associates 709 South Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 540 Melbourne, Florida 32901 (eServed) Laura M. Dennis, Esquire Radey Law Firm 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Christopher Brian Lunny, Esquire Radey Thomas Yon & Clark 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Angela D. Miles, Esquire Radey Thomas Yon & Clark, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) D. Carlton Enfinger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Maurice Thomas Boetger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency authorized to evaluate and render final determinations on CON applications pursuant to Subsection 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. HPH HPH is a newly created not-for-profit corporation formed to initiate hospice services in Pinellas County. HPH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hernando-Pasco Hospice, Inc., d/b/a HPH Hospice and is one of the oldest, not-for-profit community hospices in Florida. HPH Hospice was incorporated in 1982 to serve terminally ill persons within Hernando and Pasco Counties. HPH was approved to expand its services north to Citrus County in 2004. HPH is a high-quality provider of hospice services in the service areas where it currently operates. It provides pain control and symptom management, spiritual care, bereavement, volunteer, social work, and other programs. HPH employs a physician-driven model of hospice care, with significant involvement of hospice and palliative care physicians who are physically present treating patients in their homes. The number of physician home visits provided to hospice patients by HPH physicians is larger than many hospices in Florida and throughout the United States. In 2009, HPH provided over 35,000 visits by physicians, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and licensed physician assistants to its hospice patients. The majority of these visits occurred in the patients' homes. HPH operates multiple facilities that allow for provision of services to patients in various settings and hospice levels of care. Among its facilities, HPH operates four buildings it calls Care Centers, at which patients can receive general in-patient care. Additionally, HPH operates four units which it calls Hospice Houses. Those units provide for residential care in a home-like environment for patients who do not have caregivers at home or who otherwise are in need of a home. HPH receives no reimbursement for room and board for the care provided at its Hospice Houses and expends over $1.4 million annually in charity care to operate these Hospice Houses for the benefit of its patients. HPH has an established record of providing all levels of hospice care and does not use its Care Centers as a substitute for providing continuous care in the patient's home when such care is needed. Annually, HPH provides approximately percent of its patient days for continuous care patients. HPH has well-developed staff education and training programs, including specialized protocols for care and treatment of patients by terminal disease type such as Alzheimer's, COPD, cancer, failure to thrive, and pulmonary diseases. Odyssey Odyssey is the entity applying for a new hospice program in Service Area 5B. The sole shareholder of Odyssey is Odyssey HealthCare Operating B, LP, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. (OHC), Odyssey's parent and management affiliate. Odyssey was formed for the purpose of filing for CON applications in Florida and, thereafter, for owning and operating hospice programs in Florida. OHC is a publicly-traded company founded in 1996 and focuses on caring for patients at the end of life's journey. OHC's sole line of business is hospice services. OHC's patient population consists of approximately 70 percent non-cancer and 30 percent cancer patients. OHC is one of the largest providers of hospice care in the United States. OHC has approximately 92 Medicare-certified programs in 29 states, including established programs in Miami-Dade (Service Area 11) and Volusia (Service Area 4B) Counties and a start-up program in Marion County (Service Area 3B), which was licensed in January 2010. Over four years ago, OHC was the subject of an investigation by the United States Department of Justice that ultimately resulted in a settlement and payment of $13 million to the federal government in July 2006. The settlement did not involve the admission of liability or acknowledgement of any wrongdoing by OHC. As part of the settlement, OHC entered into a corporate integrity agreement (CIA) with a term of five years. Odyssey is now in the final year of the CIA. The settlement and CIA allow OHC to self-audit to ensure compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation, which is the first and only time the OIG has allowed a provider to self audit. Suncoast Suncoast is a large and well-developed comprehensive hospice program serving Pinellas County, Service Area 5B. Suncoast is the sole provider of hospice services in Service Area 5B. According to data reported to the Department of Elder Affairs, Suncoast had 7,375 admissions and provided 795,102 patient days of care in 2009, more than any other Florida hospice. In that same year, Suncoast provided 115,247 patient days of care in assisted living facilities, the third highest total in Florida. Suncoast considers itself a model for hospice across the United States and the world. Suncoast has a large depth and breadth of programs, including community programs offered by its affiliate organizations, such as the AIDS Service Association of Pinellas County, the Suncoast Institute, and Project Grace. Suncoast is active in the national organization for hospices and interacts with programs that use it as a model and resource. Unlike the applicants, Suncoast does not use the Medicare conditions or definitions to limit or define the scope of services it provides. Under the Florida definition, hospice is provided to patients with a life expectancy of 12 months or less. HPH, by way of contrast, uses the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition for hospice, i.e., a prognosis of six months or less. Overview of Hospice Services In Florida, hospice programs are required to provide a continuum of palliative and supportive care for terminally ill patients and their families. Under Florida law, a terminally ill patient has a prognosis that his/her life expectancy is one year or less if the illness runs its normal course. Under Medicare, a terminally ill patient is eligible for the Medicare Hospice benefits if their life expectancy is six months or less. Hospice services must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and must include certain core services, including nursing, social work, pastoral care or counseling, dietary counseling, and bereavement counseling. Physician services may be provided by the hospice directly or through contract. Hospices are required to provide four levels of hospice care: routine, continuous, in-patient, and respite. Hospice services are furnished to a patient and family either directly by a hospice or by others under contractual arrangements with a hospice. Services may be provided in a patient's temporary or permanent residence. If the patient needs short-term institutionalization, the services are furnished in cooperation with those contracted institutions or in a hospice in-patient facility. Routine home care comprises the vast majority of hospice patient days. Florida law states that hospice care and services provided in a private home shall be the primary form of care. Hospice care and services, to the extent practicable and compatible with the needs and preferences of the patient, may be provided by the hospice care team to a patient living in an assisted living facility (ALF), adult family-care home, nursing home, hospice residential unit or facility, or other non-domestic place of permanent or temporary residence. A resident or patient living in an ALF, nursing home, or other facility, who has been admitted to a hospice program, is considered a hospice patient, and the hospice program is responsible for coordinating and ensuring the delivery of hospice care and services to such person pursuant to the statutory and rule requirements. The in-patient level of care provides an intensive level of care within a hospital setting, a skilled nursing unit or in a freestanding hospice in-patient facility. The in- patient component of care is a short-term adjunct to hospice home care and home residential care and should only be used for pain control, symptom management, or respite care in a limited manner. In Florida, the total number of in-patient days for all hospice patients in any 12-month period may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of hospice days for all the hospice patients of the licensed hospice. Continuous care, similar to in-patient care, is basically emergency room or crisis care that can be provided in a home care setting or in any setting where the patient resides. Continuous care, like in-patient care, was designed to be provided for short amounts of time, usually when symptoms become severe and skilled and individual interventions are needed for pain and symptom management. Respite care is generally designed for caregiver relief. It allows patients to stay in hospice facilities for brief periods to provide breaks for the caregivers. Respite care is typically a very minor percentage of overall patient days and is generally designed for caregiver relief. Medicare reimburses the different levels of care at different rates. The highest level of reimbursement is for continuous care. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of hospice care is covered by Medicare. The goal of hospice is to provide physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual comfort and support to a terminally ill patient and their family. Hospice care provides palliative care as opposed to curative care, with the focus of treatment centering on palliative care and comfort measures. There is no "bright line test" as to what constitutes palliative care and what constitutes curative care. The determination is made on a case-by-case basis depending upon the facts and circumstances of each such case. However, palliative care generally refers to services or interventions which are not curative, but are provided for the reduction or abatement of pain and suffering. Hospice care is provided pursuant to a plan of care that is developed by an interdisciplinary group consisting of physicians, nurses, social workers, and various counselors, including chaplains. There are certain services required by individual hospice patients that are not necessarily covered by Medicare and/or private or commercial insurance. These services may include music therapy, pet therapy, art therapy, massage therapy, and aromatherapy. There are also more complicated and expensive non-covered services, such as palliative chemotherapy and radiation that may be indicated for severe pain control and symptom control. Suncoast provides, and both Odyssey and HPH propose, to provide hospice patients with all of the core services and many of the other services mentioned above. Fixed Need Pool The Agency has a numeric need formula within its rule for determining the need for an additional hospice program in a service area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.0355(4)(a). When applying the formula in the present case, AHCA ultimately determined that the fixed need was zero for the second batching cycle of 2009. In the absence of numeric need, an applicant must document the existence of one of three delineated special circumstances set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d), i.e., (1) That a specific terminally ill population is not being served; (2) That a county or counties within the service area of a licensed hospice program are not being served; or (3) That there are persons referred to hospice programs who are not being admitted within 48 hours. Absent numeric need or one of the delineated special circumstances, there cannot be approval of a new hospice program. In forecasting need under the hospice rule's methodology, AHCA uses an average three-year historical death rate. It applies this average against the forecasted population for a two-year planning horizon. AHCA also uses a statewide penetration rate, which is the number of hospice admissions divided by hospice deaths. The statewide average penetration rate is subdivided into four categories: cancer over age 65, cancer under age 65, non-cancer over age 65, and non-cancer under age 65. The projected hospice admissions (based on death rate and projected population growth) in each category are then compared to the most recent published actual admissions to determine the number of projected un-met admissions in each category. If the total un-met admissions in all categories exceed 350, a new hospice is warranted, unless there is a recently approved hospice in the service area or a new hospice provider has not been operational for two years. In the instant case, AHCA's final projections showed the net un-met need for hospice's admissions in Service Area 5B was 318, i.e., below the threshold amount of 350 necessary to establish need for an additional hospice program. The fixed need pool for the purpose of this administrative hearing is zero. HPH is primarily basing its determination of need for a new hospice on its contention that there are three specific terminally ill population groups in Pinellas County that are not being served. Odyssey is primarily basing its determination of need for a new hospice on its contention that there are persons being referred to the existing hospice program in Pinellas County who are not being admitted within 48 hours. The Proposals HPH's Proposal HPH proposes to establish its new hospice program in Pinellas County, Service Area 5B. HPH is currently licensed to provide hospice care in three contiguous sub-districts north of Service Area 5B, i.e., in Hernando, Pasco, and Citrus counties. HPH's corporate headquarters is located in Pasco County, ten to 15 minutes from the Pinellas County border. HPH currently operates a home health agency in Pinellas County. HPH's CON application identifies special circumstances justifying approval of its proposal, including four sub-populations of terminally ill persons who are currently underserved in Service Area 5B: (1) patients living in ALFs; (2) patients requiring continuous care; (3) medically complex patients; and (4) patients not being admitted within 48-hours. Another circumstance identified by HPH to support approval of its application is the fact that Pinellas County is one of the most populous and most elderly service areas in the State, and yet, it only has a single hospice provider. HPH argues that the fact Suncoast is a sole hospice provider for the service area exacerbates and contributes to the problems of gaps in available hospice services to the specific terminally ill sub-populations identified in its CON application. HPH proposes a de-centralized model of hospice service delivery similar to its model in the three contiguous counties where HPH presently provides hospice services. HPH proposes contracting with existing nursing homes and hospitals for in-patient beds ("scatter beds") throughout Service Area 5B. HPH then projects that it could offer in-patient services in the local neighborhoods of patients and families where they live, as opposed to transferring patients to a single in-patient facility for the provider's convenience. As census increases, HPH commits to establish, by month seven of operation, a dedicated in-patient unit to provide in-patient level of care and Hospice House residential care to patients in a home-like environment. Like its hospice operations in Hernando, Pasco and Citrus Counties, HPH proposes to implement its "physician- driven" model of hospice care in Service Area 5B, allowing for greater involvement of physicians in the care and treatment of hospice patients, including physician home visits. Odyssey's Proposal Odyssey proposes to address lack of competition2 in Service Area 5B and the special circumstance of patients not being admitted within 48 hours of referral. Under AHCA's hospice rule, an applicant may demonstrate the need for a new hospice provider if there are persons referred to a hospice program who are not being admitted within 48 hours. However, the applicant must indicate the number of such persons. Odyssey relies upon referral of admission statistical information previously provided by Suncoast to a sister Odyssey entity in a 2005 hospice CON matter. Suncoast at that time provided three years of data that demonstrated between 1,700 (31 percent of admissions) and 2,300 (38 percent of admissions) of patients admitted to Suncoast were admitted 72 hours or more after referral. The definition of referral by Suncoast, however, differs from the definition of referral relied upon by Odyssey. (See Paragraph 56, herein.) Odyssey also provided letters of support from the community to further evidence the existence of the 48-hour special circumstance. However, the letters of support originally appeared in an application filed by Odyssey in 2007 and were not given any weight in the instant proceeding based on their staleness. Odyssey also contends that the existence of a sole provider in Service Area 5B has created a monopolistic situation in the service area. It further contends that the lack of competition has led to the existence of a 48-hour special circumstance in Service Area 5B. Approval of Odyssey's application will, it says, eliminate the monopoly currently existing in Service Area 5B and will address the lack of competition currently occurring in Service Area 5B. Subsection 408.045(2), Florida Statutes, speaks of a "regional monopoly," but there is no credible evidence in the record to suggest that Suncoast's position as a sole provider in Pinellas County constitutes a "regional monopoly." Facts Concerning Special Circumstances Arguments Service Area Demographics Hospice Service Area 5B, Pinellas County, is a single-county hospice service area with a population of approximately one million residents. Pinellas County is currently ranked as the fourth largest county in the State in total numbers of elderly persons over 65 years of age, as well as elderly persons over 75 years of age, behind only Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Pinellas County also experienced the fourth highest number of total deaths in the State in 2008--11,268. Pinellas County's mortality rate in recent years has slowed. However, even considering a slower growth rate in the number of deaths, Pinellas County likely will remain the fourth largest county in the State in both elderly population and number of deaths through 2015. Although it is the fourth largest service area in terms of likely hospice patients, Suncoast is the sole hospice provider in Service Area 5B. By contrast, the other three largest service areas all have multiple hospice programs to serve their large elderly populations with eight providers in Service Area 11 (Miami-Dade), five providers in Service Area 10 (Broward), and three providers in Service Area 9C (Palm Beach). In assessing the extent of utilization of hospice services in Service Area 5B, HPH through its health planner, Patricia Greenberg, noted that Suncoast appears to have over-stated its utilization rate in its semi-annual reports to AHCA. Ms. Greenberg testified that Suncoast's AHCA data includes patients who are not truly hospice patients and are, instead, patients who are participating in non-hospice programs operated by Suncoast, including palliative care programs known as "Suncoast Supportive Care" and "Hospital Support." The number of such patients was not quantified by Ms. Greenberg.3 Suncoast counters that it does not let the conditions of participation define the scope and breadth of hospice services it offers. Suncoast tries not to be defined by the Medicare conditions of participation and has programs that are not covered by the benefit, including but not limited to its residential care at Woodside and its caregiver services. Specific Terminally Ill Populations HPH identified as under-served in Service Area 5B medically complex patients with complex medical needs, including multiple IVs, wound vacs, ventilator, complex medications, or acutely uncontrolled symptoms in multiple domains. These are the same kinds of patients who would require continuous care within their homes. Hospice patients have become more highly acute in recent years. More patients are being discharged from hospitals with highly complex medical conditions, often directly from hospital intensive care units. Patients discharged directly from hospitals tend to have higher acuity levels. Ms. Greenberg reviewed Suncoast's data on hospital discharges and found Suncoast statistically lags behind HPH in caring for medically complex patients discharged from hospitals. Looking at a three-year average, HPH had 3.7 percent of its hospice discharges directly admitted from hospitals, compared to percent for Suncoast. This is more than a 50-percent deviation between hospital discharges to hospice for HPH versus Suncoast. However, a comparison of Suncoast to HPH does not establish that there is a specific underserved population in Service Area 5B which is not receiving services. One case manager testified to sometimes not being able to timely find hospice placements for medically complex patients. Such patients would then have to be transferred from the hospital to a nursing home or rehabilitation facility. However, she did not testify that this specific terminally ill population was not being served, only that they were being served somewhere other than in an in-patient hospice bed. Medically complex patients, including those needing continuous care, were another specific terminally ill population identified by HPH. At page 54 of her deposition, Deborah Casler, a case manager at Helen Ellis Hospital, addressed those populations, saying, "[w]hat I am going to say is if anybody needed continuous care through Suncoast, it would happen, but it wasn't always a quick and easy process." HPH compared its percentage of continuous care patient days with Suncoast, showing that HPH had more. That does not equate to an absence of service for any specific terminally ill population. HPH attempts to create a presumption that services are not being provided by conditioning its application on a certain percentage (3 percent) of days for continuous care patients. That is merely a projection of intent; it is not evidence that a certain population is not currently being served. Assisted Living Facility Residents HPH provided anecdotal evidence that some ALFs in Pinellas County were not pleased with the services being provided by Suncoast. One ALF administrator was dissatisfied that Suncoast took a long time to admit her resident (but the resident was ultimately admitted). Another was disappointed with Suncoast because it took a long time to get medications for her resident. Another felt like Suncoast's quality of care was inferior. HPH provides a greater percentage of hospice services to ALF residents in Pasco (12.7 percent), Hernando (26.5 percent), and Citrus (23.5) counties than Suncoast provides to ALF residents in Pinellas County. There are approximately 215 ALFs in Pinellas County of varying sizes, i.e., from three beds to almost 500 beds. Suncoast did not provide services to all of them. There was no showing, however, that any resident of an ALF who needed or requested hospice services was denied such care. None of the evidence presented by HPH establishes the existence of a group of ALF residents who were not being served in the service area; nor does the evidence prove that any specific ALF residents are, in fact, terminally ill. The 48-Hour Admission Provision Neither Suncoast, nor Odyssey presented any hard data on timeliness of admissions. In fact, none of the parties could agree as to what action constitutes an admission. Suncoast says an admission must include a physician order and a consent by the patient and family. Odyssey identifies a referral as a telephone call from a family member, even if the call is simply an inquiry as to what services might be available. Odyssey says that the majority of its patients are admitted within three hours of referral and at least 80 percent are admitted within 24 hours. During that three-hour time frame, Odyssey will contact the family, contact the physician in order to evaluate and admit, if appropriate, screen the patient to ensure he or she meets the eligibility guidelines, go out and meet with the family, and provide support while necessary information is being gathered. HPH candidly admits that the issue of admissions within 48 hours does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of a new hospice program in Service Area 5B. However, HPH argues, it is an element of hospice services that HPH would do better than the other parties. There is no credible evidence in the record that an identified number of persons in Pinellas County had not been admitted to hospice within 48 hours of referral. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria Rule Preferences The Agency is required to give preference to an applicant meeting one or more of the criteria specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)1 through 5: Commitment to serve populations with unmet need.-- There is no numeric need in this matter. Neither applicant proved the existence of a population with unmet need. Commitment to provide in-patient care through contract with existing health care facilities.-- Both HPH and Odyssey intend to use scatter beds and to contract with existing health care providers. Commitment to serve homeless and AIDS patients, as well as patients without caregivers.--Both applicants have shown a history of serving such groups and commit to do so in Pinellas County. Not Applicable. Commitment to provide services not covered by insurance, Medicare or Medicaid--Both applicants have a good history of providing indigent care and commit to do so in Pinellas County. Consistency with Plans; Letters of Support Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(5) requires consideration of the applications in light of the local and state health plans. The local health council plans are no longer a factor in this proceeding. The state health plan addresses the concept of letters of support. Again, as neither applicant proved special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice program, this comparison is unnecessary. However, there was considerable testimony and argument at final hearing concerning letters of support and the issue deserves some discussion. Each applicant provided letters of support. In fact, HPH's application contained over 250 letters of support from a wide range of writers, including physicians, nurses, ALF and nursing home administrators, and others. AHCA even complimented HPH's letters of support in both quantity and quality. Such letters are, of course, hearsay and cannot be relied upon to make findings as to the statements made herein. However, the fact that HPH generated so many letters of support is a fact that lends additional credence to their application. Odyssey's letters of support, by comparison, were much fewer in number. The letters were also dated, having come from a CON application filed some three years prior to the application currently at issue. The content of those letters would also be hearsay. And in the present action, the age of the letters would reduce their significance as support for the Odyssey CON application at issue. Statutory Review Criteria The Agency reviews each CON application in context with the criteria set forth in Subsection 408.035(1)(a) through (j), Florida Statutes: Subsection 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes--The need for the health care facilities and health services being provided There was no need projected by AHCA under its need methodology. Neither party established the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice program in Service Area 5B. Subsection 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes-- availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization Suncoast is the sole provider of hospice services in Service Area 5B. This service area is one of the largest in the State. There are other service areas which have a single hospice provider, but Service Area 5B is the largest service area to be served by a single hospice provider. Service Area 5B experienced the fourth largest number of deaths in the State in 2008, an important factor in the provision of hospice care. Suncoast has 15 interdisciplinary care teams, each of which, lead by a patient-family care coordinator, includes RNs, home health aides, counselors, volunteers, and a chaplain. Suncoast has a north community service center in Palm Harbor that houses four patient care teams. On the back of that property is Brookside, Suncoast's newly built 30-bed in-patient facility. In central Pinellas County, Suncoast has its main service center with six patient care teams along with administrative and support offices. Suncoast has a pharmacy, as well as durable medical equipment and infusion departments, located in Largo. In central Pinellas County is Suncoast's ten-acre, 72-bed Woodside facility. Thirty-six of the beds are in-patient and 36 are residential. On the back of the property are 18 efficiency apartments called "Villas" with separate living, sleeping and kitchen areas. When patients become too ill to remain at home, their spouse may move into a villa until the patient dies. In the southern portion of the county is Suncoast's south community service area which houses five patient care teams, as well as "ASAP." ASAP is Suncoast's AIDS Service Association of Pinellas County which serves and provides support to patients with HIV and AIDS. Suncoast also has in-patient contracts with every hospital in Pinellas County and a number of contracts with nursing homes for in-patient care. Patients may receive continuous care in the home whether that is a residence, an ALF, or a nursing home or may receive care in the Suncoast in-patient unit. There is disagreement over whether Suncoast accurately reports its admissions and whether all reported admissions are actually hospice patients. Further, HPH points out that its penetration rate in counties where it operates is much higher than Suncoast's penetration rate in Pinellas County. However, the most credible evidence is that Suncoast is effectively serving the needs of hospice-eligible residents of Service Area 5B. Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes--ability to provide quality of care and record of providing quality of care Both applicants satisfy this criterion. Both applicants can provide a broad range of quality hospice services to all its patients. HPH touts its physician model, including physician home visits, as evidence of its commitment to quality care. Physician visits have been proven to help patients get pain under control more quickly, an important factor considering ten percent of hospice patients die within 48 hours of admission. Odyssey is a large company and has extensive operational policies and procedures concerning provision of quality care to its patients. Odyssey has a program called Care Beyond which it believes will enhance quality care in Service Area 5B. Odyssey has had some regulatory violations while HPH has not. However, Odyssey has resolved those violations favorably. Subsection 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes-- availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulate that both applicants meet this criterion. Subsection 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes--extent to which proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district Both applicants satisfy this criterion. HPH is the existing provider of hospice services in the adjacent service area to Service Area 5B. HPH can use its existing contacts in Service Area 5B to extend its service to residents of that area. HPH has already established relationships with Airamed Corporation and its 11 nursing homes and ALF in Service Area 5B. HPH also commits to being more directly involved with smaller ALFs in Pinellas County. Odyssey is a large hospice with significant resources which can be utilized to enhance access for residents of Service Area 5B. It commits to bring quality personnel to Service Area 5B as part of its successful start-up procedures. Subsection 408.035(1)(f), Florida Statutes--immediate and long-term financial feasibility The parties stipulate that both applicants meet this criterion. Subsection 408.035(1)(g), Florida Statutes--extent to which proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants are established providers of hospice services. The absence of any other hospice provider in Pinellas County means there is no effective competition. If either of the applicants was granted a CON for a new hospice in Service Area 5B, it would likely foster competition and promote quality and cost-effectiveness. Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes--costs and methods of construction, etc. This criterion is not applicable to the instant case. Subsection 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes--the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Both applicants meet this criterion. HPH offers extensive services that go beyond the Medicare requirements of participation. It also operates "Hospice Houses" which provide room and board to homeless hospice patients. Odyssey's record of indigent care is evidenced by the fact that approximately 55 percent of its non-Medicare net revenue is from Medicaid, and 9.5 percent of its non-Medicare services are provided to indigent patients. Subsection 408.035(1)(j)--designation as a Gold Seal Program This criterion is not applicable to the instant case. Ultimate Findings of Fact The Agency determined that there is no need for an additional hospice in the service area based upon the fixed need pool formula. Neither applicant was able to establish the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in the service area. There is no specific terminally ill population which is not receiving hospice services that has been identified by the applicants. There is no persuasive evidence that there is an identifiable number of individuals who were referred to hospice, but were not admitted within 48 hours.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration denying the CON applications of HPH South, Inc. (No. 10066), and Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Central Florida (No. 10068). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Respondent pursuant to section 409.923(1), Florida Statutes, for hospice services Respondent provided through three program locations (Melbourne, Boynton Beach, and Dade) during the audit period between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012; and the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).
Findings Of Fact Parties AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. (2018). Medicaid is a joint federal and state partnership to provide health care and related services to certain qualified individuals. Vitas is a provider of hospice and end-of-life services in Florida. During the relevant periods, Vitas maintained hospice programs headquartered in Melbourne, Dade, and Boynton Beach, each enrolled as a Medicaid provider with a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. Hospice Services Hospice is a form of palliative care. However, hospice care is focused upon patients at the end-of-life-stage, while palliative care is for any patient with an advanced illness. Both hospice and palliative care patients are generally among the sickest patients. Hospice is focused upon serving the patient and family to provide symptom management, supportive care, and emotional and spiritual support during this difficult period when the patients are approaching their end-of-life. Hospice care, as with Vitas, uses an interdisciplinary team ("IDT") to provide comfort, symptom management, and support to allow patients and their families to come to terms with the patient's terminal condition, i.e., that the patient is expected to die. Each patient is reviewed in a meeting of the IDT no less than every two weeks. For hospice, a terminally ill patient must choose to elect hospice and to give up seeking curative care and aggressive treatments. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Vitas was authorized to provide hospice services to Medicaid recipients. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Vitas was subject to federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule, which were in effect during the audit period. Medicaid Hospice Benefit Medicaid recipients are eligible to have their hospice services covered by Medicaid if a physician, using his/her clinical judgment, determines and certifies that the patient is terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less if the disease runs its normal course. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 418.3 and 418.22. The Florida Medicaid Hospice Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, the January 2007 edition ("Handbook"), governs whether a service is medically necessary and meets certification criteria for hospice services. Pages 2 through 4 of the Handbook identify six areas of documentation (often referred to throughout this proceeding as "the six bullet points") for a physician to consider when making a determination regarding a patient's initial certification for hospice eligibility. These include: Terminal diagnosis with life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness progresses at its normal course; Serial physician assessments, laboratory, radiological, or other studies; Clinical progression of the terminal disease; Recent impaired nutritional status related to the terminal process; Recent decline in functional status; and Specific documentation that indicates that the recipient has entered an endstage of a chronic disease. The Medicaid hospice provider must provide written certification of eligibility for hospice services for each patient. The Handbook also provides certification of terminal illness requirements as follows: For each period of hospice coverage, the hospice must obtain written certification from a physician indicating that the recipient is terminally ill and has a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness progresses at its normal course. The initial certification must be signed by the medical director of the hospice or a physician member of the hospice team and the recipient's attending physician (if the recipient has an attending physician). For the second and subsequent election periods, the certification is required to be signed by either the hospice medical director or the physician member of the hospice team. Certification is required for each election period. A patient may elect to receive hospice services for one or more of the election periods. The election periods include: an initial 90-day period; a subsequent 90-day period; and subsequent 60-day time periods. The Handbook provides guidance regarding the election periods as follows: The first 90 days of hospice care is considered the initial hospice election period. For the initial period, the hospice must obtain written certification statements from a hospice physician and the recipient's attending physician, if the recipient has an attending physician, no later than two calendar days after the period begins. An exception is if the hospice is unable to obtain written certification, the hospice must obtain verbal certification within two days following initiation of hospice care, with a written certification obtained before billing for hospice care. If these requirements are not met, Medicaid will not reimburse for the days prior to the certification. Instead, reimbursement will begin with the date verbal certification is obtained . . . . For the subsequent election periods, written certification from the hospice medical director or physician member of the interdisciplinary group is required. If written certification is not obtained before the new election period begins, the hospice must obtain a verbal certification statement no later than two calendar days after the first day of each period from the hospice medical director or physician member of the hospice's interdisciplinary group. A written certification must be on file in the recipient's record prior to billing hospice services. Supporting medical documentation must be maintained by the hospice in the recipient's medical record. AHCA's Audit Florida law obligates AHCA to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid recipients and providers in order to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior occur to the minimum extent possible and, when appropriate, to recover overpayments and impose sanctions on providers. § 409.913, Fla. Stat. Among other duties, AHCA is required to conduct (or cause to be conducted) audits to determine possible fraud, abuse, and overpayments in the Medicaid program. § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. The statutes define "overpayment" as "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." § 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat. When an overpayment is identified, AHCA is required to recover the overpayment and impose sanctions as appropriate. § 409.913, Fla. Stat. When making a determination that an overpayment has occurred, the agency shall prepare and issue an audit report to the provider showing the calculation of overpayments. § 409.913(21), Fla. Stat. The Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), contracted with HI to perform an audit of Vitas on AHCA's behalf. HI, in turn, retained a PRO, Advanced Medical Reviews ("AMR") to provide physician reviews of claims during the audit process in order to determine whether an audited claim was eligible for payment. HI is an approved Medicaid Integrity Contractor that is assigned by CMS to Florida and was instructed to perform audits of Florida hospice providers who had been paid with Medicaid funds for the audit period. HI received the Medicaid billing information from AHCA and developed an audit plan in conjunction with AHCA MPI staff. Per Vitas' Medicaid Provider Agreements, Vitas agreed "to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA." To that end, Vitas also agreed to maintain its records for at least five years to satisfy all necessary inquiries by AHCA. The stated objective of the audit, as reflected in the FARs, was "to determine whether the recipients met eligibility for hospice services and payments were in accordance with applicable Federal and State Medicaid laws, regulations, and policies." For the purpose of the audit, the recipient files to be reviewed were selected using the following criteria: The recipient was not dually eligible (eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare); and The hospice coverage was greater than or equal to 182 days based on the recipient's first and last date of service within the audit period. In addition, HI excluded recipients who had at least one malignancy (cancer) primary diagnosis and had a date of death less than one year from the first date of service with this provider. HI, in its capacity as an authorized contractor of CMS, contacted Vitas and requested medical files for those 250 recipients who met HI's selection criteria for the audit. HI then forwarded the 250 recipients' medical files to HI nurse claims analysts for initial detailed review. If, after review of Vitas' medical records, the HI claims analyst determined that a recipient was eligible for Medicaid hospice services, the analyst would clear the file and remove it from further consideration. As a result, 63 files were determined to have sufficient documentation to support approval of the claim. If, however, based upon the initial review, the analyst had any questions or concerns about a particular file, he or she would set it aside for later peer review by an independent physician who would make the ultimate determination with regard to hospice eligibility. In this case, 187 recipients' medical records were peer-reviewed by a physician who made a determination concerning whether the medical records supported the recipient's eligibility for Medicaid hospice. Of the 187 files, 118 were determined to be ineligible in whole or part for Medicaid hospice. HI contracts with PROs, which provide physicians to perform the peer review. Initially, HI contracted with AMR to provide peer review services. Section 409.9131(2)(c), provides that a "peer" is "a Florida physician who is, to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or sub-specialty, licensed under the same chapter, and in active practice." Often recipients in hospice care see multiple physicians. HI staff, therefore, reviewed the recipients' medical records to determine the names of Respondent's physicians treating the recipients whose medical records were being audited. Thereafter, HI staff obtained the specialty or subspecialty of Respondent's physicians from the Florida Department of Health, Board of Medicine, website. The most common specialties were Internal Medicine and Family Medicine. HI instructed AMR to appoint peers who are: (1) licensed in Florida, (2) in active practice, and (3) to the maximum extent possible have a specialty in Internal Medicine or Family Medicine. In this case, HI, through AMR, initially employed the services of five Florida physicians who reviewed the 187 recipient files at issue. The findings of the peer reviewers were presented in the Draft Audit Reports ("DARs"). Physicians Tania Velez, M.D. (specializing in family medicine), Terese Taylor, M.D. (specializing in family medicine), and Anita Arnold, D.O. (specializing in cardiovascular disease, interventional cardiology, and internal medicine), discontinued providing services as peers following the publication of their opinions in the DARs. These physicians were initially responsible for reviewing 25 recipient files. Todd Eisner, M.D. (specializing in internal medicine and gastroenterology), reviewed and rendered his opinion as to the hospice eligibility of five recipients in the DARs. Ankush Bansal, M.D. (specializing in internal medicine), reviewed the hospice eligibility of 88 recipients. Subsequent to the petitions being filed in this matter, Dr. Bansal opted to no longer participate in this matter. AHCA, therefore, requested HI to have all of Dr. Bansal's cases re- reviewed by another peer physician. AMR could not provide peer physicians who could complete the re-reviews in the desired time frame, so HI sent the re-reviews to another PRO, Network Medical Review ("NMR"). HI gave NMR the same instructions it gave to AMR with respect to how to select peers. HI, through NMR, selected Dr. Kelly Komatz (specializing in pediatrics, and hospice and palliative Care) and Dr. Charles Talakkottur (specializing in internal medicine) to perform the re-reviews of Dr. Bansal's claims. Dr. Komatz reviewed one patient file in dispute. Dr. Talakkottur reviewed 76 recipient files in dispute. Audit Methodology There is no statutory definition of "terminal illness" and no guidelines for the term are provided by rule or in the Handbook. In performing their respective peer reviews, the peer physicians were instructed to use their clinical experience, generally accepted medical standards, and the Handbook. Two peer reviewers with similar experience could review the same record and come to different conclusions as to a terminal diagnosis. The same goes for a determination as to a life expectancy of six months or less. Both are subjective by nature. Similarly, there are no AHCA guidelines to determine when the criteria of serial physician assessments, laboratory, radiological or other studies, have been met. The same is true for what constitutes sufficient documentation of clinical progression of the terminal disease, recent impaired nutritional status, recent decline in functional status, and specific documentation that a recipient has entered the end-stage of a chronic disease. Local Coverage Determinations ("LCDs") are Medicare guidelines that are disease specific and nationally recognized tools used to assist physicians in determining hospice eligibility. Florida does not use LCDs with respect to Medicaid. However, HI developed a document, titled the "Summary Lead Sheet—Medical Review Methodology Documentation/LCD's," which was approved by CMS. This documentation was then provided to AHCA and sent to the claims analysts and initial peer reviewers to perform their review of Medicaid reviews in this audit. To evaluate the likely terminality of a recipient's condition for benefit eligibility, LCDs direct physician reviewers to use certain clinical indicators including: Palliative Performance Scale ("PPS") scores; Functional Assessment Staging ("FAST") scores; Activities of Daily Living ("ADL") scores, which measure the patient's abilities in bathing, dressing, feeding, transferring, continence, and ambulation; Body Mass Index ("BMI"); and New York Heart Association ("NYHA") classifications. The Handbook makes no reference to LCDs or these clinical indicators. Nor does it prohibit their use. In fact, these clinical indicators are part of the "generally accepted standard of medical practice" to be considered in the context of "medical necessity" as defined by sections 409.913 and 409.9131. LCDs are not all-inclusive of all the different conditions for which a person may be eligible for hospice. Resultantly, LCDs are an appropriate tool to use in prognosticating whether a patient has a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less. However, a patient's failure to meet the LCD for a specific disease does not per se disqualify the patient from Medicaid hospice eligibility. The peer reviewers were instructed, "Please do not break up a certification period with partial approved and partial denied dates." Pursuant to this instruction, if a patient meets hospice eligibility for any portion of a certification period, they should be approved for the entire period. None of the doctors involved in this case, from either side, actually examined the patients. All of the doctors conducted essentially a desk audit review of the medical records. Issuance of the DARs and FARs Based upon the peer reviews, DARs were prepared by HI, which identified overpayment of Medicaid claims totaling $6,943,664.74, relating to 118 recipients. The DARs were transmitted to Vitas. Vitas, through its medical directors, provided a response to the DARs. Vitas contested every alleged overpayment and maintained that all recipients in question were eligible for the Medicaid hospice benefit at all times. After receiving Respondent's responses, HI forwarded the responses to AMR so that the AMR peer review physicians could evaluate the responses and amend any of their conclusions, as appropriate. While the peer review physicians agreed with Vitas' responses in certain limited instances, the peer review physicians mostly disagreed, and, as a result, HI prepared the FARs. The FARs were then submitted to, and approved by, CMS. CMS provided the FARs to AHCA with instructions that Florida was responsible for furnishing the FARs to Vitas and initiating any state recovery process needed to collect the overpayment. The FARs prepared by HI contain the determinations of the peer review physicians concerning whether each of the recipients at issue had a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less if their disease progressed at its normal course. The FARs concluded that 92 recipients were ineligible for at least a portion of their stay with a cumulative overpayment of $5,401,615.18. Vitas timely filed three petitions, one for each location, with AHCA's agency clerk. On or about February 6, 2017, AHCA referred the three cases to DOAH. On February 14, 2017, the undersigned entered an Order of Consolidation, and the three cases are now proceeding under DOAH Case number 17-0792MPI. During the course of the underlying proceeding, the parties first stipulated that 67 of the original 92 recipients identified in the FARs were at issue. Throughout the course of these proceedings, however, the parties have moved closer and disputed less ineligibility determinations. As a result, of the original 250 recipients' medical files reviewed, only 61 remain in dispute. AHCA now seeks the revised overpayment of $3,847,755.95, with a corresponding reduction in the fines of $906,715.29 for a grand total of $4,754,471.24. The Experts Due to the nature of the review and "re-review" process, the vast majority of the final hearing was comprised of the testimony of each parties' experts regarding whether particular recipients met the criteria of Medicaid hospice benefit eligibility. For each recipient, an AHCA and a Vitas expert reviewed the medical records and provided an opinion as to whether the six bullet points of the Handbook were satisfied to determine whether the recipient was "terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less if the disease runs its normal course." The following physician experts were tendered and accepted for AHCA: Dr. Talakkottur, Dr. Eisner, and Dr. Komatz.1/ The following physician experts were tendered and accepted for Vitas: Dr. Shega and Dr. Vermette. Because the determinations of whether a recipient met the applicable criteria are highly subjective, it is important to distinguish between the relative qualifications of the experts. AHCA's Experts Dr. Talakkottur Dr. Charles Talakkottur was presented by AHCA as an expert in internal medicine. He has maintained an active practice in Florida for over nine years and reviewed and issued his opinion as to the hospice eligibility of 76 recipient files in dispute. Of those 76 recipient files, Dr. Talakkottur initially determined that 59 recipients were ineligible for at least a portion of the period that Vitas billed for hospice Medicaid services. In subsequent reviews, Dr. Talakkottur overturned two more files, leaving 57 recipients ineligible for at least a portion of the Medicaid services billed by Respondent. As discussed above, negotiations continued between the parties during the course of the final hearing. This resulted in Dr. Talakkottur testifying about 48 of the remaining disputed recipients' Medicaid hospice eligibility. Dr. Talakkottur admits patients to hospice from his practice, which requires him to make the type of prognosis determination, such as those at issue in this proceeding. However, Dr. Talakkottur is not now nor ever has been board- certified in hospice and palliative medicine. He has never been a Certified Hospice Medical Director. He has never signed a certification for hospice eligibility nor worked for a hospice. Dr. Talakkottur's practice is named TLC Medical, Aesthetics & Pain Management. The website for his practice shows that he provides Botox, IPL Photofacial, Juvederm/Dermal Fillers, Laser Hair Removal, Medical Marijuana, Medical Services, Medical Weight Loss, Medicare Doctor in Tampa, and Pain Management. Although advertised on his website, Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged he is not certified to provide medical marijuana treatment. Neither Dr. Talakkottur's practice website nor his practice YouTube page advertise hospice or end-of-life care services. Dr. Talakkottur never discussed the Handbook with anyone at AHCA. He did not receive any training from AHCA, CMS, HI, or NMR on how to perform the audit. Dr. Talakkottur was provided certain instructions from NMR on how to perform his reviews. The instructions state, "Please do not break up a certification period with partially approved/partially denied dates (i.e. if certification period is 01/01/2015 through 02/01/2015, and any dates within that period are deemed medically necessary, please approve the entire certification period)." Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged, however, that he did not follow this instruction. Dr. Talakkottur's testimony regarding the many patients he reviewed clarifies that he applied the six bullet points from the Handbook to his reviews of both certification and recertification decisions. However, the six bullet points are prefaced with a paragraph beginning: "Documentation to support the terminal prognosis must accompany the initial certification of terminal illness." In other words, the six bullet points are not applicable to recertification decisions. A patient must still have a prognosis of less than six months to be recertified, but the six bullet points no longer represent the appropriate factors. In fact, the Handbook clarifies that "[f]or subsequent election periods, written certification from the hospice medical director or physician member of the interdisciplinary group is required." In light of this clear distinction, deference to the clinical judgment of the hospice physicians becomes more significant for recertification periods. Dr. Talakkottur did not lend any credence to the "real-time" decisions of the hospice physicians. Instead, Dr. Talakkottur sought out ways to deny coverage and frequently based his decisions on bullet points that the patient was not required to satisfy to support eligibility. Dr. Talakkottur opined that he would not want to consider a patient's severity of comorbidities when prognosticating six months life expectancy or less. He often reviewed patients myopically, considering only the primary diagnosis. By way of explanation, he opined that in his professional opinion taking into account comorbidities was wrong because a condition such as an "ant bite" or a scratch is a comorbidity. In contrast, the other experts in this proceeding convincingly testified that the patient's whole condition should be evaluated in determining the prognosis of life expectancy of six months or less, including the presence and severity of comorbidities. Although Dr. Talakkottur was properly selected as a peer reviewer and qualified as an expert in internal medicine, his testimony was deemed less credible than that of the Vitas medical experts, Dr. Shega and Dr. Vermette. Dr. Eisner Dr. Eisner performed the peer review for 13 recipients, 12 of whom remain in dispute. Dr. Eisner's background is in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He held a board certification in internal medicine between 1993 and 2003. In 1995, Dr. Eisner was board-certified in gastroenterology, a board certification that he continues to maintain. At some point around 2003, the certification standards changed such that Dr. Eisner was no longer required to maintain his board certification in internal medicine in order to remain board- certified in gastroenterology. Since 1995, 100 percent of Dr. Eisner's practice has been focused on gastroenterology. Dr. Eisner routinely makes life expectancy prognostications for his patients. Further, Dr. Eisner also refers patients to hospice on a regular basis. In so doing, Dr. Eisner is called upon to make the type of prognosis determination similar to those at issue in this proceeding. Dr. Eisner does not treat patients for the following specific diseases: diabetes, hypertension, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ("COPD"), HIV/AIDS, cerebral degeneration, cerebral vascular disease, cardiovascular disease, malignant neoplasm of the brain, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer's, adult failure to thrive, or debility. He was only familiar with those diseases as comorbidities to a principal diagnosis related to a gastroenterological disease and does not treat those primary diseases. While cardiology, critical care, geriatric, infectious disease, medical oncology, and pulmonary disease are also subspecialties of internal medicine, Dr. Eisner has not done a fellowship in any subspecialty other than gastroenterology and does not hold himself out as an expert in any internal medicine subspecialty other than gastroenterology. Dr. Eisner did not recall receiving any instructions other than the Handbook but acknowledged he did not read the entire Handbook to perform his review. Dr. Eisner was not aware of what documentation must accompany the initial certification for a terminal disease for Medicaid hospice purposes or what documentation must accompany a subsequent certification for Medicaid hospice purposes. Contrary to the testimony of Dr. Talakkottur, Dr. Eisner acknowledged that the presence and severity of comorbidities should be considered when making a clinical determination of life expectancy of six months or more. Although Dr. Eisner was qualified both as a peer reviewer and an expert in this proceeding, his lack of any recent experience in a practice area other than gastroenterology diminished the weight given to his testimony concerning non- gastroenterology related illnesses and conditions. Dr. Komatz Dr. Komatz re-reviewed the records of one recipient that remains in dispute. Dr. Komatz holds an active Florida medical license and is board-certified in pediatrics and hospice and palliative medicine. She has been board-certified in hospice and palliative medicine since 2010. As part of her practice, Dr. Komatz currently cares for hospice patients, refers patients to hospice, and certifies patients for hospice care. According to Dr. Komatz, when determining the eligibility of a patient for hospice, a practitioner must look at the patient's overall level of function, medications, and needs regarding such things as the use of oxygen and equipment to assist with daily living. The determination is then made taking into account these and other factors regarding the patient's current state. In her professional opinion, it is not uncommon to see a patient who has a prognosis of six months or less actually live for longer than six months. Significantly, Dr. Komatz opined as an expert for AHCA that it is important for a physician to be board-certified in hospice and palliative care in order to be competent to review a hospice record because the hospice training teaches the practitioner more about disease trajectory, the interdisciplinary team and how that works in conjunction with the patient. It also provides experience as to how hospice operates in general. In addition, she noted that the person best able to determine hospice eligibility is someone who has been trained in hospice care and/or practices in that field on a regular basis. Dr. Komatz acknowledged that it is possible that two physicians could review the same medical records and reach different conclusions about the hospice eligibility of a patient. When reviewing the initial certification requirements, Dr. Komatz stated that most hospice beneficiaries forego further laboratory or radiologic studies. She also opined that the condition of hospice patients can plateau or improve due to the hospice care being received. Likewise, it would not be fair to look for a progression of functional decline in a patient if the patient was already at the lowest functional level. She stated that "specific documentation that indicates the recipient has entered an end-stage of a chronic disease" is vague and is merely a summary of the other specific initial certification requirements. Consequently, most of the six bullet points are rarely applicable. Dr. Komatz stated that to be eligible for hospice services, a patient need not meet all the initial certification six bullet points, but instead it is a "totality of circumstances" standard based on the medical record of the patient. Dr. Komatz worked as a subcontractor for NMR. She only communicated with NMR personnel regarding the audit. She had no contact with HI or AHCA. Dr. Komatz was provided the NMR instruction sheet, which instructs reviewers not to break up certification periods to perform her review. Dr. Komatz was qualified both as a peer reviewer and an expert in this case. Due to her regular and direct experience in hospice and palliative care, her testimony, particularly as to prognostication of life expectancy and the practice of hospice and palliative care generally, was given great weight. Vitas' Experts Dr. Shega Dr. Shega was accepted as an expert in hospice and palliative care and geriatric medicine. He is the National Medical Director for Vitas. In that role, he oversees the four regional directors, as well as the medical directors that report to them, and also oversees physician services. Dr. Shega testified regarding the disputed recipients in the Melbourne and Boynton Beach programs. Dr. Shega attended Northwestern University Medical School, performed his residency and internship at the University of Pittsburgh, and performed a two-year academic fellowship in geriatric medicine at the University of Chicago. He is board- certified in geriatrics and hospice and palliative medicine. He is licensed to practice medicine in Florida and Illinois and actively treats hospice patients roughly six to eight weeks per year. Dr. Shega is currently an associate professor of medicine at the University of Central Florida. Prior to that, he has held positions as an associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, an assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and an instructor of medicine at the University of Chicago. While at Northwestern, he was the director of its hospice program for several years and also worked in a hospice as a team physician for the University of Chicago. Dr. Shega was part of the University of Chicago leadership committee in geriatrics and palliative medicine where he helped to oversee its clinical operations. He has also served on numerous geriatric and hospice-related committees. Dr. Shega is a member of the American Geriatric Society and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, and through being an associate editor for the "Pain and Aging" section of Pain Medicine, has a membership to the American Pain Society. He currently performs one to two teaching presentations a week across the country and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles on topics related to hospice and palliative care. Dr. Shega was recently the co-managing editor of a nine-book series that discusses the background of hospice and palliative care, pain management, non-pain symptoms, psychological and social symptoms, pediatric care, and chronic illnesses and end- of-life illnesses, congenital hyperinsulinism ("CHI"), COPD, dementia, renal disease, and neurologic disorders. Dr. Shega was qualified as an expert in this case. Due to his regular and direct experience in hospice and palliative care, his testimony, particularly as to prognostication of life expectancy, and the practice of hospice and palliative care generally, was given great weight. However, the credibility given to Dr. Shega's testimony was tempered by the fact that he is directly employed by Vitas and was involved in overseeing or facilitating Vitas' response to the DARs, wherein Vitas contested every finding and sought reimbursement for every alleged overpayment. Dr. Vermette Dr. Vermette was accepted as an expert in hospice and palliative care, and family medicine. During the final hearing, he testified regarding the disputed recipients in the Dade program. Dr. Vermette is the Vitas Medical Director for the Claims Review Group. In that capacity, his duties are to review charts and perform support and training of other medical directors and physicians throughout the country in how to review charts and documentation. Dr. Vermette attended medical school at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. He then attended a three-year residency program in family medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston followed by service in the military as a medical doctor, achieving the rank of Major. Dr. Vermette is licensed to practice medicine in a number of states, including Florida. He is board-certified in family medicine and hospice and palliative medicine. He is also certified as a Hospice Medical Director, which is designed to recognize expertise in hospice and palliative medicine. Dr. Vermette is certified as a registered medical auditor. Dr. Vermette has held faculty positions as a clinical instructor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska, a clinical preceptor for Texas A&M University and the University of North Texas, and currently serves as a volunteer faculty member at the Drexel School of Medicine and a voluntary clinical instructor at the Mercy Health System in Philadelphia. Dr. Vermette currently has staff privileges to provide hospice and palliative care medicine at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, Mercy Hospital, and Methodist Hospital in Philadelphia. In 1998, Dr. Vermette began referring patients to hospice and following them as their attending physician. In 2009, Dr. Vermette began working part-time for Vitas and routinely followed patients in the inpatient units ("IPUs") in Fort Worth. He would spend two out of every four weeks rounding and seeing hospice patients in the IPU. He then began doing some of the call activities, some home team visits, and participating in interdisciplinary care team meetings. He moved to Philadelphia in 2012 and continued treating Vitas hospice patients. At that time, he also began performing chart reviews for Vitas. Dr. Vermette sought licensure to practice in Florida shortly after Vitas became aware of this audit and that his pursuit of licensure in Florida was intended to facilitate his provision of expert witness services in this case. Dr. Vermette admitted that, even though he is licensed in Florida, he has never treated nor evaluated a single patient in Florida. In fact, the first time that Dr. Vermette read the Handbook was as part of his preparation to testify in this case. Dr. Vermette was qualified as an expert in this case. However, like the testimony of Dr. Shega, the credibility given to Dr. Vermette's testimony was tempered by the fact that he is directly employed by Vitas and was involved in overseeing or facilitating Vitas' response to the DARs, wherein Vitas contested every finding and sought reimbursement for every alleged overpayment. SPECIFIC CLAIMS FOR RECIPIENTS AT ISSUE Patient 2, D.A.2/ Melbourne Recipients Patient D.A. was a 48-year-old female, admitted to hospice on 07/15/09, with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage HIV/AIDS. The claim periods at issue are 09/01/09 to 09/12/09 and 02/15/10 to 05/31/10. D.A. was evaluated face-to-face by Dr. Peterson, the Associate Medical Director for Vitas, on 07/14/09, the day before her admission. Based on his clinical assessment, he determined the patient was hospice appropriate because she had HIV/AIDS, debility, and failure to thrive, with significant recent weight loss, and dysphagia, secondary to esophageal candidiasis.3/ D.A. was admitted to hospice with two active infections, profound weight loss over the previous two- to three-month period (per her self-reporting), peripheral neuropathy, lethargy, and fatigue; she spent most of her time in bed. She had discontinued her antiretroviral HIV-targeted treatment. She was noted to have a BMI of 18 at the time, which is considered severe malnutrition and which negatively impacted her prognosis. On admission, D.A. reported 10 of 10 pain in both legs from her HIV-related peripheral neuropathy. She was described as thin, cachectic (physical wasting with loss of weight and muscle mass due to disease), and had difficulty ambulating. D.A. was also noted to have a medical history of syncope (fainting), urinary tract infections ("UTIs"), and fractures. D.A. was started on medications for the infections, Mycelex for thrush, and Bactrim double-strength for her lung infection. D.A.'s blood work was done on 07/16/09, which showed the patient had a CD4 count of 89. Dr. Shega testified that while her CD4 count was above 25, given D.A.'s clinical status, hospice care was appropriate because the patient was more than likely at end-stage HIV/AIDS. After her July admission, D.A. started gaining weight with the support of the Vitas interdisciplinary team. She had no recurrent refractory infection and the status of her fractures improved as well. D.A.'s clinical status improved such that at the end of the first 90-day period, she no longer could be evaluated with a prognosis of six months or less, and was discharged on 09/12/09. D.A. was readmitted to hospice on 02/15/10 with a diagnosis of end-stage HIV/ADIS. At that time, D.A. was lethargic, weak, had a flat affect and responded with one-word answers. She required assistance with bathing and ambulating, and had a PPS score of 50 percent.4/ On 02/26/10, D.A. was noted to have some secretions and dyspnea (shortness of breath) with exertion. She was believed to have a recurrence of thrush and was started on Mycelex troches. On a 03/02/10 physician visit, the patient was noted to have difficulty swallowing, decreased ability to ambulate, was slightly confused, and displayed white patches on her oral pharynx, suggestive of candidiasis. A subsequent physician evaluation on 03/19/10 noted D.A. was suffering from a severe sore throat, weighed 96 pounds, and had a poor appetite, low blood pressure, and ongoing significant loss of muscle mass. On 05/17/10, D.A. was noted to have a temperature of 99.7, shortness of breath, thrush, and was placed on medication to help with her discomfort. On 05/31/10, a nurse saw D.A. and noted her weight had dropped to 94 pounds, her PPS declined to 40 percent. A hospital bed was ordered because the patient was spending 90 percent of the time in bed, due to fatigue and weakness. Dr. Eisner testified that this patient was not Medicaid hospice eligible because her candidal esophagitis is a treatable condition, it was treated, and her PPS score improved and she gained weight. Further, Dr. Eisner pointed out some likely inaccuracies in the recorded weights of D.A. However, Dr. Eisner provided an opinion regarding this patient outside his expertise as shown by his inability to provide any specific indicators with regard to prognosticating if an HIV/AIDS patient had six months or less to live. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that D.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 3, D.G. Patient D.G. was a 48-year-old female who was admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of debility unspecified. Debility is a condition similar to "failure to thrive," which usually denotes a patient with poor conditioning due to multiple medical problems. The dates at issue are 09/30/09 to 10/20/09 and 11/12/09 to 12/25/09. D.G. was hospitalized on three occasions within several months of her initial hospice admission. At the second hospital admission on 09/15/09, she experienced respiratory failure requiring intubation and a tracheostomy and was placed on a ventilator, secondary to influenza and pneumonia. She experienced a myocardial infarction (heart attack or "MI"), acute renal failure requiring dialysis, and had multiple infections. She required a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ("PEG") tube for feeding and a dialysis catheter. D.G. was placed in a skilled nursing facility upon the second hospital discharge, but soon signed out against medical advice and refused further dialysis. On 09/23/09, she was readmitted to the hospital with bacteremia, secondary to her dialysis catheter being infected. In addition, she had a UTI and a skin infection on her abdomen. While hospitalized, D.G. displayed an extremely high potassium level, which could trigger ventricular arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). Her hospital physician deemed her to be hospice appropriate and referred her to hospice. Upon initial evaluation, the admitting nurse was unsure how to most appropriately list D.G.'s terminal diagnosis, as her multiple comorbidities included a left leg amputation above the knee due to severe peripheral vascular disease; ongoing dry gangrene on her right leg and foot; coronary artery disease resulting in a recent heart attack; renal failure requiring dialysis; COPD with recent respiratory failure from pneumonia; and Crohn's disease, requiring multiple surgeries. The terminal diagnosis of debility unspecified was deemed the most appropriate. When admitted to hospice on 09/30/09, Patient D.G. was very ill and in substantial pain, requiring increased pain medication. Shortly after admission, D.G. developed a change in level of consciousness. Patient D.G. suffered a seizure on 10/20/09. Her family revoked hospice care, and D.G. was transferred back to the hospital for more aggressive treatment. On 11/10/09, D.G. again presented to the hospital emergency room ("ER"), this time with abdominal pain and right lower extremity pain, confusion, and a low albumin of 3.0. D.G. was supposed to follow up with hospice, but did not do so. She was found to have a PPS of 40 percent, was disoriented, and was at risk of aspiration. She also had an ongoing ulcer on her right leg from the peripheral vascular disease with gangrene. D.G. returned to the ER the following day, 11/11/09, and at that time, was admitted to the hospital. Upon hospital admission, D.G. had a PPS of 30 percent and a BMI of 23. She was disoriented, lethargic, had shortness of breath at rest or minimal exertion, and had lower extremity edema on the right side with a foot ulcer. She was now on oxygen, two to three liters. On 11/12/09, D.G. was transferred from the hospital to the Vitas IPU for symptom management of uncontrolled pain, agitation, anxiety, and wound care. D.G. was diagnosed with debility and failure to thrive due to the multitude of medical conditions noted above. During the months prior to this second hospice admission, she had undergone serial physician assessments and laboratory and radiologic studies. She had also had multiple admissions to the hospital and ER. Over the course of the second hospice period, D.G. had a PPS of 40 percent, then a PPS score of less than 40 percent, and finally, a PPS score of 30 percent. Dr. Shega testified that a patient's PPS score of 30 or 40 percent is supportive of a prognosis of six months or less, if the illness runs its normal course. After a brief stay in the Vitas IPU, D.G. returned home for care. On 12/04/09, she was dependent in 5 of 6 ADLs. On 12/11/09, her dry gangrene converted to wet gangrene and additional medication was started. She became lethargic and was given antibiotics, but her condition worsened, and she was transferred back to the IPU with a 10 of 10 pain, and low-grade fever. D.G. met specific indicators of "rapid decline and disease progression" from the LCD for debility. She exhibited dependence in more than 3 of 6 ADLs, a PPS below 70 percent, recurrent infections, worsening pressure wounds, increased pain, increased respiratory symptoms, and changes in lucidity. At final hearing, Dr. Eisner testified that D.G. "improved to the point that hospice was revoked on 12/25/09." Dr. Eisner was incorrect, however, because the record reflects D.G. was placed back in hospice IPU on 12/24/09, as she continued to deteriorate, refused evaluation by staff and threatened to call the police if wound care was attempted. The following day, D.G. revoked hospice a second time and went back to the hospital to seek aggressive treatment. Dr. Eisner concluded that D.G. did not meet the standard of six or less months to live; rather, D.G. suffered from a chronic condition, Crohn's Disease. However, this does not account for D.G.'s multitude of significant comorbidities. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that D.G. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 6, J.R. Patient J.R. was a 58-year-old male with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart failure. The claim period at issue is only one week, 01/24/11 to 01/31/11. During the period at issue, J.R. suffered NYHA Class IV heart failure. Class IV is the worst classification and supportive of hospice appropriateness. J.R. had a PPS of 50 percent and had active symptoms that supported a life expectancy of six months or less if the illness ran its normal course. Dr. Eisner credibly testified that by 01/24/11, J.R. had improved to a point that his life expectancy was greater than six months. J.R.'s disease was no longer progressing to the point of impairment, and his functional capacity had improved. However, AHCA approved benefits for Patient J.R. for the time frame 04/19/10 through 01/23/11. The one-week time frame at issue fell within the last 60-day benefit period approved by AHCA, which began on 12/15/10. According to the instruction provided to the reviewers, this week must be approved. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that J.R. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 7, R.A. Patient R.A. was a 59-year-old male with a terminal diagnosis of COPD who was admitted to Respondent's care on 03/21/11. The dates at issue are less than two months, from 03/21/11 to 05/01/11 and 05/04/11 to 05/16/11. R.A. had a medical history of non-small cell lung cancer, which had been treated with chemotherapy and radiation. He also had a history of hypertension, depression, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, chronic back pain, gastroesophageal reflux, and seizures. The precipitating event leading to his hospice admission was a hospitalization for pneumonia. At the time of discharge from the hospital, the original plan was for R.A. to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility. The hospital had trouble finding a skilled nursing facility willing to take the recipient because of his social problems, so it appears the hospice placement was a placement of convenience as indicated in a physician's visit note dated 03/28/11, where it was noted, "Case manager is involved in the case to help him out and for possible placement. We will continue with the present medications at this point." In fact, R.A. told Vitas' staff that he would like to have an aid to help him with ADLs and his medications until he gets better, and Vitas' staff suggested R.A. should be referred for home care services. R.A. lived alone. Instead, R.A. entered hospice care. The initial certification documentation incorrectly indicated that R.A. had end-stage lung cancer; however, he had previously been diagnosed with lung cancer, which was in remission at the time of his hospice admission. R.A. revoked hospice care to return to the hospital for aggressive treatment of pneumonia. The certification documentation for R.A.'s second admission again incorrectly listed R.A. as having an end-stage diagnosis of lung cancer, despite the recipient telling Respondent that he was negative for cancer during his first admission. Respondent's certifying physician stated there was a new finding of mediastinal lymphadenopathy, a swelling of the lymph glands in the chest areas, which could be consistent with a reoccurrence of his primary process. Dr. Talakkottur, however, explained that R.A.'s lymph glands could have been enlarged for a number of reasons, such as if he had a cold, a blockage of lymph fluid, or pneumonia. Because R.A. had been suffering from bouts with pneumonia, enlarged lymph glands was not conclusive evidence of a reoccurrence of lung cancer. The initial nursing assessment prepared 05/04/11, notes that R.A. had been diagnosed during his last hospitalization with pneumonia and was complaining of cough and congestion. A nurse noted in her assessment that the recipient continued to express his desire to live alone, but she noted he may need a higher level of care. Dr. Talakkottur credibly testified that this recipient did not suffer from a terminal illness; rather, R.A. suffered from a chronic disease-—COPD. He had been diagnosed with COPD five years prior to his first hospice admission. R.A. was sick, but he was not likely to expire within the next six months. He just needed assistance with minor care, housekeeping, and occasionally with ADLs. He was not hospice appropriate and could have been served in a home health setting. The medical records contained in this recipient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $20,467.42.5/ Patient 8, T.F.C. Patient T.F.C. was a 57-year-old female with a terminal diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the corpus uteri. The dates at issue are 06/16/11 to 02/21/12. T.F.C. was diagnosed on 04/25/11 with high-grade serous adenocarcinoma by her treating oncologist. Her uterus and one of her fallopian tubes were removed due to cancer. After surgery, she was seen as an oncology outpatient during May 2011. On 06/12/11, T.F.C. presented to the ER with low back pain, which was not relieved with morphine. Her computed tomography ("CT") scan revealed severe left-side hydronephrosis, hydroureter, left pelvis and a spiculated soft tissue, whose density measured 3 x 2 centimeters. During the dates at issue, her PPS ranged from 40 to 60 percent, although she required increased pain medication and experienced three infections. She had a series of physician assessments and lab work, both while in the hospital and on outpatient visits. Dr. Shega testified that an oncologist from MD Anderson Cancer Center referred T.F.C. to hospice. There is, however, no file evidence to support this testimony, and it is difficult to understand how Dr. Shega knew this fact to be true. The only certification was that of the written certification prepared by Vitas' physician. Dr. Rebecca Moroose of MD Anderson Cancer Center of Orlando saw T.F.C. on 11/02/11. In her progress note, Dr. Moroose reflected upon the T.F.C's severe left hydronephrosis while hospitalized in June, which was believed to be associated with a mass "suspicious for recurrence." Dr. Moroose further reported that since being on hospice care, T.F.C. had excellent symptom control and that most of her pain was associated with her midline abdominal surgical scar and an associated mass found. Dr. Moroose planned to contact Vitas for clearance to obtain a CT imaging of the abdomen to reassess T.F.C.'s disease. On 11/07/11, a CT of her abdomen and pelvis with contrast, was performed and a comparison made to CT of June 2011. Two masses were discussed and compared to the earlier study. The seroma in the anterior abdominal wall of her vertical midline surgical incision was stable and felt not to represent a malignancy but rather a benign fluid collection. The second mass was much less conspicuous in the current study and represented a significant reduction in size compared to the previous study and was believed to possibly represent fibrotic tissue or residual disease. No clear evidence exists from the hospital records and/or MD Anderson Cancer Center that either mass is a definite recurrence of the disease. T.F.C.'s functional status remained static during her first admission. She was able to feed herself, her BMI was consistent with obesity, she could make her needs known, and when the nursing notes assessed her cognitive function, the recipient was consistently reported to be alert and oriented "times three." T.F.C. often reported her pain as zero, on a scale of zero to ten, and her PPS was between 40 and 60 percent. T.F.C. had no inpatient or continuous care stays while in hospice. T.F.C.'s need for increased pain medication appears to be related to issues she was having with her bladder, including kidney stones. She revoked hospice care on 02/21/12, to go to the hospital, to be treated for pain in her abdomen, which was related to kidney stones. Additionally, while in the hospital, she underwent a procedure to insert a stent to facilitate urination. Although T.F.C. had a history of bladder and UTIs, none of Vitas' recertifications or addenda to the recertifications report the recipient having either a bladder or UTI during the disputed period. Although T.F.C. suffered from a terminal illness, the medical records for this recipient do not support a diagnosis of six months or less if the disease runs its normal course. As Dr. Talakkottur testified, the medical records do not demonstrate a clinical progression of the terminal illness. During the period in dispute, T.F.C.'s condition overall remained static. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this patient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $36,221.03. Patient 9, A.J. Patient A.J. was a 74-year-old female with end-stage cerebral degeneration, with two recent hospitalizations prior to hospice admission. The dates at issue are 09/01/10 to 04/22/12. Upon admission to Vitas hospice, A.J. had a PPS of 30 percent and was dependent for 6 of 6 ADLs, with a FAST score of 7c. A.J. had an altered level of consciousness and was at high risk of aspiration. A.J. had a history of strokes and transient ischemic attacks ("TIA" or "mini-strokes"), with encephalomalacia in the left frontal and right thalamus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, increased lipids, dementia, psychosis with hallucinations, anemia, diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, a history of gastrointestinal ("GI") bleed, and peripheral vascular disease. In terms of her functional state at initial certification, A.J. was bedbound, not fully capable of following commands, had sarcopenia (muscle wasting) in all four extremities, was very feeble, lethargic and oriented times zero, which meant she did not know who she was, where she was, or when it was. During the period at issue, A.J.'s PPS remained at 30 percent, she was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, her FAST score was always above 7, she was oriented to zero or one, and she was incontinent. A.J. had several infections during this time frame. A FAST score above 7 in a dementia patient is consistent with a terminal prognosis, according to the LCDs. Dr. Talakkottur testified that, in his opinion, A.J.'s condition was chronic, not end-stage. His opinion was based on his evaluation that A.J. did not decline during her stay in hospice. Dr. Shega, with ten years' experience as co-director of the Memory Disorders Clinic at the University of Chicago, strongly disagreed, opining that based on her medical history, including two recent hospitalizations, and the evaluation upon admission, A.J.'s dementia was end-stage. During her hospice stay, she continued to lose weight, had temporal wasting and muscle loss, began to experience contractures, and was sleeping more. Furthermore, citing the medical literature, Dr. Shega opined that A.J.'s health did decline in light of her three infections. Two weeks after her initial admission to hospice, A.J. was placed on continuous care due to nausea and vomiting, with no oral intake for two days. Later that same month, she was admitted to a hospital while remaining on hospice. A.J. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. As noted above, she had a FAST score of 7c, which indicates she was speaking six words or fewer, was 6 of 6 ADLs, and was incontinent. While A.J.'s time in hospice stay was certainly longer than anticipated, a review of her complete medical history presented a dementia patient with a prognosis of six months or less should the disease run its normal course, and she continued to decline. A.J. clearly met the criteria for admission to hospice for the dates at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.J. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 10, M.A. Patient M.A. was a 56-year-old male with end-stage liver disease and end-stage COPD. The period in dispute is 10/10/10 to 04/30/11. M.A. had been hospitalized twice just prior to hospice admission, the first for 13 days beginning 08/03/10, with a second admission on 08/30/10. M.A. was hospitalized the second time with chest pain and dyspnea. M.A. remained in the hospital (almost six weeks) until referred to hospice by his hospital physician due to abdominal pain and ascites. Ascites, the accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity, causing abdominal swelling, can occur as a result of liver failure. M.A.'s medical history included end-stage liver cirrhosis, chronic COPD, a history of GI bleed, esophageal varices, portal hypertension, alcohol abuse, diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, anemia, coronary artery disease, and a left frontal cerebrovascular accident ("CVA" or stroke). In Dr. Talakkottur's opinion, Patient M.A. did not have end-stage liver disease because, in part, there was no report of blood in the stool or of vomiting blood. Although Dr. Talakkottur asserted ascites was not present in this patient, on cross-examination, he acknowledged ascites was noted in January 2011. In fact, M.A. was referred to hospice directly from an extended hospital stay for abdominal pain and ascites. Dr. Talakkottur also testified that M.A. had not been prescribed Lasix or Aldactone for ascites during his hospice stay. Dr. Shega, however, testified to the patient's substantial ascites, despite his being given a very high dose of diuretics, including Aldactone. Contrary to Dr. Talakkottur's testimony, the draft audit report acknowledges M.A. also had ascites on 12/29/10 and in March and April 2011. Dr. Shega opined that although M.A. did not specifically meet the LCDs for end-stage liver disease alone, the fact that he also had end- stage COPD, in combination with his substantial symptom burden, refractory ascites, and encephalopathy with forgetfulness, which worsened over the patient's stay, made the patient appropriate for hospice. M.A. exhibited shortness of breath at rest and with activity and was on 3.5L oxygen per nasal cannula. Over the course of the period at issue, M.A.'s dependency for ADLs generally trended higher, as did his level of pain, while his cognitive status worsened. The recertification signed on 03/24/11 reported cachexia and muscle wasting. While upon admission M.A. could walk a handful of steps by himself, by the end of the period, he was essentially bedbound. M.A.'s health clearly declined over the period at issue. Given his history of recent, lengthy hospitalizations, his numerous comorbidities with significant symptom burden, and his decline in functional status, M.A. clearly met the criteria for admission to hospice for the dates at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 11, D.C. Patient D.C. was a 47-year-old female with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The three claim periods at issue are 12/21/10 to 02/10/11; 04/25/12 to 07/16/12; and 10/04/12 to 12/29/12. D.C. had a longstanding diagnosis of refractory Crohn's disease. At the time of her appropriateness evaluation in December 2010, she resided in a nursing home, which would have required a physician's order to agree that the patient was hospice appropriate. She had a PPS of 40 percent, was dependent in 2 of 6 ADLs, weighed 103 pounds, and suffered from alopecia (loss of hair). Her pain level was 7 of 10. Prior to admission to hospice, D.C. had been hospitalized twice in 2010, the first time in March for sepsis and endocarditis, and the second time on 07/30/10, for GI surgery, with complications of three fistulas, which placed her at high risk for infection. D.C.'s comorbidities included protein-calorie malnutrition, ongoing abdominal pain, anemia, reactive airway disease, neuropathy, peptic ulcer, a history of duodenal ulcer and GI bleed, ileostomy, depression, peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, and cellulitis. The patient was very hesitant to eat, as food equaled pain. During the course of her first certification period, D.C.'s medical condition stabilized, and she was discharged on 02/10/11 due to an extended prognosis. Upon D.C.'s second hospice admission, her PPS was 40 percent, she was dependent on 5 of 6 ADLs, with a recent loss of weight and a BMI of 21.6. Her pain was recorded at 7 of 10 and she had developed a stage 2 sacral wound, in addition to two wounds on her abdomen. Her comorbidities remained the same as at the first admission, with the exception of a benign tumor above her heart, which was removed. During the course of her second certification period, Patient D.C.'s medical condition again stabilized and she was discharged on 07/16/12 due to an extended prognosis. Upon admission to hospice the third time, D.C.'s comorbidities remained the same. Her PPS score was 40 percent. In early December 2012, however, D.C. began to develop paranoia, was agitated and anxious, and required continuous care to have her antipsychotic medication titrated. On 12/15/12, D.C. fell and again was placed on continuous care for her paranoia and the fall. On 12/25/12, D.C. was involuntarily committed to the Halifax Hospital psychiatric unit. Her mother requested she be returned to the Halifax ER on 12/29/12 for a worsening altered mental state, at which time she was described as unresponsive. Her family revoked the hospice benefit, and D.C. was transferred to an inpatient hospice house in another program closer to the family's home. Dr. Talakkottur testified Crohn's Disease is a chronic disease and one could live for 20 to 30 years or more. Crohn's Disease is characterized by periods of dormancy or being well- controlled and periods of exacerbation. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the first admission, D.C. had already lived 39 years with the disease. Dr. Shega testified he believed that D.C. was hospice appropriate for each of the three periods in dispute due to her chronic condition, coupled with recent infections and weight loss. However, Dr. Shega admitted that it is common for a person suffering from Crohn's Disease to have weight fluctuations. Moreover, Dr. Shega admitted that many of the weight measurements in D.C.'s medical records were unreliable. D.C. met all applicable criteria for admission to hospice for the first period in dispute. However, as to the second and third periods in dispute, Dr. Talakkottur more credibly testified that D.C.'s medical records did not support an end-stage progression of any kind of disease; rather, she experienced exacerbations of her chronic illness, which she has had for the preceding 39 years prior to her hospice admission. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services during the second and third periods in dispute and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment in an amount to be determined. Patient 12, C.W. Patient C.W. was a 42-year-old male with a history of stroke in 2003 and a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. The dates at issue are 02/17/10 to 01/05/11 and 01/31/11 to 05/23/11. In 2003, seven years prior to his hospice admission, C.W. experienced a stroke. Additionally, since 2006, C.W. had cardiomyopathy, which is a disease of the heart reflective of an ejection fraction ("EF") of 35 percent or less. Dr. Shega opined that although the stroke was in 2003, it "could have left him extremely debilitated." Furthermore, C.W. also suffered from HIV, heart failure, and had been recently hospitalized for the removal of skin lesions in his groin area prior to his first admission. C.W. was discharged from his first admission for extended prognosis. For the second admission, Dr. Shega testified that C.W. had experienced a urinary tract infection ("UTI") precipitating his readmission to hospice. Ultimately, C.W. was discharged for extended prognosis, and Dr. Shega stated C.W. was appropriate for discharge because although C.W. had a couple of acute conditions during this stay, his weight and functional status stabilized, he did not have another infection, and he did not show any other decline. Dr. Talakkottur credibly opined that C.W. experienced issues related to his stroke and cardiomyopathy for quite some time prior to his admission to hospice. Therefore, C.W. had not experienced any change in health to warrant admission to hospice. While C.W. suffered from HIV, Dr. Talakkottur testified his HIV viral load was undetectable, meaning the viruses in his bloodstream were very low. Furthermore, Dr. Talakkottur opined that C.W.'s comorbidity of HIV was of no concern because the recipient also continued to receive his highly active antiretroviral therapy. Dr. Talakkottur further opined with respect to C.W.'s second admission that a UTI is not an indicator of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. C.W. had a Foley catheter, and it is common for recipients with a Foley catheter to develop UTIs. The medical records contained in this patient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that C.W. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services during either period in dispute and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $61,721.28. Patient 13, J.M. Patient J.M. was a 59-year-old male with a longstanding history of medical noncompliance with treatment plans and substance abuse, who was admitted with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage COPD after six ER visits or hospitalizations in just over six months. The dates at issue are 03/29/12 to 06/15/12 and 08/31/12 to 12/31/12. J.M.'s PPS upon admission was 50 percent, and he had shortness of breath at rest and exertion. His comorbidities included known fatty liver with history of ascites, CVA times two, UTIs, diabetes type 2, gastritis, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, heart failure with diastolic dysfunction in left ventricular with amyloidosis, myocardial infarction ("MI" or "heart attack") times two, pulmonary embolism, obesity, and bipolar disorder. J.M. suffered from COPD for many years preceding his hospice admission. He used oxygen on an as-needed basis, preceding and during his hospice stay. J.M. was also a polysubstance abuser. Dr. Talakkottur opined that J.M.'s issues were not the result of a progression of his terminal illness; rather, his decline was associated with his substance abuse. When J.M. was not abusing drugs and was compliant with his medication for his COPD, he had a good quality of life. Conversely, when he abused drugs and was noncompliant with his medication for COPD, he seemed to decline more. Dr. Shega testified that J.M.'s six ER visits/hospitalizations factored into his opinion that the recipient's COPD was end-stage. The nurse completing the Appropriateness Evaluation form noted under hospitalizations that the recipient visits a hospital at least monthly. The recipient tested positive for cocaine during those hospitalizations. The hospital attributed J.M.'s abdominal pain to cocaine use during the latter visit. Dr. Shega testified it was known that J.M. was a controlled substance abuser, particularly cocaine. Although J.M. suffered from a chronic illness, the medical records do not support a diagnosis of six months or less if the disease ran its normal course. Instead, as Dr. Talakkottur testified, the medical records demonstrate J.M. had an issue with medication compliance. For instance, nurses routinely had to remind J.M. to take his nebulizer treatment. However, when he took his medication, he appeared to have no respiratory distress and the intervention was effective. The medical records contained in J.M.'s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that J.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $31,736.82. Patient 16, M.W. Patient M.W. was a 61-year-old female diagnosed with multiple sclerosis ("MS"). The claim periods at issue are 08/26/11 to 08/14/12 and 12/16/12 to 12/31/12. The patient's comorbidities included multiple basal cancer cell removals, arthritis, a history of gallstones, ileus, depression, osteoporosis, COPD, and glaucoma. MS is a condition that affects the neurological system. There are different kinds of MS, yet the most common type is called relapsing-remitting MS, which affects 80 percent of MS recipients. A patient with relapsing-remitting MS is similar to patients with other chronic illnesses in that a patient will have events or flare-ups that may occur roughly every 12 to 18 months or more. MS affects the quality of life more than it affects the quantity of life. M.W. suffered from MS since she was 34 years old, so she had dealt with the effects of MS for 27 years. Dr. Shega opined that this recipient was hospice eligible because of the recent decline in her functional status and nutritional decline. Dr. Shega stated his recollection was this patient could ambulate prior to her hospice admission. However, he later admitted M.W. was unable to walk for the past three to four years and had used a wheelchair for the past five to six years. Furthermore, on cross-examination, Dr. Shega admitted that the BMI for M.W. was miscalculated, and her BMI was in the normal range (22.8). In contrast, Dr. Talakkottur testified this patient was merely experiencing flare-ups of her chronic condition. Dr. Talakkottur opined that patients with terminal MS experience deteriorating respiratory function, which is evidence of the final decline. Dr. Talakkottur also noted that Respondent's month-to-month reports demonstrated unexplained discrepancies in M.W.'s reported scores for PPS, MMA, and ADLs. Furthermore, the medical records did not demonstrate M.W. had any deterioration in her respiratory function or any other terminal progression. If anything, as Dr. Talakkottur testified, the medical records show improvement for dependence with ADLs and her PPS score remained static. The medical records contained in this recipient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $54,133.32. Patient 17, T.D. Patient T.D. was a 45-year-old female with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is 04/14/11 to 12/23/11. The patient was diagnosed with NYHA Class IV heart failure as evidenced by shortness of breath at rest, worsening with exertion, and three and a half liters of oxygen via nasal cannula. Her PPS was 50 percent. She requested hospice and was referred to hospice by her primary physician because she required increased support and only wanted palliative treatments. Prior to her admission to hospice, T.D. had multiple encounters requiring physician management and an ER visit on 02/02/11 for a respiratory infection. She also suffered from ischemic cardiomyopathy, had a defibrillator placed in 2008, and suffered from diabetes requiring an insulin pump, peripheral neuropathy, COPD, sleep apnea, arthritis, spinal stenosis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and history of TIAs. She was on 13 different medications. Dr. Shega opined that the NYHA classification is the predictor most tightly correlated with patient mortality. In this case, while T.D.'s EF changed, her symptom burden did not change. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that throughout the claim period at issue, the patient was a Class IV. Dr. Talakkottur testified that in his opinion hospice eligibility was not established, in part because the patient had no jugular venous distention ("JVD") on physical exam. Dr. Shega opined that in hospice care, forced expiratory volume in one second ("FEV1s") are done to characterize the patient's underlying pulmonary status. While outside hospice total volume tests are frequently done to establish a diagnosis, in this case diagnosis had been established and Vitas was prognosticating, not diagnosing. Between 04/29/11 and 11/08/11, T.D. had an abdominal infection requiring antibiotics; she had an episode of thrush; she had a titration of her pain medication due to discomfort; she had another episode of cellulitis in the abdomen; her PPS dropped to 40 percent and her ADLs were 4 of 6; she experienced a respiratory infection requiring antibiotics; she required antibiotics for a vaginal boil; she had an abdominal wound; methadone was prescribed for increased pain; methadone dosage was increased due to swelling; and methadone was again increased because of worsening pain. T.D. was discharged on 12/23/11 for extended prognosis. Dr. Shega testified that while he understood why that call was made, he offered the opinion that the patient still had a prognosis of six months or less. In addition to the reasons set forth above, during the course of the admission period, her PPS went from 50 to 40 percent, back up to 50 percent and, then declined again to 40 percent. She also experienced poor intake and chest pains during this time. T.D. was evaluated as a NYHA Class IV throughout her hospice admission. She had had multiple physician encounters in the months prior to her admission and was referred to hospice by her primary care physician. She continued to have multiple episodes of infection and wounds while in hospice care. For these reasons, this patient met the hospice admission guidelines for the claim period at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that T.D. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 18, R.J. Patient R.J. was a 52-year-old male with terminal COPD. The claim dates at issue are 11/18/10 to 01/11/11. Immediately prior to admission to hospice, R.J. had been hospitalized for 12 days (from 11/06/10 to 11/18/10) for COPD exacerbation. He had hypercapnic, hypoxic respiratory failure and was unable to breathe on his own. He was on oxygen and placed on a BiPAP. Upon hospice admission, in addition to having disabling dyspnea at rest, R.J. was poorly responsive to bronchodilators and had an enlarged right atrium. His PPS was 40 percent, a BMI of 20, a very low weight of 114, and was dependent 4 of 6 ADLs. The patient was referred to hospice while in the hospital by his treating physician. His comorbidities included HIV, history of substance and alcohol abuse, arthritis, thrush, and bladder infections. Upon admission, R.J. was prescribed treatment of three liters of oxygen via cannula, continuous. A nebulizer treatment was used, using aerosolized medication to penetrate into the pulmonary system. On 12/03/10, the patient experienced a respiratory rate of 20, had an 8 of 10 abdominal pain, and was noted to be confused and agitated. On 12/09/10, R.J. had a pulmonary function test with an FEV1 of 0.42, which was 18 percent of predicted. An FEV1 less than 30 percent of predicted is associated with a severe airflow obstruction, supportive of a prognosis of six months or less. R.J. continued to have confusion and agitation through 12/14/10, when he was oriented times two. While it was true that R.J. did not suffer a COPD exacerbation or infection during the months at issue, Dr. Shega testified he had declined in respiratory status since admission, noting a second, severely reduced FEV1 to 10 percent. On 12/31/10, R.J. had elevated blood pressure, and continued to exhibit confusion, agitation and cognitive loss. He also continued to have dyspnea with low activity tolerance. R.J. exhibited specific indicators of "progression of end stage pulmonary disease" and "severe chronic lung disease" from the LCD for pulmonary disease. As noted above, he had hospitalizations due to his COPD immediately prior to admission to hospice and an FEV1 of less than 30 percent. His 12-day hospitalization, his poor nutritional status, his comorbidities and decline in respiratory status during the eight weeks at issue all support a finding that Patient R.J. was hospice appropriate during the claim period at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that R.J. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 21, W.C. Patient W.C. was a 55-year-old female with congestive heart failure. She had ischemic cardiomyopathy, suggesting poor blood flow in her coronary arteries, impacting how well it pumps. The claim periods at issue are 10/06/11 to 10/25/11 and 11/30/11 to 11/27/12. W.C. was hospitalized for a cardiac catheterization on 08/29/11, and then hospitalized in September 2011 and again on 10/02/11 with heart failure exacerbation, the latter hospital stay being immediately prior to her first admission to hospice. She presented with chest pain and shortness of breath and had a low EF of 20 percent. W.C. also had an extremely low albumin of 2.2 indicating malnutrition, which was a factor in her refractory and recurrent edema. Both the hospitalist and cardiologist who treated W.C. on her most recent hospitalization referred her for hospice care. W.C. previously had cardiac bypass surgery, a history of chronic renal insufficiency, anemia, hypertension, bipolar disorder and was an insulin dependent diabetic. She had a defibrillator implanted twice, but it had to be removed each time due to infection. She also suffered from chronic lung disease. Likely due to her underlying mental health issues, W.C. had a longstanding history of noncompliance with her medication regimen. Despite W.C.'s multiple clinical issues, on 10/11/11 W.C.'s history and physical raised a question whether she was too functional for hospice services. Given her recent clinical history, W.C. was monitored for two weeks to evaluate and her case was forwarded to medical review to determine hospice appropriateness. On 10/16/11, W.C. complained of chest pain, her BMI had declined from 27.2 to 22.5, and she was experiencing edema. W.C. also experienced paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and required three pillows at night for comfort and dyspnea. On 10/25/11, W.C. revoked the hospice benefit to return to the hospital for aggressive treatment for shortness of breath. During that stay she experienced a MI (heart attack), and ongoing ischemic cardiomyopathy with a low EF of 20 percent. W.C. was readmitted to hospice on 11/30/11, following discharge after a five-day hospitalization. Dr. Shega admitted this recipient was a challenge to diagnose for disease progression because she had good days and bad days, and that one of Respondent's physicians, who treated her struggled with whether she was chronic or end-stage. Dr. Talakkottur opined this patient did not appear to be end-stage. W.C. had a normal volume status with sporadic periods of edema (swelling in the legs). W.C. had no heart arrhythmia, no tachycardia (fast heart rate), no hypotension (low blood pressure), and no hemodynamic instability (unstable blood pressure to support normal organ function). If anything, the problems experienced by W.C. were the result of her noncompliance with her medications and not that her disease had reached a terminal state. In fact, when Vitas discharged this patient, they noted that she was noncompliant with her medications. W.C. was independent for ADLs, lived alone, drove herself, and was still active in the community. The medical records contained in W.C.'s file support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met for the first period but not the second. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services during the second period and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment in an amount to be determined. Patient 22, B.A. Patient B.A. was a 51-year-old female diagnosed with end-stage cerebrovascular disease. The claim periods at issue are 05/01/12 to 09/19/12 and 09/24/12 to 12/31/12. Prior to her admission to hospice, B.A. had two recent hospitalizations due to complications from a stroke suffered in December 2011. A PEG was placed during the second hospitalization on 04/21/12, for dehydration and fever. Over a period of five months, B.A.'s weight declined from 180 to 123 pounds, with a BMI of 20.5. Upon initial admission to hospice, B.A. was thin and frail, lethargic, short of breath with minimal exertion, incontinent, and had a stage one ulcer on her coccyx. B.A. was nonverbal, dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs and had a PPS score of 30. Her comorbidities were severe dementia, diabetes, carotid artery disease, and hypertension. Patient B.A. suffered a change in consciousness (likely seizures) and revoked hospice on 09/19/12 when she was admitted to a hospital. An MRI was conducted in the hospital, which showed diffused cerebral atrophic changes and evidence of decreased blood flow/oxygen to the brain. B.A. was discharged from the hospital and readmitted to hospice on 09/24/12, at which time she was unresponsive, with a PPS of 10, a documented weight of 110, and a FAST score of 7f. Just after her second hospice admission, she had a temperature of 100 on 09/25/12. On 10/10/12, she developed a stage two sacral ulcer. During this second admission period, B.A.'s weight continued to decline and she showed signs of muscle wasting. Dr. Talakkottur's re-review and deposition testimony was that Patient B.A.'s "records did not support progression of end-stage pulmonary disease, as evidenced by increasing visits to the emergency department for pulmonary infections or respiratory failure." As pointed out by Dr. Shega, however, Patient B.A. was never admitted for end-stage pulmonary or respiratory disease, but rather for cerebrovascular disease and cerebral degeneration. Dr. Talakkottur did not offer final hearing testimony regarding Patient B.A. Instead, AHCA offered his deposition testimony. In his deposition, he acknowledged he had not made note of B.A.'s significant weight loss. B.A. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. As noted above, she had a FAST score of 7c or less, which indicates she was speaking six words or fewer, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and was incontinent. For the audit periods in question, it is undeniable that Patient B.A.'s prognosis of six months or less was correct, and she was Medicaid hospice eligible during all of the dates at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that B.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for either period. Patient 23, E.G.D. Patient E.G.D. was a 70-year-old female diagnosed with adult failure to thrive. The patient was initially admitted to hospice on 01/06/10 and deemed eligible for hospice through 03/23/10. The dates at issue are 03/24/10 to 4/16/10 and 5/20/10 to 12/21/10. On 03/23/10, E.G.D. was noted to weigh 95 pounds, with a BMI of 19.9. She also experienced dysphagia and increased agitation. She had edema on the lower extremities, a PPS of 40 percent, and her ADLs were 11 of 12.6/ Patient E.G.D. had been hospitalized during the prior year with a MI in June 2009. Her comorbidities also included diabetes mellitus, hypertension, advanced Alzheimer's disease, coronary artery disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, a pacemaker, and recurrent falls. On 04/02/10, while the patient's weight had increased to 95 pounds while on hospice care, her PPS was 40 percent and her FAST score remained at 7b. E.G.D. had impaired communication, was confused, had edema in her periphery, and had an acute UTI requiring antibiotics. Although the patient's weight had increased, her BMI was still under 20. E.G.D. was discharged on 04/16/10 for extended prognosis. She was readmitted to hospice on 05/20/10, after having been hospitalized for an acute heart attack, with hypoxic respiratory failure, resulting in low oxygen and respiratory distress. She had also been diagnosed with pneumonia during her hospital stay and had shortness of breath with minimal exertion making her a NYHA Class III. Due to her recent MI and an injection fraction of 20 percent, upon readmission to hospice, E.G.D. was diagnosed with end-stage heart disease. E.G.D.'s FAST score was 7f, she was 6 of 6 ADLs, had a PPS of 20 percent, and her weight had declined in the preceding month from 99 to 92 pounds. She was nonverbal and continued to be an aspiration risk. Her skin turgor was noted as poor and she was incontinent. Dr. Talakkottur opined that while E.G.D. had suffered a second heart attack, it was an acute event and not a terminal prognosis. He further argued that this patient's condition was chronic because there were no signs of angina, no shortness of breath, and no extended neck veins in a JVD test. In response, Dr. Shega noted that in the plan of care review, E.G.D. exhibited dyspnea at rest, had a FAST score of 7f, had a decreased level of consciousness and was lethargic. In Dr. Shega's opinion, JVD does not define end-stage heart failure. Rather, it just defines whether a patient is having an acute heart failure exacerbation at that time. Furthermore, research has shown that physicians, other than cardiologists, are not necessarily good at assessing JVD. According to Dr. Shega, Dr. Talakkottur also failed to take into account this patient's comorbidities, including end- stage dementia, which was likely a contributing factor to her sleeping 18 to 20 hours a day during her second admission and affecting her prognosis. 215. On 05/25/10, 06/08/10, and 06/22/10, E.G.D.'s cardiovascular condition was NYHA Class IV, with dyspnea at rest. During the benefit period beginning 09/17/10, this patient continued to be described as NYHA Class IV. And, while her weight increased to 110 pounds, she was still sleeping up to 20 hours a day, dependent in all ADLs, and had a PPS of 30 percent. During the last benefit period at issue, Patient E.G.D. continued to be NYHA Class IV, and had worsening edema. By 12/21/10, she was essentially unresponsive and the family revoked hospice to seek aggressive care in the hospital related to decreased appetite and decreased responsiveness. Dr. Talakkottur opined that there was nothing in the record to support a diagnosis of NYHA Class IV or significant symptoms of heart failure. In response, Dr. Shega pointed out those portions of the medical record that supported the fact E.G.D. had NYHA Class IV symptoms. As far as alleged lack of reports of frequent ER visits or hospitalizations, this patient was hospitalized for an acute MI less than a year prior to her initial hospice admission, was hospitalized again for a second heart attack immediately prior to her second hospice admission, and the family revoked hospice on 12/21/10 to readmit her to the hospital at the end of the last benefit period. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that E.G.D. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for either period. Patient 25, M.M. Patient M.M. was a 57-year-old male admitted to hospice with a primary diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus ("SLE"). The dates at issue are 02/01/12 to 12/31/12. M.M. was first diagnosed with lupus in 1974, and also had a history of vasculitis, which resulted in several fingers amputated secondary to necrosis. M.M. also suffered from glomerulonephritis, an autoimmune disease that attacks the kidney. Other comorbidities included multiple surgeries on his right knee, a left ankle surgery with ultimate fixation, neuropathy, hypertension, morbid obesity, umbilical hernia, Cushing syndrome, diabetes, and a history of gastric ulcers, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic renal insufficiency. In the six months prior to hospice admission, M.M. had been admitted to the hospital four times: to amputate several fingers; for ileus; for chest pain; and for shortness of breath. M.M.'s primary care physician referred him to Vitas for end-stage SLE. Patient M.M. was initially admitted to hospice on 02/01/12. At that time, his PPS was 30 percent and his pain registered 8 of 10. He also suffered multiple weeping wounds on his lower extremities from edema upon admission and throughout his stay in hospice. His long time primary care physician noted, "in the face of aggressive medical care, the patient's condition continues to deteriorate." Over the claim period at issue, M.M. required multiple increased levels of care for pain management and decline in his overall condition. M.M. required continuous care on 03/14/12 for increased pain; on 09/27/12 for pain and change in level of consciousness; and on 10/27/12 for confusion, agitation, delusion and falls. M.M. required hospice inpatient care on 08/23/12 for shortness of breath and fever; and on 10/01/12 for a fall, nausea, vomiting, and low blood pressure. After a fall, M.M. was taken to the ER in July 2012 for a laceration on his left foot. He required another trip to the ER in December 2012 for a fall. In November 2012, he became severely anemic, requiring three units of blood. On direct, Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that anemia is one of the symptoms of SLE. In his re-review, Dr. Talakkottur opined that M.M.'s condition overall was static throughout the claim period and questioned whether the patient even had SLE. In response, Dr. Shega noted that M.M.'s primary treating physician's records documented he had SLE. In addition, he noted M.M.'s multiple infections requiring antibiotics, as well was requiring numerous IPU and continuous levels of care during the period at issue. Dr. Talakkottur's re-review acknowledged that Patient M.M.'s functional performance had declined during the hospice stay to a PPS of 30 percent on his last recertification, dated 11/21/12. Dr. Talakkottur also testified that M.M.'s recorded weight was inconsistent and that he was addicted to pain medication. While there are acknowledged weight inconsistencies in the record, it is clear the patient was obese and his weight was not a factor in his prognosis. As to whether M.M. was addicted to pain medication, Dr. Shega opined that this patient was in severe pain and needed multiple titrations of opioid treatment to manage the patient's pain and attempt to improve his quality of life at the end. While he was dependent on pain medication, there was no evidence M.M. was addicted. Patient M.M.'s terminal condition was documented by his primary care physician, as well as by four hospitalizations in the six months prior to hospice admission, the multiple times he was placed in the IPU or on continuous care during hospice care, his ongoing edema with infections, a hospital admission in July 2012, and a trip to the ER in December 2012. M.M.'s extensive, well-documented comorbidities supported a prognosis of six months or less. For the foregoing reasons, Patient M.M. was Medicaid hospice eligible during all of the dates at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Boynton Beach Recipients Patient 2, H.P. Patient H.P. was a 51-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage HIV/AIDS. H.P. had two admissions to hospice: 01/03/11 to 05/16/11; and May 2011 to October 3, 2011. The period that is in dispute is the last eleven days of H.P's first admission: 05/05/11 to 05/16/11. H.P. was discharged for extended prognosis. At the time of admission on 01/03/11, H.P. exhibited pain, diarrhea, poor oral intake, a very low CD4 count, and was weak. She had a history of noncompliance with her plan of care, anemia, chronic pain which included neuropathy from her HIV/AIDS, and a history of blood clots to her leg and her lung. This patient also had a history of kidney stones, depression, seizures, insomnia, frequent UTIs, diabetes, and asthma. On 05/05/11, H.P. was transmitted to an IPU and was simultaneously evaluated for extended prognosis and determined that the patient, on that date, had a prognosis that more likely than not, she would live longer than six months. Vitas began working to discharge this patient on 05/05/11, but was unable to make appropriate accommodations for her until 05/16/11. The discharge of H.P. took longer because H.P. had very few financial resources, had HIV/AIDS, and was Haitian with an alien resident card, all of which complicated the placement process. None of H.P.'s family that was contacted by Vitas would accept H.P. in their home, including her daughter, niece, and sister. H.P. also refused to go to a nursing home. Vitas contacted multiple Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs) and made nine attempts to secure placement, but the ALFs were full or refused to accept H.P. Dr. Shega opined that during this time, the patient had a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness ran its normal course. Dr. Eisner did not know the specific indicators with regard to prognosticating whether an HIV/AIDS patient had six months or less to live despite being offered as an appropriate peer reviewer. The period at issue was during H.P.'s initial 90-day recertification period. According to the audit instructions provided to some peer reviewers, if any day during a certification period was approved by a peer reviewer, then the entire certification period was to be approved. Dr. Eisner claimed he was not provided this document to perform the audit. Drs. Talakkottur and Komatz, however, were provided such instructions. According to the audit instructions, the period at issue is required to be approved. H.P. was Medicaid hospice eligible during all of the dates at issue. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that H.P. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 3, G.L. Patient G.L. was a 54-year-old male, admitted to hospice initially with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive and later, prostate cancer. The claim period at issue is 02/01/2012 to 12/31/2012. Dr. Komatz testified that during the disputed period, G.L.'s medical records demonstrated the recipient was stable on consecutive visits and exams and was not showing progression of his hospice diagnosis. Dr. Komatz testified that G.L.'s PPS score remained consistently at 50 percent, which, to her, showed the patient was stable at that point in time and was not showing further decline. Dr. Komatz's opinion was also based upon the fact that G.L. was independent with respect to his ADLs. Dr. Shega opined that during this time, the patient had a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness ran its normal course. Although G.L.'s PPS was stagnant at 50 percent, when coupled with G.L.'s increasing pain and other symptoms, cancer literature indicates that G.L.'s life expectancy was six months or less. Dr. Shega testified that it was his belief that Dr. Komatz did not take into account G.L.'s disease progression as indicated by the ever- increasing pain and increasing dosage of oxycodone given to treat the increasing pain. AHCA demonstrated that the medical records regarding this patient's weight were inaccurate. However, the patient's weight appears to have increased or remained relatively stable. Furthermore, Dr. Shega testified that he could not find any documentation to support the proposition that G.L.'s cancer had metastasized or to support that his prostate cancer had metastasized to the pancreas. The medical records contained in G.L.'s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that G.L. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $51,686.51. Patient 5, G.R. Patient G.R. was a 41-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of debility unspecified. The claim periods at issue are 02/26/10 to 08/19/11 and 09/28/11 to 12/31/12. At 40 days old, G.R. contracted a measles infection, with a high fever, which had essentially left her disabled for her entire life. She had been nonambulatory and nonverbal for many years prior to her entering hospice care. G.R. was initially admitted to Vitas on 02/26/10. At the time of admission, G.R. had a PPS of 20 percent, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and had a FAST score of 7f. She exhibited muscle wasting and was nonverbal, disoriented, and drowsy. She had shortness of breath at rest, a Stage I ulcer on her foot, and had a PEG tube due to her high risk for aspiration. Just prior to admission, she had a UTI and was hospitalized. However, those hospital records were not provided to support her initial admission. G.R. also had a history of recurrent pneumonia. She presented extremely contracted, stiff, and weak. Dr. Shega admitted that although a physician's note indicated G.R. had been in a steady decline as she had been previously ambulatory and interactive, G.R., in fact, had been nonambulatory for 15 years prior to her hospice admission. During the first disputed period, shortly after admission, G.R. developed cellulitis around the PEG tube site that required antibiotics. Also, during the first admission, she developed pneumonia, a lower respiratory tract infection, and required Levaquin for ten days. G.R. was discharged for extended prognosis on 08/19/11. She was then seen by Dr. Patrick Kavanaugh, a non- Vitas treating physician, who re-referred G.R. back to Vitas hospice because he believed the patient was hospice appropriate. G.R. was readmitted on 09/28/11 with a terminal diagnosis of cerebral degeneration. She had a PPS of 20 percent, was dependent in all ADLs, had a FAST of 7f, was in a fetal position, contracted and unresponsive, was a very high aspiration risk, had difficulty swallowing, and was noted to have increased congestion. She was on Xanax, Tylenol, Benadryl, and nebulizers. During the second admission period, G.R. had skin breakdown on her left and right heels, had problems with congestion and aspiration, had worsening shortness of breath, and became more unresponsive such that by the end of the second period, she could not track people with her eyes. Skin breakdowns are specific indicators of nutritional impairment. Her condition also worsened such that by the end of the second period, G.R.'s secretion treatment had gone from medication only to also requiring manual suction to prevent aspiration. Dr. Talakkottur stated, in his rationale for denying the dates at issue, that G.R.'s skin was intact, which is inaccurate. Dr. Talakkottur also indicated that the patient's aspiration and congestion was chronic, but failed to take into account that those symptoms worsened over G.R.'s second period of hospice care. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that G.R. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services during the second period in dispute, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for that period. The medical records contained in G.R.'s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met for the first period in dispute. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services for the first disputed period and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment in an amount to be determined. Patient 6, S.B. Patient S.B. was a 30-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of cirrhosis of the liver. The claim period at issue is 10/06/11 to 01/03/12. S.B. was admitted directly to hospice from Broward Health Medical Center where he was hospitalized for liver failure and delirium tremens secondary to alcohol use. Liver failure was exhibited by an international normalized ratio ("INR") of 1.52 and an albumin of 2.2, a total bilirubin up to 28.5, ammonia of 86, and elevated liver function tests. S.B. had an altered level of consciousness and was disoriented. S.B. had a PPS initially of 30 percent that increased to 50 percent shortly thereafter with some ADL difficulty. S.B. had encephalopathy, decreased oral intake, and anemia. Both Dr. Talakkottur and Dr. Shega agree that this patient suffered from delirium tremens, which is basically a severe condition associated with alcohol withdrawal. Patients with liver disease often develop ascites. If the patient's condition is severe, a paracentesis procedure can be performed to remove the fluid. While the recipient was in the hospital, a paracentesis was attempted. S.B.'s paracentesis, however, was unsuccessful because there was no fluid to actually remove. Additionally, Dr. Shega admitted there was no evidence of ascites refractory to treatment in the medical records. Patients with liver disease often develop variceal bleeding, which are enlarged blood vessels in the gastrointestinal tract. If left untreated, the enlarged blood vessels can rupture and cause a patient to bleed to death. A patient with variceal bleeding has an increased risk of a poor prognosis and a more limited life expectancy. Dr. Shega admitted he could not recall evidence of variceal bleeding in the medical records for S.B. Dr. Talakkottur credibly testified that soon after S.B.'s acute episode of delirium tremens for alcohol withdrawal, he returned to being alert and oriented times three. In Dr. Talakkottur's opinion, S.B. could have been more appropriately served in an outpatient setting for his delirium tremens, which, in essence, was episodic. The medical records contained in this patient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $40,025.67. Patient 8, J.F. Patient J.F. was a 60-year-old male, admitted to hospice on 04/15/11, with a terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease. The claim period at issue is 04/15/11 to 09/28/12. J.F. suffered a severe stroke and was hospitalized in March 2011, about a month prior to hospice admission. An MRI showed multiple infarcts that resulted in dysphagia, shortness of breath, confusion with disorientation, and poor oral intake. The patient was then readmitted to the hospital for a gallbladder- related acute infection and, at that point, the patient was referred by a hospitalist for evaluation of hospice services. On admission, J.F. had a PPS of 20 percent with comorbidities of diabetes, hypertension, depression, bipolar disorder, increased lipids, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease. J.F. was extremely overweight. J.F.'s terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease was evidenced by the severe stroke, poor functional status, significant dysphagia, and high risk for aspiration that is known to be associated with a poor prognosis, and two recent hospitalizations. A physician assessment indicated the patient was hospice appropriate and referred J.F. to Vitas indicating that the patient had a terminal disease. Upon admission, J.F. was extremely ill and required continuous care until 05/02/11, with recurrent fevers, shortness of breath, cough, and poor oral intake that ultimately resolved. In September 2011, he was noted to be incontinent, dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, with a FAST score of 7d. J.F. continued to have issues with the shortness of breath and coughing with meals. In October 2011, he had increased weakness and cough, and his family called 911; and J.F. went to the ER where he was found to have severe bradycardia with a pulse of 48. There was concern the patient might be having a heart attack. The ER physician indicated that the chest x-ray showed cardiomegaly, or an enlarged heart, and also noted that the patient had mild heart failure at the time of admission to the hospital. The patient also had low-grade fever and an albumin of 2.6, documenting very poor nutritional status. From November through December 2011, the patient transitioned from the hospital to home on continuous care to further manage his dyspnea and lethargy. During that time, J.F. continued to have difficulty swallowing and had episodes of apnea for 10 to 20 seconds. From January through April 2012, J.F. had severe depression, was emotionally labile and weak, and still had problems coughing. Dr. Shega testified that depression is a complication of stroke and associated with a higher mortality. J.F. was put on an antidepressant, which improved his agitation and aggression, and he became more compliant with the medication regimen, but continued to have dysphagia. J.F. had high blood pressure and, given the labile hypertension, Vitas was concerned that it would precipitate a stroke. J.F.'s prognosis remained six months or less, so his blood pressure medications were continually adjusted. By the end of August 2012, J.F. demonstrated significant improvement by going from dependent for care in 6 of 6 ADLs, which he was the whole stay, to having the ability to feed himself; he also had improvement in dysphagia at that time. Consequently, Patient J.F. was discharged from Vitas for extended prognosis. J.F. met all applicable criteria for admission to hospice for the disputed period. Dr. Talakkottur also acknowledged that J.F. was acutely ill at admission to Vitas, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs until he was discharged, was confined to bed and chair and transferred from bed to chair with a Hoyer lift throughout his hospice stay, was incontinent of bladder and bowel throughout his stay, and had a FAST score that did not improve to better than 7a throughout his stay. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that J.F. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 10, A.R. Patient A.R. was an 83-year-old female, admitted to hospice on 1/10/11, with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The claim period at issue is 01/10/11 to 07/02/12. Upon admission, Patient A.R. had a recent ER visit in December 2010 at Columbia Hospital for mental status changes and a UTI, she had a PPS of 30 percent, was bedbound, and required assistance with 6 of 6 ADLs. Also at admission, A.R. had two right foot wounds and was disoriented. She was a nursing home resident in Palm Beach. An order was obtained from the physician for a hospice evaluation and services. A.R.'s comorbidities were mixed dementia of Alzheimer's and vascular disease, with history of stroke, hypertension, hip fracture with repair, coronary artery disease, UTI, pneumonia, diabetes, and increased lipids. A.R.'s weight over the previous five to six months, obtained from the medical record, dropped from 117 to 103 pounds (about a 12 percent loss) with a BMI of 20.5, reduced oral intake along with dysphagia and risk for aspiration on a pureed diet. A.R. had unstageable wounds on her heels in April 2011. She continued to lose weight in May 2011 (as of 5/16/11, she had a weight of 97.5 pounds with poor oral intake) and by July 2011, she continued to have a poor appetite and was known to be pocketing her food. Dr. Shega testified this meant her dementia was so severe that she would forget to swallow, which not only impacted her food intake, but also increased her risk of aspiration. Patient A.R.'s weight continued to decline and then, after her weight got to about 95 pounds, multiple interventions were put in place at the end of September to improve her nutritional status, including increasing her resource supplements to three times a day, and increasing her dosage of Remeron, a known appetite stimulant, as well as an antidepressant. A.R.'s weight increased to 102 pounds in December with a fair appetite, but still noted dysphagia and pocketing food. By January 2012, A.R.'s weight increased slightly, then decreased to 100 pounds, before increasing back to 103 pounds. Her weight then decreased to 97 pounds in February 2012, documenting A.R.'s extremely unstable condition. In April 2012, A.R. continued to have dysphagia on a pureed diet and a poor appetite. By June and July 2012, A.R.'s weight stabilized around 100 pounds, and she did not appear to be declining; consequently, she was discharged from Vitas for extended prognosis. Dr. Shega testified that Patient A.R. also had progressive contractures due to her severely debilitated condition. Dr. Shega noted that at each recertification period, A.R.'s prognosis was six months or less if her illness ran its usual course. A.R.'s fluctuating weight, as much as three to five percent per month at times, created a poor prognosis and put her at high risk of death, and she met Medicaid hospice eligibility without having documented ongoing infections or fevers. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that, during her entire hospice stay, Patient A.R. was on a pureed diet and required crushed pills due to dysphagia; and as a precaution against aspiration, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, was confined to bed and chair, was incontinent of bladder and bowel, had a FAST level of no better than 7a, and had a PPS never higher than 40 percent. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.R. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 13, W.G. Patient W.G. was a 61-year-old male, admitted to hospice on 10/19/09, with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. The claim period at issue is 10/19/09 to 06/12/12. W.G. suffered a stroke in his 50s. Between 07/29/09, and 10/19/09, his nursing home requested he be evaluated for admission to hospice care. Vitas completed two Appropriateness Evaluation forms during this period for W.G. and, on both occasions, Vitas concluded that he was not eligible to receive the hospice benefit because his condition simply was not terminal. Ultimately, on 10/19/09, W.G. was admitted to hospice care with a reported terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. Respondent altered his terminal diagnosis to debility on 10/20/09. Dr. Shega opined that W.G. was eligible for hospice services because the patient had an ER visit prior to admission, became wheelchair bound, and had worsening dysphasia requiring an endoscopy. However, Dr. Shega admitted that the hospital visit and the endoscopy procedure both preceded the two Appropriateness Evaluations where Respondent failed to certify W.G. as eligible for hospice care. Moreover, the two Appropriateness Evaluation forms where Respondent declined to certify W.G. as eligible list his PPS score as 40 percent, yet the third Appropriateness Evaluation by which Vitas certified W.G. as eligible for hospice lists his PPS score as 30 percent. Notably, however, the next time W.G.'s PPS score is recorded in Vitas' records, it is back up to 40 percent. In this case, it is clear from W.G.'s medical records that he did not evidence deterioration in his nutritional status, pain control, breathing, or complication of his cardiovascular condition. Although W.G. received continuous care (a higher level of hospice medical attention) on occasion, W.G. returned back to his baseline status after each time of heightened care. Dr. Talakkottur credibly testified that patients who experience a stroke can have residual deficits, i.e., they may not be able to move an entire side of their body or walk, yet they live with the deficits for 20 or 30 years. In Dr. Talakkottur's opinion, W.G. was such a recipient who experienced deficits, yet he did not have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less to live. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $169,928.96. Patient 14, A.G. Patient A.G. was a 58-year-old male, admitted to hospice on 05/31/12, with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. There are two claim periods at issue: 05/31/12 to 08/20/12 and 08/28/12 to 12/31/12. Patient A.G. was hospitalized at Broward Health on 05/18/12 with abdominal pain, imaging documenting cirrhosis with splenomegaly, no ascites, but significant liver dysfunction evidenced by a low platelet count, which supported portal hypertension associated with cirrhosis, elevated ammonia of 127, an INR of 1.4, albumin of 2.6, and a total bilirubin of 1.5. Chronic pancreatitis was also present and the patient had an elevated lipase of 392. A.G. had an altered level of consciousness with lethargy, and was at risk for aspiration. At admission A.G. was oriented times zero and only minimal arousal to painful stimuli. A.G. demonstrated a significant decline in liver function with encephalopathy, and the patient's primary care physician, who knew the patient very well, indicated that he thought A.G. had deteriorated and was hospice appropriate. Dr. Shega further testified that A.G. was Medicaid hospice appropriate at the time of admission to Vitas because the patient's laboratory values indicated severe liver dysfunction, including the INR and the albumin, along with elevated ammonia to corroborate the patient's confused mental status. A.G.'s clinical progression was documented by the primary care provider noting that the disease had taken a turn for the worse. Although the patient's weight was 188, he had an albumin of 2.5, which is very low, and demonstrated a decline in functional status with a PPS of 50 percent and some ADL impairment, which supported Dr. Shega's opinion that the patient had a prognosis of six months or less if the illness ran its normal course. During A.G.'s initial stay in hospice from 05/31/12 to 08/20/12, he had changes in mental status and lethargy indicative of hepatic encephalopathy. He also had dyspnea. Patient A.G. had two continuous care episodes: the first for lethargy and the second for pain and shortness of breath. He also required an IPU stay. Just prior to A.G. coming off service, he had an episode of thrush on 08/07/12 that required treatment with nystatin. Thereafter, A.G. went missing and was subsequently noted to be incarcerated. Being incarcerated does not disqualify a patient from Medicaid hospice eligibility. A.G. was readmitted to Vitas hospice on 08/28/12. Dr. Shega testified that A.G. was Medicaid hospice eligible at that time because he had lost weight from 188 to 180, continued to have abdominal pain rated 8 of 10, had shortness of breath with minimal exertion, had ascites, abdominal distension, and lower extremity edema. From 08/28/12 to 12/31/12, A.G. was dependent in 3 of 6 ADLs, his PPS score decreased to 40 percent, then to 30 percent, he had a poor appetite, and while his weight increased to 185 pounds, he continued to have lethargy, occasionally having shortness of breath with activity. By 12/31/12, his weight had decreased to 170 pounds. Dr. Shega testified that A.G. was eligible for Medicaid hospice services during the second admission period. On 11/17/12, the patient was receiving methadone at ten milligrams every eight hours for pain, which is a high dose, and he continued to need breakthrough medication for pain. A.G. continued to have shortness of breath with activity and continued to have weakness, nausea and vomiting, 3 of 6 ADL dependency, and a PPS of 40 percent. A.G.'s treating physician believed the patient was still hospice appropriate because of the ongoing pain requiring methadone for management, the shortness of breath with oxygen, and the nausea and vomiting which required an inpatient stay. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that while A.G. presented with an INR of 1.4 and an albumin of 2.6, a normal INR is 1.1 or below and a normal albumin is 3.5 or above. Consequently, A.G.'s INR and albumin levels were well outside of normal. Dr. Talakkottur also acknowledged A.G. had an altered mental status and lethargy, dysphagia, chronic pancreatitis, and comorbidities of congestive heart failure, COPD, diabetes, cirrhosis, hepatitis C, gallbladder disease, depression, schizophrenia, drug and alcohol abuse, a history of suicide attempts, and needed assistance with bathing and toileting. Dr. Talakkottur agreed that a patient is not disqualified from Medicaid hospice eligibility because of a past incarceration or for being a drug addict. Talakkottur acknowledged that A.G. also had ascites, edema, a PPS score that declined to 40 percent, and required oxygen. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.G. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 15, L.C. Patient L.C. was a 50-year-old female, admitted to hospice on 09/15/10, with a terminal diagnosis of stomach cancer (malignant neoplasm of the stomach). The four claim periods at issue are 09/15/10 to 10/26/10; 11/07/10 to 02/09/11; 03/11/11 to 03/24/11; and 03/23/12 to 04/05/12. Patient L.C. had a rare type of stomach cancer. Dr. Shega testified that in patients who have a more diffuse disease that is inoperable, the five-year survival rate is about 40 percent with treatment--if they pursue treatment--but the survival rate is unknown if the patient does not pursue treatment because most patients elect to pursue treatment. However, L.C.'s cancer was inoperable, which, by definition, means it was already diffuse. Patient L.C. had chemotherapy treatment on 09/06/10, prior to the first admission, and thereafter elected comfort care over more anti-tumor treatment. At the appropriateness evaluation, her PPS was 50 percent. Her previous weight four to five months prior to the first admission was 160 pounds and her weight at admission was 145 pounds, or a 9.4 percent weight loss. Patient L.C.'s BMI was 23.4. She reported 10 of 10 pain and had presented to the North Broward Medical Center ER with severe pain and was directly admitted to the Vitas IPU from the ER. In addition to pain, Patient L.C. reported poor oral intake and unintentional weight loss. L.C.'s primary care physician signed the oral certification of a prognosis of six months or less and was the attending physician for the patient. The Vitas medical director approved the admission, and given her underlying mental health, recommended a psychology consult and the use of methadone as the long-acting opioid to try to manage her pain. L.C. was seen by her primary oncologist, who referred the patient for hospice services and agreed with the admission. Patient L.C. had a history of Hepatitis C; hypothyroidism; schizoaffective disorder; bipolar disorder; a longstanding history of substance abuse; including crack cocaine; multiple suicide attempts; hypertension; tobacco use; and COPD. During the first period at issue, 09/15/10 to 10/26/10, Patient L.C. developed abdominal symptomatology, including pain, nausea, vomiting, cramping, and had underlying psychological/psychosocial challenges. L.C. was in the IPU for pain control for several days and then transitioned home, continued to have pain and titration of some of the medications, was switched from methadone to a Fentanyl patch due to some concerns in the home with possible diversion and abuse. L.C. then went to the IPU for an extremely high heart rate. Her PPS fluctuated, going as high as 80 percent. However, Dr. Shega testified that studies show that a high PPS score is still supportive of a terminal prognosis in cancer patients not receiving antitumor therapy. On 10/26/10, L.C. revoked services to pursue more aggressive treatment in the hospital, no longer wishing to follow the hospice plan of care. Patient L.C.'s second admission in Vitas hospice began on 11/07/10. Just prior to that, she was in the hospital and then readmitted to hospice service in her home. Her PPS was back down to 50 percent. Her previous weight had been 145 pounds and was now reported to be 130 pounds, with a BMI of 22, or a ten percent weight loss. L.C. reported 10 of 10 pain. While L.C. was in the hospital, she received one treatment with Gleevec, an antitumor treatment, and was then sent back for hospice services. Her case was discussed with her oncologist who agreed with the readmission to hospice. During the second period, 11/07/10 to 02/09/11, Patient L.C. was admitted to the IPU for pain, continued to have cachexia, her weight fluctuated, and she needed more Fentanyl to control her pain. She had substantial symptoms, including weight loss, muscle wasting, pain, shortness of breath with activity, agitation, depression, anxiety, early satiety, and nausea. Although L.C.'s PPS rose to 80 percent, she had a substantial symptom burden and was hospice appropriate. L.C. was discharged from Vitas hospice for not following the plan of care on 02/09/11. Patient L.C. began her third admission in Vitas hospice on 03/11/11, which lasted until 03/24/11. At the time of admission, L.C. was at home, had a PPS of 60 percent, her weight had decreased to 110 pounds, with a BMI of 18, reported 10 of 10 pain, and decreased oral intake. During the third admission, L.C. was admitted to the IPU. After the IPU admission, the patient was home for a very short period of time and came back to the IPU, but, ultimately, was discharged again for not being compliant with the plan of care. L.C. was readmitted to Vitas hospice for the fourth time on 03/23/12, until she was discharged again on 04/05/12, for not following the plan of care. Just prior to this fourth admission to Vitas, L.C. was on Heartland Hospice, and had been hospitalized at Holy Cross Hospital. At that time, when she ultimately revoked services from Heartland and transitioned to Vitas hospice, she had a PPS of 30 percent. Her weight was 110 pounds. A CT scan dated 03/21/12 noted that the patient had a large heterogeneous necrotic mass, which meant the mass was so big it outgrew its blood supply and the tumor cells died. It measured 20.5 by 20.5 by 20 centimeters (which is the size of two grapefruits) in the upper abdomen, compatible with malignancy or metastasis, origin uncertain. The mass encased portions of the stomach. Obstruction could not be excluded. L.C. had lost significant body weight, but her tumor's growth was leaving her weight the same. She also lost significant muscle mass. Dr. Shega testified that he had seen that occur several times in patients with this type of tumor. L.C.'s cancer was metastatic and the Vitas admission nurse noted on 03/22/12 that her treating physician in the hospital found that she had a days to a week prognosis that was very grim. During the brief fourth admission, L.C. had a large symptom burden and struggled while in the Vitas IPU trying to control her pain. Contrary to the opinion expressed by Dr. Talakkottur, the fact that L.C. may have been a drug addict had no bearing on whether she was terminally ill or her prognosis. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that L.C. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the four periods in dispute. Patient 17, D.D. Patient D.D. was an 84-year-old female initially admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The three claim periods at issue are 09/27/10 to 03/21/11; 05/20/11 to 12/12/12; and 12/15/12 to 12/31/12. On 09/20/10, D.D. was admitted to the hospital for upper abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and was diagnosed with pancreatitis, complicated by a pseudocyst. Pseudocysts are associated as a complication of pancreatitis and associated with a significant mortality, particularly in older adults. Upon her initial admission to hospice, D.D. had a PPS of 30 percent, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, bilateral lower extremity contractures, a weight decrease of 190 to 170 pounds, and an albumin of 2.1, which was consistent with severe protein calorie malnutrition. She also exhibited muscle wasting with a Stage II ulcer on her coccyx/sacrum that was open and draining. She had symptoms of abdominal pain, shortness of breath with exertion, decreased appetite, and bilateral lower extremity edema. She was considered at risk for aspiration, had a history of pneumonia, and had a UTI within the six months preceding admission. Patient D.D. also had a history of dementia, cholelithiasis with increased liver function tests, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, reflux, and hypertension. D.D. was incontinent and confused. D.D. left hospice care on 03/21/11. She was experiencing a life-defining condition of a small bowel obstruction and a UTI that, if not treated at an acute care hospital, would have caused her death. Instead, her family elected to revoke the hospice benefit and pursue aggressive treatment. D.D. returned to Vitas hospice care on 05/20/11. She had again been admitted to the hospital with the small bowel obstruction, secondary to recurrent pancreatitis, along with complications from a COPD exacerbation that required IV steroids, bacteremia that required IV antibiotics, and anemia requiring a blood transfusion. At the second admission date, she had a PPS of 30 percent, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, had contractures, and weighed 150 pounds. Her albumin was noted during her hospital stays at 1.9 to 2.1, again documenting severe protein calorie malnutrition. She had two right leg wounds, was a high risk for aspiration and had a very poor appetite with little oral intake. She had hypotension and was noted to have been in a steady decline for the past year. On 07/26/11, D.D. developed an acute infection that required antibiotics with Keflex. On 12/15/11, D.D. experienced shortness of breath requiring oxygen and pedal bilateral edema at two to three. On 04/09/12, three days after D.D. had a UTI, she experienced difficulty swallowing, profound muscle wasting, and was at grave risk of infection and skin breakdown. Her muscle wasting had progressed to bilateral temporal wasting. The Vitas physician noted that "[t]he patient is only alive today due to the excellent care given by her family as her debilitated state continues to put her at grave risk of infection and skin breakdown." On 07/11/12, D.D. was again seen by a Vitas physician. On this date, it was noted D.D. was becoming weaker with unexplained weight loss. On 08/22/2012, D.D. was seen by a Vitas physician who noted she continued to lose weight, was bedridden, and continued to decline. The patient was eating less, needed total care with ADLs, and had a history of UTIs. The Vitas physician stated: "[t]he patient is getting weaker. I saw the patient because the patient was weaker, and the patient, according to the daughter, is more lethargic all the time." In October 2012, D.D. had intermittent wounds including Stage II wounds on her back and right foot. During that month, the family also requested additional assistance taking care of D.D. at home, which is a service Vitas provides and is required to provide by statute. She then had another wound develop on 11/19/12. On 12/12/12, the family again revoked hospice. At that time D.D. developed a life-defining episode of diverticulitis. She had blood in her stool and was put on IV antibiotics in the hospital. She had an electrocardiogram ("EKG") which showed an atrial arrhythmia. Her hemoglobin was all the way down to 7.2--the normal range is 11 to 12. A hemoglobin of 7.2 is a severe level indicative of needing transfusions to prevent cardiac damage. Without an aggressive level of care, she most likely would have died. D.D. returned to hospice care on 12/15/12. At this time her terminal diagnosis was debility. She continued to be bedbound, contracted, dependent in all of her ADLs, with a PPS of 30 percent. Her albumin drawn from her latest hospitalization was still low at 2.7. She also had slightly worsening dysphagia. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that D.D. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the periods in dispute. Patient 18, M.S.V. Patient M.S.V. was a 77-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of respiratory failure. The three claim periods at issue are 06/28/11 to 08/10/11; 03/22/12 to 05/03/12; and 05/11/12 to 07/03/12. On 05/21/11, M.S.V. was admitted to the hospital with respiratory failure secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease, resulting in a very prolonged ICU stay. She had a tracheostomy and a PEG tube placed at that time. Her albumin was below normal at 2.7. She also had a pH of 7.11, which means her blood level was acidic instead of normal, which put her tissues at increased risk of death, such as heart arrhythmias. She also had a UTI and was on a ventilator. Her carbon dioxide level was 193--normal is 40--and her oxygen level was low at 64. Dr. Shega stated that studies show that when a carbon dioxide level ("PCO2") is over 75, the patient is admitted for acute exacerbations, sent to the ICU, and put on a ventilator, the six-month survival rate is 33 percent. In the months leading up to this hospitalization, M.S.V. had a GI issue that led to her having a colostomy. The colostomy was reversed during that hospital stay. The patient also had a history of tuberculosis, hypertension, and anemia. On 06/29/11, a non-Vitas physician certified M.S.V. had a life expectancy of six months or less. This was her primary care physician and attended the patient while in hospice. Her PPS was 30 percent at admission. A PPS below 70 percent is appropriate for hospice admission according to HI's instructions. During the first dates at issue, M.S.V. was admitted to the IPU and had challenges with secretions and choking and needed suctioning. She also had low-grade fevers during her IPU stay and episodes of tachypnea. She subsequently improved and was discharged for extended prognosis. M.S.V was readmitted to Vitas on 03/22/12. Prior to this, M.S.V. was admitted to the hospital with severe respiratory distress, was in the ICU again, was on a ventilator with a pseudomonas pneumonia that was complicated by a clostridium difficile colitis, a very severe infection of the large colon. On 03/31/12, M.S.V. needed five liters of oxygen on the trach collar, which is a substantial amount of oxygen, continued to have cough, secretions, congestion, and needed to be suctioned three times a day to remove green secretions. On 04/14/12, M.S.V. had confusion, was forgetful, and had dyspnea. She had rhonchi, cough, secretions, congestion with dyspnea, was still on five liters of oxygen, had abnormal lung findings and still required suctioning. She was on continuous care at that time. Continuous care is provided when a hospice patient has substantial skilled needs to manage their symptoms. Therefore, the hospice placed a nurse in the patient's home up to 24 hours a day to manage those symptoms. On 04/16/12, M.S.V. experienced shortness of breath and was very dyspneic with any type of exertion. She had weakness and required assistance with all ADLs. On 05/03/12, M.S.V. revoked hospice care. She had been in the IPU with a severe exacerbation of her respiratory symptoms requiring a seven-day course of Levaquin to help treat the increased secretions. She was also started on Prednisone for COPD exacerbation. She continued to struggle with secretions and near the end of the stay, she was having more lethargy, confusion and congestion. She revoked hospice care to seek aggressive care in the hospital. On 06/19/12, M.S.V. was seen at an acute care hospital and was diagnosed by a non-Vitas physician with end-stage pulmonary fibrosis. M.S.V.'s terminal diagnosis during the third period at issue was end-stage pulmonary fibrosis. On 06/20/12, M.S.V. had a heart rate of 124, which was markedly elevated with 100 being the upper limit of normal. She also had an elevated respiratory rate, was confused, agitated, somnolent, trying to take off her oxygen, and required Thorazine and Ativan to help control her symptoms. She had orthopnea, wheezing, cough, secretions, congestion, diminished breath sounds, required suctioning times four of thick yellow mucus, and was on continuous care and five liters of oxygen. M.S.V. developed respiratory infections during both the second and third claim periods in dispute. On 07/03/12, M.S.V. developed a temperature of 100.5, had agitation, anxiety, shortness of breath, increased congestion and increased lethargy. Her PPS was 30 percent at that time. She also was on Ativan and Thorazine and on eight liters of oxygen. She was congested with rhonchi, wheezes, rales, and dyspnea. She had shortness of breath at rest. She needed suctioning and was started on antibiotics. M.S.V.'s family then revoked hospice care for aggressive treatment. Dr. Talakkottur opined that because M.S.V. did not have increased ER visits, she was not showing evidence of decline. However, M.S.V. was hospitalized three times surrounding the dates at issue, had multiple instances of IPU and continuous care during hospice, and experienced multiple infections. Dr. Talakkottur also did not follow the standard of the Florida Handbook in that he denied a period due to no "significant" deterioration in the patient's condition. This is not a guideline for hospice eligibility--clinical progression of the terminal disease is a guideline. That progression is not required to be "significant" by any metric. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.S.V. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the periods in dispute. Patient 29, R.S. Patient R.S. was a 62-year-old male initially admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of cerebral degeneration. The claim period at issue is 06/21/11 to 07/08/11. During the lead up to the dates at issue, R.S.'s status began to improve and Vitas was undertaking a review to determine if discharge was appropriate. On 06/21/11, R.S. suffered a fracture of the right clavicle while in an assisted living home. Fractures alone are associated with subsequent increased mortality in older adults (over age 60). In older adults, the fracture alters their homeostasis because they have homeostenosis. Any small change in the person's condition can lead to dramatic subsequent outcomes that increase the risk of mortality. The cause of death after the fall is variable, but it is often related to conditions, such as R.S.'s underlying condition. R.S. suffered from comorbidities of dementia, hypertension, paranoid schizophrenia, a history of seizures, benign prostatic hypertrophy of the prostate, a history of dysphagia, history of substance abuse, increased lipids, reflux, and a history of coronary heart disease. R.S. was also confused, nonverbal, and on oxygen. On 06/30/11, R.S. was a fall risk, was supervised at all times, and his mobility had substantially declined. R.S. was on Ativan to treat his anxiety and agitation, which also increased the fall risk and the risk of aspiration. Ativan was a new medication for R.S. prescribed to treat the anxiety and agitation and increased the risk of subsequent aspiration. Dr. Shega testified that agitation is a known manifestation of pain in persons with dementia. Particularly in a nonverbal patient who cannot say it hurts, he/she has to express himself/herself other ways. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for care of persons with dementia state that clinicians need to assess patients for pain and that includes agitation and dementia. R.S. was on morphine and Tylenol and then also on the Ativan to help control the agitation; however, all those medications can increase risk of aspiration. On 07/08/2011, R.S. was transferred to the ER for choking. He was in respiratory failure when he arrived and died shortly thereafter. Dr. Shega opined that the cause of death was related to his terminal diagnosis as fractures in patients with advanced dementia often change the trajectory of their illness and dramatically increases their likelihood of dying within six months. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that dementia patients can progress to the point that they can no longer swallow. It was undisputed that R.S. died of choking. Dr. Talakkottur inaccurately saw no correlation between R.S.'s fracture and his demise the following month. Dr. Shega's testimony was more credible than that of Dr. Tallakottur. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that R.S. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 21, A.D. Patient A.D. was a 63-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The claim periods at issue are 10/21/09 to 03/24/10 and 05/13/10 to 02/28/11. Just prior to hospice admission, A.D. had been hospitalized for heart failure which required a BiPAP. At admission to hospice, A.D. had a PPS of 30 percent, weight that had decreased from 150 to 140 pounds, a BMI of 22.2, shortness of breath at rest and with minimal exertion, lower abdominal pain, weakness, and difficulty ambulating. A.D. had comorbidities of COPD; polysubstance abuse including cocaine; marijuana; alcohol; and tobacco; hypertension; atrial fibrillation; coronary artery disease with stents being placed; gastroesophageal reflux disease; medical noncompliance; increased lipids; and depression. A.D. was certified to have a prognosis for a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness ran its normal course by the independent third-party physician who treated A.D. in the hospital. On 10/22/09, A.D. was noted to have an EF of 15 percent. EF alone is not a predictor of reduced life- expectancy. Dr. Shega noted that it is the relationship between the EF and the patient's symptom burden that predicts increased mortality and hospice appropriateness. Dr. Talakkottur testified that a normal EF is above 55 percent. On 10/23/09, A.D.'s respiratory rate was elevated at 24. He was hypotensive with a blood pressure of 90 over 60, required morphine for pain, was lethargic but arousable, had chest pain, was on oxygen, and was short of breath with exertion. On 12/08/09, A.D. was placed on continuous care. He experienced dizziness when he sat up, which Dr. Shega opined was probably related to the patient's low blood pressure of 80 over 50, consistent with a severe NYHA Class. On 03/24/10, A.D.'s terminal diagnosis was changed to end-stage heart disease. He had chest pains and an extremely low heart rate of 40. A.D. revoked hospice care and was admitted to the acute care hospital with a severe life-defining infection in the defibrillator pocket. An infection of a pacemaker is a rare occurrence. A.D. required a transesophageal echo on 14/15/10. A transesophageal echo is a probe down the patient's esophagus to determine how the heart is functioning. Usually, a transesophageal echo is done when there is concern about endocarditis or infection of the heart valves. On 05/13/10, A.D. was readmitted to Vitas. His EF was again 15 percent and his PPS was 30 percent. He was drowsy, was an aspiration risk, and was NYHA Class IV with chest pain and dyspnea at rest and exertion. Symptoms of heart disease are not just shortness of breath. They also include chest pain, fatigue, weakness, or palpitations. At the second admission, A.D. was again certified to have a prognosis for a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness ran its normal course by the independent third-party hospital physician. He received morphine for shortness of breath and still had shortness of breath with exertion. During the second period at issue, A.D. had a trajectory very consistent with end-stage heart disease with intermittent periods of shortness of breath or chest pain at rest or with minimal exertion. At times, he would show minor improvement in cardiac status, then decline. He did gain weight during this period but continued to exhibit NYHA Class III and Class IV disease status. He became weaker and spent more time in bed. His nutritional status improved, but other parameters fluctuated or remained end-stage, particularly the NYHA Class. He also experienced hypotension. A.D. ultimately passed away in hospice during an approved period. A study done by Joan Lunny published in the Journal of the American Medical Association("JAMA") on heart failure and end-stage lung disease patients showed that the patients have exacerbations, get worse, then improve. They may plateau. They may improve a little, but will then get worse again. This is visually displayed in the HI presentation "The Role and Function of Hospice Reviewers, "which depicts via a line graph the saw- tooth nature of the progression of the diseases. (Vitas Ex. 4). A.D. disease trajectory followed this chart. Dr. Talakkottur stated that A.D. showed no signs of acute cardiac disease at either admission, which is contrary to the medical records showing he had NYHA Class III or IV symptoms at both admissions. Dr. Talakkottur also stated that a low EF was not concerning in this patient because it could rebound in six months. However, as indicated above, A.D.'s EF was at 15 percent on the date of each admission, 10/21/09 and 05/13/10. Dr. Talakkottur also stated that this patient was not terminal as evidenced by a lack of increased utilization of health care, such as ER visits and hospitalizations. However, the patient had been hospitalized just prior to each admission to hospice. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.D. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the periods in dispute. Patient 23, S.V.D. Patient S.V.D. was a 44-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease with cirrhosis. The claim period at issue is 12/03/10 to 07/30/11. Just prior to hospice admission, S.V.D. had been hospitalized for vaginal bleeding, with a hemoglobin down to 2.5, which caused her to be admitted to the coronary care unit where she had a procedure in the hospital to help mitigate future bleeding, including an ablation and a dilation and curettage. She had an INR of 1.5 and an albumin of 2.1. She was jaundiced and had a bilirubin of 6. The upper range of normal for bilirubin is 1.1. She had a history of encephalopathy and multiple paracentesis. A paracentesis performed 11/29/10 removed five liters of fluid and a subsequent paracentesis on 12/03/10 removed four liters. Dr. Talakkottur opined that J.V.D. was not hospice appropriate because she failed to display signs of a terminal prognosis. Her PPS scores were between 30 and 50 percent, she was alert and oriented on the order of two to three, and she was able to ambulate throughout the period. Moreover, her albumin rose to 3.4, which was an improvement and marker of liver function. She had no recurrent or intractable infections, no respiratory problems, and her nutritional status remained good. However, upon admission, S.V.D. had an extremely elevated ammonia level, progressive malnutrition, and continued to use alcohol. She had a PPS of 40 percent, a BMI of 21.5, muscle wasting, weakness, shortness of breath, and a poor appetite. While the normal range for ammonia is 20 or less, S.V.D.'s ammonia level was 74. A BMI of 22 or less is considered significant nutritional impairment. On 12/03/10, a non-Vitas physician certified that S.V.D. had a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness ran its normal course. On 12/08/10, S.V.D. had an INR of 1.53. This was drawn because S.V.D. needed another paracentesis, which occurred in the Vitas IPU on 12/09/10, and removed 1.5 liters of fluid. During the period at issue, S.V.D. exhibited impaired nutritional status with weight loss and muscle wasting, including bilateral temporal wasting. She also had jaundice, fatigue, periods of confusion, and encephalopathy. On 05/18/11, S.V.D.'s weight had decreased to 104 pounds with continued muscle wasting and bilateral temporal wasting with a poor appetite. She may have been abusing alcohol and was having worsening leg pain, probably from peripheral neuropathy related to alcohol. She had shortness of breath with minimal activity, was sometimes sleepy, alert and oriented, times two, with periods of confusion, which supported a diagnosis of encephalopathy. She required more assistance with ADLs and her PPS was 30 percent. S.V.D. had progression of her disease and was more easily fatigued, lost muscle mass, ascites, decreased appetite and weight loss, was sleeping sometimes for a whole day, and at times was too tired to eat. Dr. Talakkottur testified that S.V.D.'s nutritional status improved. Although her appetite did improve after the dates at issue, during the dates at issue, it was severely compromised. He also stated that he could not find any evidence of a compromised nutritional status. This statement was patently refuted by the record. Dr. Talakkottur argued as a reason for denying eligibility that the patient did not have further paracentesis. However, when the third paracentesis was drawn on 12/09/10, after admission to hospice, the fact that no future paracentesis would be drawn was not known. This is the type of revisionist review that is improper and cannot be used to deny eligibility after the fact. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that S.V.D. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 24, S.K. Patient S.K. was an 86-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebral degeneration. The claim period at issue is just over seven months, from 05/10/12 to 12/31/12. Patient S.K. had two recent hospitalizations to Northwest Medical Center for lower extremity cellulitis on 02/20/12 and on 05/04/12, just prior to admission. The patient had functional decline. In the hospital, her PPS was noted to be 20 percent. She became bedbound within the previous nine months. Before that, she was ambulatory. She had upper and lower contractures. She was described as lethargic with a FAST at that time of 7d. She was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, with a weight of 78 pounds and a BMI of 14.2. She had muscle wasting, along with anorexia, incontinence, cachexia, and poor appetite. S.K. also had dysphagia, was on a pureed diet, and was at risk for aspiration. The patient had Stage II pressure wounds to the right hip, right toe, and knee. Patient S.K.'s past medical history included dementia, hypertension, DVT of the right lower extremity, and a pressure ulcer of the right hip. Dr. Shega testified that Patient S.K. met the criteria for Medicaid hospice because she had two recent hospitalizations for infections; progression of her disease; functional decline with wounds; impaired nutritional status; with BMI markedly low at 14.2; a PPS at admission of 20 percent likely related to lethargy; and documentation that nine months prior, the patient essentially became bedbound. All of that documentation together indicated that she went from a chronic illness to end-of-life. Patient S.K.'s non-Vitas attending physician signed the oral certification that concurred the patient had a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less if the illness ran its normal course and authorized Vitas to evaluate and admit the patient to the program. After S.K. was admitted to Vitas hospice, she experienced lethargy and low-grade fevers consistent with likely aspiration that slightly improved, and then she developed thrush in the first benefit period, which impacted her ability to swallow and eat. The thrush was appropriately treated. Thrush only happens in usually severely immunocompromised patients. She would cough when she ate, indicating her high risk of aspiration. In July 2012, S.K. was dependent in all ADLs. Her PPS was 30 percent, her FAST level was 7f, she had a Stage III wound, was nonverbal, was eating 50 to 60 percent of small meals, and had visible weight loss. She was in pain when being moved. She developed a wound on the right foot that had bloody drainage, so she had a hip wound and a foot wound. Her caregiver reported she slept most of the day, stared at the ceiling, and continued to document end-stage cerebral degeneration. S.K.'s hip wound resolved in August 2012. In October 2012, the patient developed another episode of thrush, again documenting her poor status. S.K. had dysphagia and coughed when getting liquids, which meant that when the patient was drinking, she was coughing, which dramatically increased her risk of aspiration because she was having a hard time controlling the texture; and at any time, it could get into her lungs and cause pneumonia or asphyxiation. S.K. was recertified as Medicaid hospice eligible on 10/27/2012. S.K.'s MMA had decreased, she remained bedbound with cachexia and muscle wasting, she was eating about 50 percent, she continued to need to be fed, she was given Percocet for pain as needed, had shortness of breath with oxygen as needed, her wounds had resolved, and she was at very high risk for infection given her bedbound status, severe malnutrition, and inability to care for herself. S.K.'s PPS remained at 30 percent, and she was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs. Her home health aide visits had to be increased to seven times a week to help support the patient and family. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that Patient S.K. remained at a FAST level above 7, a PPS score of 30 percent or below, was incontinent of bladder and bowel, had dysphagia and was bedbound, and was 6 of 6 ADLs during the entirety of the dates at issue. S.K. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. As noted above, she had a FAST score above 7c, which indicates she was speaking six words or fewer, was 6 of 6 ADLs, and was incontinent. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that S.K. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 26, E.E. Patient E.E. was a 59-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. The claim period at issue is 09/01/09 to 04/30/10. E.E. had two hospitalizations for ascites and paracentesis prior to his stay in Vitas hospice. Upon admission, E.E. had a distended abdomen with 8 of 10 pain. E.E.'s skin was slightly jaundiced, he had a very poor appetite, and reportedly had not eaten in three days. The family and patient also reported issues with bloody noses and periodic bloody stool. At that time, the patient had a reported weight loss from 180 to 160 pounds or 11 percent of his body weight. E.E. was dependent in 5 of 6 ADLs, a PPS of 40 percent, dyspnea with rest and exertion, and confusion On 09/02/09, E.E. had two plus edema noted in his feet. As of 09/17/09, Patient E.E. had shortness of breath with activity and at rest. From a cognitive perspective, E.E. was confused at times and forgetful. He had bilateral edema in the extremities, was incontinent, under fall precautions, needed help setting up his food, and had very poor skin turgor with easy bruising indicating challenges with coagulation. Patient E.E. was extremely anxious, needed to be placed on an antibiotic for cellulitis, and was started on Aldactone for worsening edema. As of 11/30/09, while E.E.'s weight from admission in June increased from 160 to 180, his PPS remained at 40 percent, and he was having more pain in the abdomen related to ascites. The abdomen was described as distended. He continued to have confusion, forgetfulness, and agitation at times. E.E. also had lower extremity edema and now shortness of breath. E.E. was now on Lasix in addition to the Aldactone to try to control his edema. He continued to have a poor appetite. He was on lactulose to help manage his encephalopathy, which would not be expected in a 59-year-old without a dementia diagnosis, and he had confusion and forgetfulness; consequently, Dr. Shega concluded that was related to the end-stage liver disease. Dr. Shega testified that Patient E.E. was Medicaid hospice eligible at that time because he had ongoing manifestations of end-stage liver disease with worsening ascites, weight gain from the edema, a poor appetite, and required medication for encephalopathy. In February 2010, E.E.'s long-acting morphine was increased from 30 to 45 every 12 hours, he had pain, confusion and cognitive loss, was incontinent, had difficulty with ADLs, was eating about 25 percent of meals with anorexia, and had additional skin tears on his arms. E.E. had confusion, needed reorientation, and required a bed alarm on the bed because he might get up and fall. E.E. was prescribed an antipsychotic, Risperdal, at one milligram twice a day in March 2010 and had episodes of dyspnea requiring oxygen treatment. His PPS was 40 percent, pulse was 102, and had ongoing pain 8 of 10. He remained agitated with confusion and had aggression for which the antipsychotic was started. His Lasix dose was twice a day to try to manage the edema, and he continued to have intermittent dyspnea, ADL dependency, decreased appetite, easy bruising, and skin tears on both arms. In April 2010, E.E. continued to decline with increased confusion and weakness. He had new skin tears on both arms indicative of poor nutritional status. He had ascites along with his liver being able to be palpated. His weight was 165 pounds. He was lethargic, lying in bed with altered mental status; he remained on the lactulose and diuretics. His skin was jaundiced. Patient E.E. was Medicaid hospice eligible during all of the dates at issue. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that in March 2010, Patient E.E. became a fall risk, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and had periods of aggression and was very confused, which was possibly caused by encephalopathy. Dr. Talakkottur further acknowledged in final hearing that in April 2010, Patient E.E. had severe low back and abdominal pain, was on two liters of oxygen, required assistance with 5 of 6 ADLs, had skin tears, signs of ascites, and jaundiced skin. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that E.E. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 28, D.M. Patient D.M. was a 59-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the prostate. The claim period at issue is just over seven months, from 05/26/12 to 12/31/2012. D.M. was admitted to Vitas on 05/26/12 with a terminal diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the prostate (cancer). He died on service on 5/07/13. The "Scope" of the audit, as included in the FARs, states, "In addition, HI excluded recipients who had at least one malignancy (cancer) primary diagnosis and had a date of death less than one year from the first date of service with this provider." The undisputed evidence shows that D.M. had a terminal diagnosis of cancer and died less than one year after first receiving hospice care from Vitas. AHCA has the burden to prove compliance with the audit scope. It has not in this case. According to the scope of the audit, this claim must be excluded. Even if the scope of the audit did not preclude disputing this patient's benefits, AHCA failed to show this patient was not eligible. Just prior to admission in May 2012, Patient D.M. sustained a fall for which he had imaging that demonstrated diffuse metastatic blastic lesions and an elevated PSA to 302 nanograms per milliliter. D.M. also had left hydronephrosis, an enlarged bladder secondary to the prostate cancer that required Foley catheter placement. A CT scan demonstrated widespread blastic bony metastasis diagnosed as prostate cancer. The patient had substantial physical disability with a noted PPS of 40 percent, a reported weight loss from 150 to 140 pounds, and a BMI of 20. The patient had 6 of 10 groin pain and bilateral lower extremity edema. D.M.'s non-Vitas physician, Dr. Richard Mastrole, signed the certification attesting that the patient had a prognosis of six months or less if the illness ran its normal course and authorized Vitas to evaluate the patient for hospice services and admit him to the Vitas hospice program (signed and dated on 06/07/2012). D.M. also had a hematology consultation by Dr. David Drew. Dr. Drew noted D.M. developed weight loss of more than 20 pounds, close to 15 percent of his body weight, in the previous four to five months. He also noted that D.M.'s pain was so severe it interfered with his sleeping and eating. Dr. Shega testified that D.M.'s imaging demonstrated the blastic disease (prostate cancer) growing and invading into the bone. Dr. Shega further testified that the patient's alkaline phosphatase was markedly elevated to 600, which demonstrated the cancer was eating into the bone. The blastic lesions suggested that the tumor was actively growing and metabolizing the bone, destroying the bone, which is what was contributing to the pain. Within the bone, there are nerve fibers, and those nerve fibers were being stimulated by the cancer, which was destroying the environment. Dr. Shega testified that patients who have bony metastatic disease are at marked increase risk of subsequent fracture. D.M. was Medicaid hospice eligible at the time of initial certification because he had a terminal diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer with known bony metastatic lesions that were blastic in nature, and a prognosis of six months or less if the disease ran its normal course. There were serial physician assessments of a hospitalization with all the physicians, including the patient's primary care doctor, documenting the patient had a prognosis of six months or less. D.M. had impaired nutritional status as documented in the appropriateness evaluation and in the medical record in the hospital. He had functional decline demonstrated by a PPS of 40 percent, which is markedly impaired. On 05/25/12, the day prior to admission, Patient D.M. met with the Vitas admission nurse and discussed that he had Stage IV prostate cancer and the Vitas hospice philosophy. The patient stated that he would be seeking aggressive care and would be seeing an oncologist in one to two weeks for chemotherapy and that he might also have an orchiectomy in two to three weeks per the urologist. However, D.M. did not follow through with aggressive care. In June 2012, Patient D.M. suffered a fall. X-rays did not document a fracture, but the fall indicated his overall weakness. In July 2012, Patient D.M. had a Stage I ulcer on the left leg that subsequently healed, but demonstrated that his nutritional status had not improved despite the weight gain. As of 08/10/12, D.M. was distressed and not getting adequate pain relief. He had pain in his pelvis, hips, and back relating to bone metastasis. On exam, palpation of different areas of his body exacerbated the pain; he had edema; and his appetite was declining, although he did not appear to be losing weight (due to the steroid treatment). He was also lethargic. Patient D.M. continued to have worsening pain during his stay in Vitas hospice, requiring more aggressive pain management. He was started on methadone, which is one of the most potent opioid analgesics, which was increased as the patient was on Vitas service. The increased pain and titration of opioids supported that the cancer was progressing and worsening. D.M. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for cancer. As noted above, he had both metastases and a PPS below 70 percent. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that D.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 29, R.S. Patient R.S. was a 59-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of debility. The claim periods at issue are 04/20/11 to 05/23/11 and 06/03/11 to 10/16/12. Prior to admission, R.S. was hospitalized for almost three weeks beginning on 03/02/11 for joint pain. At that time, the patient had severe electrolyte abnormalities, hyponatremia, along with a hemoglobin of 7.7. He was a known alcohol abuser and had an EGD that found gastritis in the stomach, along with a duodenal ulcer. He also had a UTI during that hospital stay and pneumonia. The patient was not safe to live independently and was placed in an ALF. Patient R.S. had a recent significant decline in functional status and became totally dependent in ADLs resulting in a PPS of 30 percent. R.S. had a poor appetite and an extremely low albumin level of 2.1. The patient became more confused, forgetful and developed extremity edema. He had a wound on his right foot. R.S. had peripheral vascular disease contributing to his diagnosis of debility, with severe functional disability. His prognosis in part was related to severe functional disability. This patient's comorbidities included dementia, atrial fibrillation, alcohol abuse for over 30 years, and a history of delirium tremens ("DTs"), gout, high blood pressure, COPD, anemia, and depression. R.S.'s primary care, non-Vitas physician, certified the patient for hospice and that the patient's prognosis was six months or less. After admission, R.S. developed a lesion on the outer aspect of the right foot that became necrotic due to poor circulation. Ultimately, R.S. had to be transferred to the IPU for management. Patient R.S. decided that due to the pain, he wanted an amputation and revoked hospice services to receive that amputation. R.S. was readmitted to Vitas hospice on 06/03/11 after his above-the-knee amputation at Columbia Hospital and was quickly thereafter admitted to Vitas' IPU for pain control. At that time, the patient's PPS was 40 percent. R.S. had ongoing 9 of 10 stump pain, which is common after an amputation, but he developed necrosis of the left heel, and he was admitted to the IPU for pain management. R.S. was Medicaid hospice eligible at readmission because he had the same terminal diagnosis of debility with the same clinical manifestations, but now had a left heel ulcer; the patient had just come out of the hospital after a life-defining condition and was referred to hospice services from that hospitalization; and, functionally, the patient had a PPS of 30 percent. Those indicators together demonstrated that Patient R.S. continued to have a prognosis of six months or less if the illness ran its usual and normal course. As of 06/11/11, Patient R.S. continued to have pain and had a new necrotic area on the left heel, cachexia and muscle wasting, a poor appetite, and was increasingly confused at times with increasing dementia. As of 08/20/11, R.S. had ongoing cachexia, muscle wasting, continued pain, progressive dementia, and continued to have the wound on the left heel, which was necrotic, and was having regular wound care and needed to be debrided, which was a systemic manifestation of the peripheral vascular disease. In December 2011, R.S. was noted to have poor skin turgor, was at high risk of developing additional skin breakdown, and his skin temperature was cold due to the peripheral vascular disease. The patient had an open coccyx wound, along with a wound to the left outer knee. The ongoing wounds suggested that the patient's nutritional status had not improved and that he continued to be hospice appropriate. The wound tissue was dead and not healing very well and Santyl, a chemical debrider, was administered to remove the dead tissue, indicating a severe wound. R.S. was steadily declining as evidenced by increased weakness and skin breakdown. In May 2012, R.S. had urinary symptoms along with increased lethargy and forgetfulness. He was started on an antibiotic for UTI. His condition was steadily declining, requiring frequent repositioning in bed and had poor balance. R.S. had an active infection. In his debilitated stated, it was considered a life-defining infection making R.S. hospice appropriate with a prognosis of six months or less if the illness ran its usual and normal course. In July 2012, R.S. needed increased pain medication to help manage his symptoms and was transitioned from morphine to methadone for the neuropathic pain he was experiencing. He remained bedbound, incontinent, and dependent in all ADLs. He had persistent sleepiness throughout the morning and difficulty staying awake, a sign of end-stage disease. He had shortness of breath along with anorexia, anxiety and depression, and a PPS of 30 percent. R.S. continued to have poor blood flow to the leg with decreasing sensation and decreased pulses in the left leg, putting it at very high risk for subsequent skin breakdown and the risk of an additional ulcer was very high. He had decreased breath sounds and scattered rhonchi. R.S. was also complaining of urinary symptoms and was started on another antibiotic for a UTI. As of 08/27/12, R.S. continued to demonstrate severe physical disability, with a fair appetite, poor skin turgor, and a right shoulder wound that was open and draining, consistent with an infection. His right shoulder had a raised area with redness, hard, moderate drainage, and he was started on an antibiotic to treat the infection. Patient R.S. was discharged from Vitas hospice in October 2012. The patient was presented to the Vitas medical director review for a possible extended prognosis. The patient's pain was much better controlled with titration of medications. The patient's weight had increased and his appetite had improved. The patient currently did not have any wounds, and previous wounds had healed. The infection in August 2012 had resolved. Patient R.S. did not need a higher level of care. At that time, the medical director believed that the patient had a prognosis greater than six months if the illness ran its usual course. At final hearing, Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that R.S., at initial certification, had a history of dementia, was incontinent, required full assistance with ADLs, had a necrotic toe, was bedbound and wheelchair-bound. He revoked hospice on 05/23/11, and shortly thereafter had his necrotic and gangrenous foot amputated above the knee. Dr. Talakkottur further acknowledged that during R.S.'s stay in hospice, he did not have a PPS score above 40 percent, his condition was slowly declining, evidenced by delayed wound healing and increased weakness. R.S. had muscle wasting, severe low back pain, became anorexic, continued to be incontinent of bowel and bladder, was too weak to get out of bed, developed a Stage III decubitus ulcer, and had a UTI and cellulitis. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that R.S. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the two periods at issue. DADE RECIPIENTS Patient 1, A.B. Patient A.B. was a 34-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage AIDS. The claim periods at issue are 02/12/11 to 07/18/11 and 10/18/11 to 12/30/11. A.B. was hospitalized just prior to hospice admission on 02/04/11 for shortness of breath, cough, weakness, and pneumonia. On admission to hospice, A.B.'s weight had decreased from 189 pounds to 160 pounds in the previous five to six months. She also had a CD4 count of less than four. She was having difficulty chewing and was on a mechanically soft diet. A.B. had a history of several pneumocystis pneumonias, which Dr. Vermette stated is one of the sentinel opportunistic infections that define a patient as having AIDS, instead of HIV, and is a very serious type of pneumonia that is difficult to treat and eradicate. She had a PPS of 40 percent. A.B. had numerous admissions to Vitas continuous care and IPU. She was admitted to continuous care at the time of admission. On 02/17/11, she was admitted to the IPU. She was again placed on continuous care on 02/19/11. She was admitted back to the IPU on 03/23/11 for difficulty breathing and a respiratory infection. A.B. was re-admitted to the IPU on 04/11/11 for pain, and admitted again on 04/21/11 due to vomiting and pain. She was admitted to the IPU on 05/12/11 for abdominal pain and diarrhea. She was again admitted to the IPU for chest pain on 05/19/11. She was placed on continuous care for pain management on 06/10/11. A.B. was again transferred to the IPU on 07/04/11 for vomiting and abdominal cramping. On 05/10/11, A.B.'s weight had decreased to 157 pounds, she was cachectic, had shortness of breath managed with oxygen and bronchodilators, had a PPS of 40 percent, had increased episodes of confusion, agitation and forgetfulness, and was recently treated for oral candiasis. A.B. was discharged on 07/18/11 when arrested. On 10/18/11, A.B. was readmitted to Vitas hospice. Between the two hospice admissions, A.B. was again seen at the Magic Johnson Healthcare Center. In August 2011, her CD4 count was less than six. On 09/19/11, her weight was 151 pounds. She was taking her AIDS and heart medications without improvement and with periods of noncompliance, which are both indicators of worsening prognosis. At admission, A.B. had a PPS of 40 percent, a weight of 150 pounds, was having significant pain, shortness of breath at exertion and rest, ulcers and lesions on both legs, a history of recurrent infections, and had been discontinued for antiretroviral medications. On 10/19/11, A.B.'s attending physician certified her as having a life expectancy of six months or less if her terminal illness ran its normal course. On 11/12/11, A.B. was admitted to the IPU for pain management, at which point her PPS had decreased to 30 percent. On 11/20/11, A.B. was again admitted to the IPU for shortness of breath and chest pain. Her respiratory rate was extremely high at 28 and her pain medications had been changed from Percocet to morphine. On 12/01/11, A.B. had a CD4 count of 20, which was still in the terminal stage. She also had decreased appetite, increased weakness, and a PPS of 40 percent. On 12/30/11, A.B. revoked hospice care to seek surgery for recurrent diarrhea and gastrointestinal issues. Dr. Talakkottur stated as his rationale for denying eligibility that there was a lack of CD4 labs during the first admission, that her PPS remained at 40 percent, that she had no frequent hospitalizations, and that she had no recurrent infections. These statements are all contrary to the evidence. Dr. Talakkottur admitted A.B. had multiple hospitalizations leading up to hospice, serial assessments and lab work in the two years leading up to hospice, ten higher levels of care during her first admission, a CD4 count of less than 4 at admission, a PPS that dropped to 30 percent, and documented recurrent infections (pneumocystis pneumonia and thrush, which are opportunistic infections). At hearing, Dr. Talakkottur relied on the study "Mortality and Well Controlled HIV and the Continuous Antiretroviral Therapy Arms of the SMART and ESPRIT Trials Compared with the General Population" dated 03/27/13, by A.J. Rodger. The study, published after the end of the audit period, was not available to Vitas in 2011 when physicians were making real time prognoses regarding patient A.B. In addition, the patients examined in the study were only those with a CD4 count of greater than or equal to 350. With CD4 counts always at or below 20, A.B.'s condition would exclude her from the parameters of this study. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged that the lower the CD4 count, the more susceptible a person is to infections and that these infections can increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. He also acknowledged that not taking AIDS medication increases the patient's chances of getting opportunistic infections. Patient A.B. was not compliant with medication. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.B. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the two periods at issue. Patient 4, E.M. Patient E.M. was a 70-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage COPD. The claim periods at issue are 12/21/11 to 05/13/12 and 05/15/12 to 12/31/12. Patient E.M. was hospitalized on 11/30/11 through to his initial admission to Vitas. He had shortness of breath and a pulse oxygen reading of 88. He responded poorly to treatment with bronchodilators and had a wound on his sacrum. He had a carbon dioxide pressure of 67, which was very high and implied the patient was not able to flush the carbon dioxide out of his lungs because of his disease. He had acidosis in his bloodstream of 7.32. Acidosis in the bloodstream can be extremely life- threatening it if drops below 7.25 or 7.2. An acidosis level of 7.32 shows that despite E.M.'s body's best effort to compensate for the retained carbon dioxide that his lung disease was causing, he was not able to maintain homeostasis. During the 11/30/11 hospital stay, Patient E.M. was placed on BiPAP, which at the time was the most aggressive nonintubation treatment available. He remained on BiPAP for about 22 days, despite efforts to ween him off before being referred to hospice. At the time of discharge from the hospital, E.M. was informed that he did not have many options to improve his condition. E.M. was certified hospice appropriate by his non- Vitas attending physician. He was admitted with evidence of extensive disease as identified above and a BMI of less than 19. At admission, E.M. was placed on continuous care while on eight medications to treat his respiratory symptoms. In January 2012, E.M. lost consciousness and was sent to the ER. On 03/09/12, E.M. had cough, congestion, and secretions, and had to be started on another antibiotic. On 03/15/12, E.M. had a PPS of 40 percent, was short of breath and on oxygen 24 hours a day. He could stand with assistance but could not walk freely. He had a poor appetite and slept day and night, which was evidence of progression as end-stage COPD patients require increased sleep and rest. E.M. had crackles in his lungs which were consistent with end-stage lung disease. He also had apnea during the first benefit period, which is more significant in COPD patients, because there is a chance they never start breathing again. Most COPD patients, who do not die of some other cause, die of acute respiratory arrest. Apnea in an end-stage COPD patient is a significant indicator of a poor prognosis. E.M. revoked hospice care on 05/13/12 and was treated at Baptist Hospital of Miami for intractable shortness of breath. He was discharged from the hospital on 05/15/12 and re-admitted to hospice that same day. At the second admission to hospice on 05/15/12, E.M. had shortness of breath, was coming off the recent hospitalization, had decreased weight from 121 pounds to 109.5 pounds, was chair-bound, had chronic kidney disease, bronchial asthma, and a PPS of 40 percent. He was placed on continuous care on admission. Upon readmission on 05/15/12, E.M. had muscle wasting, was unable to be weighed, had shortness of breath with continuous oxygen usage, and had decreased tolerance to activity and increased weakness. Dr. Talakkottur relied on the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease ("GOLD") Criteria for COPD for denying eligibility during the periods at issue. However, the GOLD criteria were developed to standardize what treatments are started when in a step-by-step organized fashion for COPD patients. GOLD is designed to treat patients to keep them out of the hospital. Dr. Vermette stated that the GOLD criterion has no relevance to a patient in E.M.'s condition who is already on eight medications, which is far beyond the GOLD criteria. Dr. Talakkottur's reliance on a spirometry test for prognosis is similarly misguided. A spirometry test is helpful to determine treatment and medication. Dr. Vermette stated that once a patient's COPD has progressed to the severity of E.M.'s, spirometry is inconsequential. The six-minute walk test is also irrelevant for a patient who has an illness as advanced as E.M. That test is to determine how many breathing treatments a patient needs and has no impact on prognosticating life expectancy. Dr. Talakkottur believed E.M. should have performed a six-minute walk test to determine the severity of his COPD, despite being unable to walk for six minutes (mainly bed and chair-bound). On 08/13/13, E.M. was forced to sit in a tripod position, trying to actually push air in and out of his lungs, not just with his diaphragm. He also exhibited global muscle atrophy, which meant all the muscles in his body were shriveling. This was evidence of both functional and nutritional impairment. COPD, by definition, is a chronic disease from the time of diagnosis. It does, however, enter an end-stage as evidenced by symptoms such as having shortness of breath at rest, being in and out of the hospital with intractable shortness of breath, being oxygen-dependent, and being on eight medications. E.M. exhibited specific indicators of "progression of end stage pulmonary disease" for the LCD for pulmonary disease. As noted above, he had hospitalizations due to his COPD both immediately prior to admission and during his stay in hospice. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that E.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment for the two periods at issue. Patient 6, G.O. Patient G.O. was a 90-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is under three months, from 05/21/12 to 08/18/12. Just prior to being admitted to hospice, G.O. had been hospitalized for multiple complex problems, including sepsis, left lower lobe pneumonia, severe anemia, and had a heart attack while in the hospital. He was referred to and certified for hospice by his attending physician. Dr. Vermette opined that G.O. was terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live and his condition and symptoms were indicative of a NYHA Class IV because he suffered from shortness of breath at rest. NYHA Class III and Class IV patients will present with shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue or palpations at rest; any of those symptoms occurring at rest would stage a person at Class IV and be considered an indicator of a poor prognosis. However, Vitas's file for G.O. seems to belie a finding that he met the standards for NYHA Class IV or Class III. The Plan of Care Review documents during the disputed timeframe fail to indicate that G.O. ever suffered from shortness of breath at rest--the hallmark for NYHA Class IV. One plan in the disputed timeframe remarks upon the recipient's respiratory system, but all other plans have no comment for the recipient's respiratory status. The plan dated 08/30/12, indicated the recipient had shortness of breath and received oxygen. Not all plans are indicative of the recipient having dyspnea. Those that are checked to indicate the recipient had dyspnea do not all suggest it was with exertion. Not one indicated dyspnea at rest. In the initial nursing note following G.O.'s hospice admission, a nurse assessed the recipient and checked that no problems were identified with the patient's neurosensory, cardiovascular, or respiratory systems. The patient was in no pain. G.O.'s vital signs in the cardiovascular section were reported within normal limits. Subsequent nursing notes reported G.O. having no shortness of breath, having no level of concern with his respiratory status, reporting oxygen was used "as needed" or "PRN" and that G.O. reported no level of concern with his respiratory system. In the cardiovascular system of the same notes, G.O. was reported to have no dyspnea at rest. Many notes were not checked for dyspnea and most reported the recipient had a "0" level of concern with his cardiovascular system. Further, the Appropriateness Evaluation form failed to support the patient being NYHA Class IV. The form notes that the recipient had shortness of breath with minimal exertion and not at rest. The respiratory system section of the evaluation is marked not applicable and the cardiovascular section does not indicate that the patient had dyspnea at rest, but instead noted only that the patient had dyspnea on exertion. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this patient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $38,253.17. Patient 9, L.B. Patient L.B. was a 70-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage vascular dementia. The claim period at issue is 11/12/10 to 03/05/12. L.B. had been hospitalized for a stroke just prior to hospice admission. Dr. Talakkottur acknowledged the stroke was severe. At admission, L.B. was on a PEG tube, had quadriparesis, breast cancer, hypertension, and contractures in her lower extremities caused by brain damage. She was total care, 6 of 6 ADLs, and incontinent, with a FAST of 7f. She had a PPS of 30 percent. L.B. also had renal insufficiency, dysphagia, malnutrition, and required oxygen supplementation. Patient L.B.'s FAST score of 7f demonstrated functional impairment, along with quadriparesis and constrictors, which indicated that her disease process was advanced. On 11/15/10, L.B.'s non-Vitas attending physician certified that the patient was appropriate for hospice and had a terminal diagnosis. Dr. Vermette testified that once a dementia patient reaches the equivalent debility of a FAST 7a, has functional decline, and has other significant comorbidities, then the patient is considered to have a terminally ill prognosis. L.B. had those conditions at admission. On 12/29/10, L.B. had an albumin on the lower end of normal at 3.6, had an abnormal lung exam with decreased breath sounds and rhonchi, and had dysphagia. Dr. Vermette testified that abnormal breath sounds and rhonchi in a patient with a PEG tube was a sign the tube feeding was not tolerated and placed the patient at a higher risk of aspiration. On 01/24/11, L.B. had a fever of 100 degrees. Her blood pressure medication was also increased. Dr. Vermette testified that stroke patients have an increased risk of stroke when their blood pressure is high. L.B. remained incontinent during the first certification period. On 02/10/11, L.B. had a PPS of 30 percent, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, had a FAST score between 7d and 7e, had contractures, weakness, high blood pressure, a lesion on her lower lip, and incontinence. Dr. Talakkottur opined that he saw no progression of the terminal illness. He opined the recipient's clinical state was static. Dr. Vermette explained that with these indicators, L.B. would not be able to decline significantly until her actual death, and so it would be expected for her PPS, ADLs, and FAST scores to remain static. Most patients in this condition die of an aspiration or respiratory event at some point in the course of their care. On 04/01/2011, L.B.'s PPS dropped to 20 percent before returning to 30 percent later that month. L.B. also developed a Stage II wound on her right buttock and sacrum, which persisted into May. On 05/09/11, L.B. had mild shortness of breath, had some congestion and excess secretions and was placed on atropine drops, an anticholinergic medicine used to dry up the oral/nasal secretions. Dr. Vermette testified that with dysphagia, the secretions would end up in the patient's lungs and she would have significant respiratory distress. On 06/24/11, L.B. was placed on Pro-Stat because her wounds were not healing with conventional treatment. Her PPS remained 30 percent, her FAST was 7d to 7e, and she still had decreased breath sounds and rhonchi. In August 2011, L.B. had wounds on her great toe and coccyx. On 09/08/11, L.B. was moaning and groaning at times and medicated with morphine for pain and still required ongoing wound care. On 09/24/11, L.B. still had a PPS of 30 percent, was 6 of 6 ADLs, had wounds, and increased secretions. The increased secretions increased L.B.'s risk of aspiration. On 10/27/11, L.B. had a FAST of 7f, was total care, and her PPS was 30 percent. L.B. had increased pain and increased secretions. She also had decreased tolerance to activity and decreased tolerance to being placed in a chair with a Hoyer lift. On 12/20/11, L.B.'s breast mass was increasing, her FAST was 7f and her PPS was 30 percent. She had contractures and chest congestion. Dr. Talakkottur stated a patient like L.B. could live for ten or 20 years. Dr. Vermette opined that L.B. was displaying the signs of the last six months of life if the disease progresses normally--advanced dementia with a FAST in the 7s, a PPS level in the 30s, recurrent problems with secretions, contractures, and wounds. In fact, L.B. did not live ten years but instead died on service at Vitas on 04/24/12. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that L.B. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 10, G.S. Patient G.S. was a 74-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage dementia. The claim period at issue is just under seven months, 09/01/09 to 03/26/10. Prior to admission to hospice, G.S. had aspiration pneumonia, a PEG tube, and ongoing dysphagia. In September 2009, G.S. had a PPS of 30 percent, a FAST of 7d, was incontinent, and weighed 107 pounds. She had gastroesophageal reflux disease as a comorbidity. G.S. was dependent in 12 of 12 ADLs, which is the same as 6 of 6, but on a different scale. She had episodes of congestion and cough related to dysphagia, which gave her a higher risk of aspiration, and she also had a recent UTI that required an antibiotic. Patients with dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease who cannot swallow normally and are having liquid food pumped into their stomach have an increased risk for aspiration, making it a significant comorbidity. In October 2009, G.S. developed wounds on her left foot and left elbow. She was bedbound with contractures. Her wounds evidenced poor nutritional and functional status, as well as an increased risk of infection. In November 2009, G.S. remained total care, FAST 7d, and bedbound. She had impaired bed mobility--she could not reposition herself in bed by herself and her wounds had not healed. In January 2010, her left elbow wound was open, her FAST was 7d, she was total care, and she had an episode of vomiting. Dr. Vermette stated that G.S. was at an especially high risk of aspiration because when she vomited she could not lean over the bed or sit up to reposition herself but was forced to lie there and hope someone assisted her before she choked. G.S. began having shortness of breath at rest during January and February 2010. In March 2010, G.S. began tolerating placement in a chair better and her PPS increased to 40 percent. Vitas discharged her for extended prognosis on 03/25/10. Dr. Vermette stated that the patient's PPS and ADLs remained the same throughout the dates at issue, but she also had infections, wounds, and a risk of aspiration that evidenced a terminal prognosis of six months or less. He testified that G.S. was what a terminal dementia patient looks like. Dr. Talakkottur stated that G.S.'s wounds and UTI ultimately healed with appropriate treatment. He did not mention that it took nearly four months for the wounds to heal. Moreover, he could not have known in real time that those wounds would ultimately heal four months after they began. L.B. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. As noted above, she had a FAST score above 7c, which indicates she was speaking six words or fewer, was total care, and was incontinent. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that G.S. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 11, J.A. Patient J.A. was a 64-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is under three months, from 06/12/11 to 09/09/11. Prior to admission, J.A. had two significant hospitalizations. He was hospitalized from 05/10/11, to 06/02/11. During that hospitalization, he suffered a heart attack, respiratory failure, aspiration pneumonia, and encephalopathy. He had cardiomyopathy with an EF of ten percent and had congestive heart failure. He had several other comorbidities, including respiratory insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hypomagnesemia, which means low magnesium in the blood, and hypertension. J.A. was readmitted to the hospital on 06/04/11. He was in the hospital from 06/04/11 to 06/12/11, for altered mental status and was admitted directly to hospice from the hospital. At the time of his admission, J.A. was confused, had reduced ambulation, needed assistance with self-care, and had a PPS of 40 percent. He had a heart attack, which required intubation. He had an EF of 15 percent. He was jaundiced and was found to have cirrhosis with end-stage liver disease as a comorbidity. He had a JVD of three centimeters and diminished breath sounds. Dr. Vermette testified that J.A. had a prognosis of six months or less if the disease progressed at its expected rate because he had significant evidence of severe heart disease, multiple hospital admissions, and radiologic evidence of end- stage disease. He had a declining functional status, a PPS of 40 percent, and had just been intubated after a heart attack; consequently, it was very reasonable to assume that he had entered the terminal stage of the disease. Dr. Vermette testified that the prognosis is very limited for patients that have to be intubated and on a ventilator for five days after an acute heart attack, together with the other conditions affecting J.A., including the aspiration pneumonia. During June 2011, J.A. was admitted to the IPU. He continued to have significant symptoms of heart disease and more symptoms related to the liver disease, including encephalopathy. In July 2011, J.A.'s blood pressure became so low that he could not tolerate his medications; and, by August, his blood pressure medications had to be discontinued due his body's lack of tolerance. When Dr. Vermette was asked about plan of care reviews in the records for J.A. and whether those documents were inconsistent with a terminal prognosis of six months or less, Dr. Vermette testified that he focused his attention on the physician notes and nurse notes because those are notes that are being done, for the most part, at the bedside, in the presence of the patient, and the notes were a peer reviewers opinion of the patient at that point in time. In contrast, the plan of care reviews were produced as a result of discussing the case at an IDG meeting, with someone making notes of the comments that various people around the room were saying about the patient, and hoping to capture the discussion. Dr. Vermette pointed out that the plan of care reviews he was asked about contained a lot of information that corroborate J.A.'s terminal prognosis and condition, including shortness of breath on exertion, the extensive heart medications he was on, and dependent in 4 of 6 ADLs, which later worsened to 5 of 6 ADLs. Dr. Vermette testified that the plan of care reviews do not contradict the patient's eligibility for hospice. Dr. Eisner's testimony corroborated Dr. Vermette's that just prior to admission to hospice, J.A. suffered a cardiac event where his heart had stopped beating and he had an EF of 15 percent. Dr. Eisner further acknowledged that during J.A.'s stay in hospice, he lost 30 pounds of body weight, his dependency increased to 5 of 6 ADLs, his PPS score remained 40 percent, he had a decreased appetite and ambulation, had decreased tolerance to activity, had increased weakness, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that J.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 12, N.D. Patient N.D. was an 87-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. The claim period at issue is 11/07/09 to 02/24/12. At the time of admission, N.D. had had a history of strokes and her attending non-Vitas physician referred and certified her as hospice appropriate. N.D. had a history of cerebral vascular disease and extensive dementia as a result. At admission, she had a PPS of 30 percent, was completely bedbound, had a FAST score of 7d, was total care, and incontinent. The Appropriateness Evaluation notes show that N.D. was referred to hospice for weight loss and severe agitation. However, a psychosocial/spiritual note reflects that N.D. had previously been on services and was discharged for extended prognosis, and she was reported to be more confused and depressed according to her family. The Appropriateness Evaluation reported N.D.'s weight as 150 pounds, with a BMI of 25 according to chart and family, and no pressure ulcers or skin lesions. It reported the patient having recurrent infections over the last six months but no further information regarding the infections was included in the space provided on the form. The Appropriateness Evaluation finally indicated that N.D. was hypertensive with no other cardiovascular symptoms and indicated that she had no issues with the following systems: respiratory, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, neurological, HIV disease, debility, or adult failure to thrive. Vitas reported N.D. as having a history of CVA, but failed to reflect the number or dates of such occurrences. Dr. Talakkottur noted that there was no indication as to when the CVA occurred in the Appropriateness Evaluation, and there was nothing marked under the neurological section to reflect how that system had been impaired or to what degree. Under the section entitled stroke/coma, Dr. Talakkottur also noted that none of the pertinent assessments were checked for certifying that diagnosis. A physician, in his addendum to the initial certification, stated N.D. suffered a CVA, was hypertensive, diabetic and had been left weak with a poor caloric intake. However, there is no indication of the severity of her condition or notice as to when the CVA occurred in the physician's addendum. If anything, the file records demonstrate that the condition could have been ongoing for some time. Four years prior to the hospice stay at issue, N.D. was noted to be nonambulatory and bed and wheelchair bound. Dr. Talakkottur shed light on this issue and testified that the N.D.'s CVA or diagnosis of a CVA was recorded back in 2006. These facts and findings are further evidence in support of Dr. Talakkottur's testimony that patients who have strokes oftentimes have a chronic condition and can live for years. This patient's condition essentially remained stagnant. The medical file reflects that N.D. lived three years following her CVA before being admitted to hospice care during the disputed period. In N.D.'s 59 Plan of Care Review documents, her level of impairment was listed as one and two--mild to moderate except for seven occurrences where her gastrointestinal system was reported as a three (severe concern) for constipation (typically not a life-threatening condition). Her level of care and medication were not reported to have changed. While N.D. was reported at times to have dyspnea, the Plan of Care Reviews never reported dyspnea at rest. N.D. did not suffer from non-healing wounds or recurrent infection. The file did not show any recurrent infections, any aspirations, or any instances where the recipient was oriented times zero. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this patient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $126,209.70. Patient 14, M.G. Patient M.G. was an 83-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebrovascular disease. The claim period at issue is 09/01/09 to 07/14/10. At the beginning of the dates at issue, M.G. had comorbidities of vascular dementia, hypertension, and a history of aspiration pneumonia. He had a FAST of 7c, was dependent in 5 of 6 ADLs and had a PPS of 40 percent. During the first few weeks, the patient had significant pain, was having some shortness of breath with activity, was using oxygen, continued to have a 40 percent PPS, was bed to chair-bound and totally dependent on ADLs. Just getting from the bed to the chair required assistance. Dr. Vermette testified that the differences between 30 percent and 40 percent PPS in the patient at this point was moot because both of those scores describe a patient who is in a terminal phase of the disease process. The patient had increased weakness and worsening dysphagia. In October and November 2009, Patient M.G. had an episode of respiratory symptoms, a low-grade fever, a high respiratory rate, shortness of breath, rales, and was on oxygen. The patient was having excess secretions, cough and congestion, and began an inpatient level stay to manage those symptoms. According to Dr. Vermette, in a patient with dysphagia, secretions, cough, fever and congestion make up an aspiration event. Anytime food or secretion goes down the trachea and into the lungs, it causes congestion, causes a cough, can cause fever, and can become full-blown pneumonia. It can lead to airway compromise and death; there is no way of predicting when that event is going to happen. Through January 2010, M.G. had a PPS of 40 percent, a low FAST, and required assistance with 6 of 6 ADLs. He had an episode of chest pain, went to the hospital and was evaluated. He was recommended to have a cardiac catheterization, which he/his family refused to do. He did not appear to have had a heart attack, but the hospital believed he was at risk of a heart attack. Although it would have been M.G.'s right to have the catheterization and get that done outside the hospice benefit, he/his family refused, which demonstrated that he/his family recognized that he was not in any condition for an invasive procedure and they just wanted to keep him comfortable rather than pursue aggressive treatment. Through March of 2010, patient M.G. was bedbound, had dysphagia, aphasia, hemiplegia, and was at high risk for aspiration pneumonia and sudden death due to an aspiration attack. He had a FAST of 7d, a PPS of 40 percent, increased weakness, and decreased tolerance to activities. M.G. was not improving. He was, at best, staying the same and, at worst, declining. In May of 2010, M.G. had a PPS of 30 to 40 percent, dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, incontinence, muscle wasting, and shortness of breath with minimal activity and at rest with chest pain off and on. M.G. qualified as a NYHA Class IV based upon the shortness of breath at rest and chest pain. M.G. had an albumin test in early June that came back in the normal range, at 4.5, which was high for the patient at that point. The patient was discharged in July 2010 for extended prognosis, before the patient was due for the next recertification. During the dates at issue, M.G.'s FAST level never improved to better than 7c, his PPS score never improved to greater than 40 percent and declined in March and June of 2010 to 30 percent, he was dependent for least 5 of 6 ADLs, and he had dysphagia. Dr. Talakkottur testified specifically that a patient with dysphagia is always at risk for aspiration. M.G. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.G. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 16, T.P. Patient T.P. was a 50-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of advanced AIDS. The claim period at issue is 10/17/11 to 06/12/12. Just prior to her admission to Vitas, T.P. was hospitalized with an admitting diagnosis of advanced AIDS, an altered mental status, noncompliance and polysubstance abuse, and she was cachectic. The non-Vitas attending physician referred and certified the patient to hospice for end-stage AIDS. At initial certification, T.P. was mainly bedbound, had reduced oral intake, was total care, and her PPS was 40 percent. She only weighed 88 pounds, she had a significant amount of pain, rated as 7 of 10 pain after receiving pain medicine. She had comorbidities of cocaine use, kidney infections, latent syphilis, muscle wasting, shortness of breath with minimal exertion, and a UTI in the last six months. Dr. Eisner testified that between the dates of 10/17/11, and 06/12/12, T.P. had a continuous PPS of 40 percent, she was gaining weight, she was performing some of her ADLs and, as such, she was not an appropriate candidate for hospice. The Appropriateness Evaluation simply reported her date of diagnosis in the HIV Disease section but failed to give any other clinical evidence, such as the CD4 count, persistent elevated viral load, opportunistic infections or organ damage that would be related to HIV. The date of diagnosis was reported to be 2010 and the terminal diagnosis was reported to be AIDS. Dr. Eisner opined that T.P.'s condition while hospitalized--bedbound, requiring 100 percent dependence with ADLs, a PPS of 40 percent, dyspnea, lethargic, oriented to one, and incontinence of bowel and bladder--were conditions not related to her underlying HIV disease but instead were related to her drug abuse. Dr. Eisner testified that had it been her underlying end-stage HIV disease, T.P.'s condition would not have gotten better during her hospitalization. Dr. Eisner noted that the hospital did not find infection or organ damage that one would associate with someone who had end-stage AIDS. Laboratory data from while T.P. was in the hospital came back "essentially normal." Upon discharge from the hospital, the recipient was taken to Gramercy Park nursing home. Multiple face-to-face encounters were made between Vitas' physician(s) and T.P. at Gramercy Park nursing home. During many of those visits, she was reported to be alert, oriented, in no acute distress, denying pain except for one occasion, yet she could not rate or describe the pain. T.P. was also reported to ambulate mostly with a wheelchair, to have an adequate appetite, and to require some assistance with ADLs. During face-to-face encounters with Vitas' physician on 03/14/12, and 05/03/12, signs of weakness were noted but otherwise her condition was essentially the same as prior visits. Dr. Vermette agreed that Vitas' file lacked any CD4 count or viral load for this patient. Dr. Vermette nonetheless believed T.P. to be end-stage based upon a very low albumin level of 1.8 taken 10/09/11. T.P.'s albumin, however, was measured again on 04/17/12, and was 3.3, which is within the normal range. Dr. Vermette's opinion that T.P. was end-stage AIDS was also based upon a reported shortness of breath. Plan of Care Reviews, however, failed to report T.P. having dyspnea during the time in dispute. Quite the contrary, the plans often reported she had oxygen available to her on an as needed basis without reporting respiratory distress or shortness of breath. The lack of terminality is also supported by Vitas' signed recertification charts, all of which failed to report a single instance of non-healing wounds, recurrent infections, titrations in pain medications, or dyspnea during the dispute period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $40,711.85. Patient 17, Z.H. Patient Z.H. was a 63-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is just over one month, from 09/01/09 to 10/06/09. Dr. Talakkottur testified that in a Plan of Care Review dated 09/12/09, covering the period 08/26/09 to 09/02/09, Z.H.'s PPS was reported as 60 percent, her weight was 85 pounds, and the recipient required assistance with 5 of 6 ADLs. No shortness of breath was indicated. Nursing notes prepared in the months of September (September 3, 10, 15, 22, 25 and 29) all reveal that a nurse assessed and reported no issues or concerns with Z.H.'s bodily systems and observed little to no pain. Little to no issues were reported again for the recipient's neurosensory system. Z.H. was reported oriented times two or three following 09/03/09, and there was but one occurrence on 09/25/09, where the nurse indicated some confusion and agitation but noted the recipient was oriented times two. There was never any indication of a problem or issue with this patient's cardiovascular system. With regard to Z.H.'s need for assistance with ADLs, a nurse reported in all but one note that the recipient required assistance in 3 of 6 (grooming and bathing) ADLs. On 09/10/09, the recipient was reported to require assistance in all ADLs without providing comment or evidence of change in the recipient's organ systems or pain level. Throughout the month of September 2009, oxygen was reported to be available as needed and there was no higher level of care administered to the recipient. Throughout the month of October, nurses similarly reported Z.H.'s condition as they did in September. She was oriented times two, no concerns, issues, or comments regarding the recipient's bodily systems or pain, and required assistance in 3 of 6 ADLs. Dr. Talakkottur testified that the patient did not have a terminal condition. Further, while physicians reported Z.H. to have cardiovascular problems in the recertification documents, there is no chest pain, no edema, no JVD, no dyspnea, no palpations, no arrhythmia, and no syncope reported. As such, Dr. Talakkottur testified he could not classify this patient as having a terminal condition related to heart disease. In support of the patient's eligibility for hospice, Dr. Vermette relied upon Z.H. having a comorbidity of ovarian cancer. Vitas initially admitted Z.H. to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of ovarian cancer. However, shortly after admission, a physician consult reported there was no evidence of metastatic ovarian cancer. Vitas changed Z.H.'s terminal diagnosis to heart disease, but continued to reflect upon the patient having a comorbidity of ovarian cancer in support of her hospice eligibility. On cross, Dr. Vermette testified that he did not review the entire file to determine Z.H.'s clinical status and relied upon the recertification note during the period in dispute. The medical records contained in this file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that Z.H. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $31,409.54. Patient 18, R.W. Patient R.W. was a 58-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease caused by alcoholic cirrhosis. The claim period at issue is 11/26/11 to 12/09/12. In the two months preceding the disputed period, R.W. had multiple open wounds on his legs, had evidence of persistent ascites, and had symptoms of hepatic encephalopathy. He also required two episodes of continuous care, one for change in mental status and the other for shortness of breath and anasarca. He suffered a fall the day before recertification for the dates at issue. In November 2011, R.W. was very lethargic, had a poor appetite, a decrease in verbal skills, respiratory distress with a rate of 24, and rhonchi with labored breathing. His ADLs varied between 5 of 6 and 6 of 6 due to his fluctuating encephalopathy. R.W. had comorbidities of cardiac disease, encephalopathy, and COPD. In early December 2011, R.W. had recurrent episodes of shortness of breath at rest and with exertion, which made him a NYHA Class IV. R.W. developed a respiratory infection with a moist productive cough and labored respirations. He was coughing up large amounts of yellow sputum and was placed on nebulizer treatments. He also began having tremors in his hands, known as asterixis, which Dr. Vermette stated was evidence of neurologic dysfunction caused by the ammonia and other toxins built up in the blood because of R.W.'s liver failure. R.W. also had episodes of apnea in December 2011. R.W. had anasarca, facial swelling, and tremors into January 2012, and he developed foul- smelling wounds on his legs. At the end of January 2012 and into February 2012, R.W. was on continuous care for a change in level of consciousness. He was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, PPS of 40 percent, and his abdomen was large. He had edema in all extremities and was weak and very lethargic. R.W. was placed on prednisone to help with breathing. In March 2012, R.W. had anasarca and significant lethargy. He spent most of his days slumped over in a wheelchair, and he was on oxygen most of the time. By May 2012, R.W. was on oxygen at three to four liters and exhibited shortness of breath. He developed edema with a swollen scrotal region, which Dr. Vermette stated occurs typically only in significant heart failure and liver failure patients. The time he spent in bed as opposed to a wheelchair had increased, as had his periods of lethargy and his ascites. He remained on lactulose for hepatic encephalopathy. He also had facial edema. In July 2012, R.W. was placed on methadone around the clock and Percocet as needed, especially before dressing changes. He also was no longer able to wheel himself in his wheelchair, which evidenced further functional decline. In September 2012, R.W. was having shortness of breath at rest and with activity, again demonstrating NYHA Class IV, which was evidence of end-stage liver disease according to Dr. Vermette. At the end of September and into early October 2012, R.W. was on continuous care for difficulty breathing, as well as a low-grade fever and change in level of consciousness. He developed respiratory distress, was having periods of apnea and was hypotensive. In the end of November 2012, R.W. was again on continuous care. He was lethargic and confused. His pain medications had increased again and he had diminished consciousness, hepatic encephalopathy, arrhythmia and respiratory distress with a high respiratory rate. He also had muscle wasting. R.W. was again on continuous care on 12/05/12. This was his third hospitalization-equivalent within the last 60 days. He was admitted for respiratory distress and he died on hospice service on 12/09/12. Dr. Talakkottur's rationale for his opinion that Patient R.W. was not Medicaid hospice was that lab work had not been done. However, lab work is rarely done in a hospice setting. Lab work is only done to adjust the patient's plan of care to better address his symptoms and keep him comfortable. Hospices do not take labs just to document a disease. Dr. Talakkottur used a visual aid that contained a list of symptoms that he believed should be present in an end-stage liver patient. Dr. Vermette opined that a patient with terminal cirrhosis of the liver would not have all of those symptoms. Dr. Vermette stated that the list appeared to simply be a list from a textbook of all symptoms that could possibly relate to liver disease of any sort. Most were not useful for prognostication whatsoever. Dr. Talakkottur reasoned that Patient R.W. was not hospice eligible because he did not have refractory ascites. Dr. Vermette stated this patient had ascites recurrently and frequently. Dr. Vermette also testified that in his experience working in and treating hospice patients, that the clear majority of end-stage liver patients on hospice do not receive repeated paracentesis because they do not tolerate them well. R.W. was on medication throughout his stay in hospice for his ascites. As part of Dr. Talakkottur's rationale for denying eligibility, he stated R.W. "did not show any signs of end-stage of his chronic disease." However, the LCD for liver disease specifically states that refractory ascites, alone, is evidence of the disease being end-stage. Dr. Talakkottur also reasoned that this patient was not hospice eligible because he did not have anasarca. Dr. Vermette noted that R.W. had severe edema, including edema of his face and scrotum, which was anasarca. Dr. Talakkottur also reasoned that R.W. was not hospice eligible because he did not have asterixis, which was directly refuted by the record. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that R.W. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 19, M.M. Patient M.M. was a 48-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage AIDS. The claim period at issue is just under eight months, 03/30/10 to 11/24/10. M.M. was admitted to an acute care hospital on 03/26/10 just prior to entering hospice with a history of fever, shaking, chills, and sweats, and he had a bacterial infection in his bloodstream of Enterobacter cloacae. He also had an infection in the wounds on his left leg of methicillin-resistant staph aureus ("MRSA"). He was anemic and was positive for cocaine and benzodiazepine. His CD4 count from the prior year was 70. M.M. was admitted directly from the hospital to hospice. At admission to hospice, M.M. was weak, bedbound, had dysphagia, was malnourished, severely immunocompromised, had failed treatment with antiretrovirals, had a PPS of 30 percent, and weighed 145 pounds, which indicated a five-pound loss from prior to admission. He had an ulcer on his left leg. M.M. was homeless, which according to Dr. Vermette impacted the patient's prognosis because he was not receiving adequate meals, shelter, and prior medical care. Dr. Vermette testified that the fact that the patient was homeless did not preclude him from being eligible for Medicaid hospice services, but made delivery of the services more challenging. In April 2010, M.M. was unable to ambulate and fell out of his wheelchair, further damaging the skin on his legs. M.M. did have improvement in his ADLs over the course of his stay in hospice, but he had a respiratory infection in July 2010 which required antibiotics and, by August 2010, had declined and was placed in a nursing home. His ADLs returned to 6 of 6 while in the nursing home. In September 2010, M.M. only had to be in the wheelchair for short intervals; however, he had muscle wasting at that time. On 09/14/10, M.M. was having generalized pain and shortness of breath with activity that required oxygen and occasional bronchodilators. He also had a respiratory infection and was incontinent. In November 2010, M.M. had a CD4 count of 29 from a prior level of 70. Dr. Talakkottur agreed that this lower CD4 count put the patient at higher risk for opportunistic infections. During the dates at issue, M.M.'s PPS increased to 40 percent, but decreased back to 30 by the fall of 2010. Dr. Vermette testified that M.M. had terminal AIDS because he was noted to have advanced HIV illness with wasting by the physician taking care of him in the hospital just prior to hospice admission. M.M. was also seen by an infectious disease expert who stated M.M. had advanced AIDS. M.M. was discharged from the hospital and referred to hospice by his doctors who stated that he had a poor prognosis and was hospice appropriate. Those doctors were not affiliated with Vitas. Dr. Vermette noted that although MRSA is not an opportunistic infection, it is a seriously harmful bacterium that is hard to eradicate even in a healthy patient with a normal immune system. Dr. Talakkottur believed, in part, that M.M. was not hospice appropriate because he did not have opportunistic infections. Dr. Vermette stated that Dr. Talakkottur did not properly take into account that an AIDS patient is usually not going to die from an opportunistic infection, and that most AIDS patients who die from an infection die from a regular infection that is more likely to kill an AIDS patient. M.M had two respiratory infections, a staph infection, and an infection in his blood. Any of those could be life-threatening to a healthy person, much less a person with AIDS. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 22, E.D. Patient E.D. was a 64-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The claim period at issue is eight months from 02/23/10 to 11/25/10. E.D. was hospitalized in February of 2010 prior to hospice admission with respiratory failure. He was intubated. He also had renal failure during the hospitalization and was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He was admitted directly from the hospital to Vitas. At admission to hospice, E.D. had a PPS of 20 percent, was 6 of 6 ADLs, had a BMI of 17.7, a Stage III ulcer on his hand, pulmonary edema, hypertension, a brain tumor, a PEG tube, and coronary artery disease. He was taking only minimal sips of fluid and had confusion. E.D.'s brain tumor was measured to be 4.9 by 4.9 centimeters, or about two inches in diameter. Shortly after admission to hospice, E.D. was placed in the IPU due to severe agitation. In March 2010, E.D. had an infection of his central line. He developed blood in his stool and had significant anemia and significant gastrointestinal bleeding with a hemoglobin of 9.6 and hematocrit of 29.6, which would have required a transfusion if E.D. was not in hospice. In May 2010, E.D. was transferred to the IPU unit because of aggressive behavior, including hitting caretakers. He continued to have wounds and significant functional and nutritional decline, as evidenced by a PPS that remained at 40 percent or less and a BMI that remained significantly below 20. In June 2010, E.D. had a low albumin of 2.93. He still had non-healing wounds and required another IPU stay for agitation and combativeness in late July 2010. All nonessential medications were stopped because of side effects, including agitation. He also had a UTI in the end of July. In August 2010, E.D. was having dark discoloration to his right foot, which was evidence of diabetic peripheral vascular disease. Dr. Vermette testified that this was a significant finding of progression of E.D.'s comorbidity of diabetes. In September 2010, E.D. had another UTI requiring antibiotics. In October 2010, E.D. had a respiratory infection with rhonchi, congestion, cough, and he was on respiratory nebulizer treatments. He still had a PEG tube for nutritional supplements. His ambulation was restricted from bed to wheelchair with assistance. He was on dexamethasone for intracranial swelling from the brain tumor and on seizure prophylaxes. In November 2010, E.D. developed respiratory distress with a respiratory rate of 38. He was placed on continuous care, became nonresponsive despite being on continuous care, and ultimately died on hospice care. Dr. Eisner opined that E.D. did not die because of his terminal illness; therefore, Dr. Eisner found E.D. ineligible for Medicaid hospice. Dr. Vermette testified that adult failure to thrive is a diagnosis that was, at the time of E.D.'s admission, one of the four most common diagnoses used in hospice nationwide. It was used for patients who had significant functional impairment, significant nutritional impairment, and was used for a patient who had multiple conditions that could result in his death. It is now called multiple morbidity. Dr. Vermette testified that typically a patient who has concurrent different illnesses is admitted for adult failure to thrive when they meet the criteria. All of E.D.'s comorbidities were part and parcel of the diagnosis of adult failure to thrive. The pneumonia or respiratory failure that he developed right before he died was extremely similar to the event that led to him being admitted to hospice. Dr. Eisner stated that E.D. did not have adult failure to thrive because he gained 12 pounds and, therefore, could not have nutritional impairment. Dr. Vermette testified that E.D.'s weight gain was not inconsistent with the terminal diagnosis and that factors, such as nutritional supplements, beginning to eat a soft diet, and use of the steroid dexamethasone, would cause a weight gain. Dr. Vermette noted that there was no indication that the weight gain coincided with increased muscle mass or strength. More importantly, the fact that the patient gained weight over the course of his stay in hospice could only be known at the end of the hospice stay and during a retrospective review. It could not be known when the initial certification was made on the date the patient was admitted with a BMI of 17. E.D. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for failure to thrive. As noted above, he had a PPS of 40 percent or less, a BMI less than 22, and was not responding to nutritional support by way of his PEG tube at admission. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 23, J.L. Patient J.L. was a 59-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage COPD. The claim period at issue is just over four months, 03/14/11 to 07/27/11. J.L. was admitted to the hospital with an exacerbation of COPD on 03/09/11. She was found to have severe anemia during this stay and was treated by IV with hydration, antibiotics, and blood transfusions. At the time of admission to Vitas, J.L. had shortness of breath at exertion and at rest, was an aspiration risk, and had recurrent infections. Her PPS was 40 percent. She also had AIDS, acute renal failure, and a history of hepatitis. Her BMI was 19.9 and she had a glomerular filtration rate of 25 and an albumin of 2.5. She was immediately admitted to the IPU with shortness of breath, agitation, and altered mental status. In April 2011, J.L. was drinking heavily and was found vomiting after drinking, which put her at a risk of aspiration and affected her longevity. She had bitemporal wasting, which showed significant nutritional decline for a patient this young. Between admission and the end of June, J.L. had multiple hospitalizations for a viral illness, a UTI, and a psychiatric admission--she was hospitalized on 03/25/11, 05/16/11, and 06/17/11. In late June 2011, J.L. showed signs of improvement. She was dependent in 5 of 6 ADLs, but her PPS increased to 60 percent. She was still having shortness of breath, but it was intermittent as opposed to constant. She was still having agitation and gastrointestinal issues. Over the course of the next month, she stabilized enough to be discharged for extended prognosis. Dr. Vermette testified that J.L. followed the sawtooth pattern of decline. J.L. had a serious decline at admission and subsequently improved, but at the time of admission there was no way to know whether that decline was going to be the one that resulted in death or she would have a rebound in condition. When she rebounded enough to no longer support a prognosis of less than six months, she was appropriately discharged. Dr. Eisner noted in his review that J.L. was not hospice eligible because "she improved during her hospice admission." However, her improvement from her severe status exhibited at admission could not be realized until she was appropriately discharged at the end of the dates in dispute. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that J.L. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 24, F.F. Patient F.F. was an 84-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage renal failure. The claim period at issue is just over four months, from 09/01/09 to 01/18/10. F.F. was referred to hospice for progressive decline in function. On her admission date, she was reported awake, alert, and oriented times two to three. In January 2009, a CT scan revealed that F.F. had a large renal cyst suggestive of Myeloma (a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow). Vitas admitted F.F. with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage chronic renal disease that had been diagnosed approximately four years earlier (2005). Evidence of F.F.'s renal disease was reported within the Appropriateness Evaluation's genitourinary section. One would therefore assume that Vitas would continue to track the status and/or progression of the disease under that system. Dr. Vermette, however, testified at the final hearing that end- stage renal disease did not produce genitourinary symptoms. End- stage renal disease caused symptoms systematically in other parts of the body because of the fact that the kidney's main function is to eliminate toxic metabolites from the body. When those toxins build up, they produce symptoms elsewhere in the body unrelated to genitourinary review of symptoms. A review of F.F.'s other systems reported in the Plan of Care Reviews suggest no terminal illness or progression of her renal disease. The Plan of Care Reviews reported no respiratory issues at all over the course of the disputed period. F.F. was reported to itch under the integumentary system. F.F. was neurologically sound. At best, she was reported to be forgetful at times, and her symptoms were reported mild from August through mid-October. Afterwards, Vitas failed to make further comment or score an impairment level for F.F.'s neurological system. The same was true for F.F's cardiovascular system except her impairment levels, when recorded between August and mid-October, fluctuated between mild and moderate. The plans reported no edema under cardiovascular. The plans reported F.F.'s musculoskeletal system to have a mild impairment level until 11/03/09, and thereafter, it went to moderate. As for her genitourinary system, there was no impairment level noted throughout the disputed period. Vitas also failed to report any concerns with F.F.'s genitourinary system in any nursing note, including the initial note prepared following admission (March 2009). Most nursing notes were checked that the genitourinary system had been "Assessed, no GU problems identified." The Plan of Care Reviews also fail to report F.F. enduring any pain above a mild impairment level. The only pain medication referred to in the plans is Tylenol 3 and it was used on an as needed basis. When marked in the Plan of Care Reviews, F.F.'s PPS was consistently 50 percent. F.F.'s weight was not always reported, despite the fact that she was ambulatory. However, when it was reported, the Plan of Care Reviews showed a steady increase. At admission she weighed 98 pounds, the first recorded weight in the Plan of Care Reviews was 100 and that was in October, and she was consistently reported to weigh 100 pounds until the latter part of December when her weight increased to 102 pounds and remained as such until the last Plan of Care Review in the disputed period. There were no labs to report F.F.'s albumin in the disputed period; however, labs were taken in October 2011, and it was reported at that time the recipient's albumin was 3.8 and 3.9 on 10/25/11 and 10/26/11. The medical records contained in this patient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that F.F. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $20,545.60. Patient 25, S.C. Patient S.C. was a 43-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage SLE. The claim periods at issue are 02/02/12 to 02/24/12 and 05/14/12 to 12/31/12. SLE is an autoimmune disease where the body develops antibodies and attacks its own cells, damaging organ tissue all over the body. SLE can cause damage to the heart, to the lungs, to the liver, to the kidneys, and to the brain by damaging the blood vessels, leading to vasculitis. Most patients with SLE die from organ failure. In the time period leading up to the dates at issue, Patient S.C. was hospitalized with a stroke resulting from lupus. At the time of admission, she had a PPS of 30 percent, was drowsy, and required total care. Her family reported she had recently lost nine percent of her body weight. S.C. had significant comorbidities, including tuberculosis meningitis, four previous strokes, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac disease. She was an aspiration risk due to dementia and dysphagia. Her family sought hospice services. Patient S.C. met the criteria in the Florida Handbook at the beginning of the dates at issue because of her recent hospitalization with a stroke; the progression of her disease with multiple organs affected, including the brain, the heart, and immune system; nutritional decline; and significant functional impairment. During the first admission, Patient S.C. was on continuous care for numerous symptoms, including pain and respiratory symptoms. She came off continuous care but then was started on it again on 02/23/12, for agitation. Shortly thereafter, 911 was called, the patient was taken to the hospital, and hospice was revoked for aggressive treatment. At the time of her next admission beginning on 05/14/12, Patient S.C. had just been hospitalized again for altered mental status and possibly another stroke. The physician certification noted the patient was lethargic, had extensive evidence of disease, was bedbound, had reduced intake, required total care, had lost all intelligible vocabulary, was unable to sit independently, unable to smile, and unable to even hold her head up. Dr. Vermette testified that tuberculosis meningitis is a very rare condition. S.C. was exposed to tuberculosis while doing earthquake relief in Haiti about six months prior to her initial admission to hospice, which meant that, based on her status at admission to hospice, she had rapidly declined during those previous six months. With tuberculosis meningitis, instead of lodging in the lungs, it makes its way to the brain and affects the meninges. It is extremely difficult to treat. As of the initial certification on 05/14/12, Patient S.C. had a PPS of 30 percent, had a FAST of 7f, and had shortness of breath with minimal exertion. S.C. had contractures locking her limbs in a flexed position, as well as agitation and dysphagia. Her weight was 105 pounds, an additional 15-pound weight loss from the previous hospice admission three months earlier. S.C. showed evidence of progression of the terminal illness with worsening of the various organs that had been involved with lupus, further nutritional decline, and significant functional impairment. Over the next few months, S.C. continued to decline. She became aggressive and screamed when someone tried to bathe her, she tried to attack and claw nurse's aides, she began to develop skin breakdown on her ankle, and was only eating 30 percent of her pureed diet that had to be fed to her. S.C. was Medicaid hospice appropriate as of the recertification in August 2012. She had a fair appetite, was cachectic, had signs of muscle atrophy, needed total care, and had a PPS of 30 percent. In late August going into September, S.C. had fever and cough, and she was at increased risk of developing aspiration pneumonia. At the next recertification on 10/06/12, S.C. had to be fed, had an increasing appetite, and was eating 50 to 70 percent of her meals, but despite this, she was still very thin and cachectic. S.C. had atrophy of her leg muscles, so she was not able to stand on a scale. She was no longer able to tolerate being in a chair, even with a lift, so she was completely bedbound all the time. S.C. was recertified a final time during the period in dispute on 11/26/12. At that point, S.C. demonstrated functional decline, anorexia and weight loss, dysphagia, cardiac involvement of lupus, and had oral thrush, which further indicated the decline of her immune system and susceptibility to an infection. Following that recertification, S.C. continued to show evidence of significant decline. She developed a lung infection that required bronchodilators in the form of nebulizer treatments and antibiotics and had a fever of 102, which continued until 12/20/12. Whether S.C.'s PPS score was less than 30 percent, or whether it was 20 or 40 percent, did not change her eligibility for Medicaid hospice. Any number of 50 percent or less would have shown functional impairment to meet the expected functional decline. A PPS of 50 percent is generally considered compatible with a prognosis of six months or less in non-cancer hospice diagnoses. Even when a nurse note did not calculate a PPS number, they indicated the patient required total care, was bedbound, or was able to get in a wheelchair only with a Hoyer lift. Consequently, the description of the patient in the notes described the criteria that a physician would use to infer a PPS of 30 or 40 percent at any given time. There was no description of S.C. in the medical records that would lead to a PPS of 50 percent or greater. Dr. Vermette testified that once S.C. began developing cachexia and had a level of terminality to her disease process, she reached a tipping point at which even with good nutrition, she could not gain weight because her body was no longer capable of reversing the process. Where the records showed S.C. did eat 100 percent of her meal, she did not feed it to herself. She needed assistance with eating at those times. She was total care at those points and she was bedbound. Dr. Talakkottur testified that at the second admission, 05/14/12, Patient S.C. had been hospitalized for agitation and nasal bleeding, she had a PPS score of less than 30 percent, she was bedbound and had a FAST level of 7f, and she continued to be dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs. Dr. Talakkottur further testified that patient S.C.'s PPS score never rose above 40 percent, her FAST level never improved to better than 7c, and she was nonambulatory and incontinent during her entire length of stay. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that S.C. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 26, D.A. Patient D.A. was a 61-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebral degeneration. The claim period at issue is 10/17/11 to 12/31/12. At the time of admission, Patient D.A. had end-stage dementia. In addition, she had recurrent UTIs and had been hospitalized a little over a month prior to hospice admission with a serious UTI. D.A. also had hyperglycemia and had a malignant melanoma Stage IV on her leg. A Stage IV melanoma, by definition, means that it is in the bloodstream waiting to settle. D.A.'s secondary conditions due to her dementia included severe cognitive impairment, functional impairment, incontinent of bowel and bladder, FAST of 7d, PPS of 30 percent, bedbound, reduced intake, dysphagia, and dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs. Patient D.A. met the criteria for Medicaid hospice eligibility in the Florida Handbook at the beginning of the dates at issue because of her status at admission and terminal diagnosis, clear evidence that she had reached the terminal stage of her illness, a recent hospitalization, significant functional decline, and significant evidence of nutritional impairment. Dr. Vermette testified that the indicators of end-stage cerebral degeneration include a FAST of 7a or above and secondary or comorbid conditions which are significant and contribute to prognosis. D.A. portrayed these indicators by having a FAST of 7c or above throughout the dates at issue, a known malignancy that has a poor prognosis in general, significant dysphagia which puts the patient at high risk of aspiration--the most common cause of death in dementia patients. She continued to be severely declined, she remained bedbound during the entire period, and she had signs of decline throughout her course of her care. At the beginning of the dates at issue, D.A. had a pressure ulcer to her left foot that eventually resolved. However, she quickly developed another wound on her upper thigh. D.A. developed dyspnea on exertion, such as while trying to roll over in bed and trying to eat, even though she was bedbound. There were very few actions D.A. could perform at that point. Shortness of breath while rolling over or eating was significant and showed an aspect of respiratory involvement in her disease. In December 2011, D.A. developed tremors in her hands, which was a sign of further disease progression of D.A.'s end-stage cerebral degeneration. D.A. also had hydrocephalus, which means that the areas in her brain that are normally filled with fluid had expanded. This was evidence that she lost brain tissue. In May of 2012, D.A. required an IPU stay because of shortness of breath and vomiting, which was life-threatening because of D.A.'s dysphagia and aspiration risk. While she was in the IPU, she weighed 165 pounds, which was a five-pound weight loss. In July 2012, she was coughing more frequently while trying to eat, which was evidence of worsening dysphagia and increased risk of aspiration. In September 2012, she developed another wound on her elbow. In October of 2012, she had developed contractures, so her fingers were curling up on themselves and the pressure of one finger pushing against the skin of another finger caused wounds. This was a sign of further progression of her terminal disease of cerebral degeneration. At the end of the dates at issue, D.A. was in the IPU again for shortness of breath and fever, which could lead to an aspiration pneumonia. She was started on antibiotics during the last few days of December 2012. Dr. Vermette testified that the only improvement in D.A.'s condition during the dates at issue was that, except for the elbow wound that began in October 2012, her numerous wounds did eventually heal, albeit at a delayed pace. However, whether or when a wound resolves cannot be known at the time it occurs. In December 2012, D.A. developed decorticate posturing, which means that D.A.'s brain had declined to the point where her arms were stiffly held out at the sides with the palms up and were immobile. Decorticate posturing is incompatible with having tremors and is a worse decline than tremors. Patient D.A. had aspiration events when she was having shortness of breath, and coughing and choking while eating, even though such events did not end up leading to pneumonia. When asked whether a patient was hospice appropriate that had a PPS score of 30 percent, was bedbound, required assistance with 6 of 6 ADLs, was confused, had reduced intake, was unable to sit up on her own, was not ambulatory, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had a history of melanoma, hydrocephalus, diabetes, obesity and arterial hypertension, Dr. Talakkottur would not answer yes or no and was unpersuasive. D.A. met the disease specific criteria from the LCD for dementia and related disorders. As noted above, she had a FAST score of at least 7c, which indicates she was speaking six words or fewer, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and was incontinent. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that D.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 28, N.M. Patient N.M. was a 57-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is less than one year, from 05/25/11 to 04/06/12. N.M. had a long history of heart disease, as well as stroke. She was admitted to the hospital approximately six months prior to her hospice admission in November 2010 and was diagnosed with cardiogenic shock, as well as coronary artery disease and carotid stenosis. Cardiogenic shock means the heart has such an insult that it becomes stunned for a period of time and the blood pressure rapidly drops. The patient usually ends up on multiple medications in an attempt to keep the blood pressure high enough to stay alive. N.M. was hospitalized again on 05/20/11, approximately five days prior to her hospice admission, for an acute decompensation of congestive heart failure. N.M. was having orthopnea (shortness of breath lying down) and had progressive shortness of breath, but was not a candidate for bypass surgery or other modalities that would have corrected her issues because of her multiple comorbidities. N.M.'s comorbidities included a previous stroke, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and carotid stenosis. During the 05/20/11, hospitalization, Patient N.M. was found to have an EF of 45 percent, which was between normal and abnormal. She also had a pulmonary artery pressure of 57 with moderate to severe mitral regurgitation. Normal is only 8 to 25, making this finding more significant to her prognosis than the EF. N.M. was referred to and admitted directly to hospice from the hospital. She was unable to do any work, she was mainly sitting and lying, she needed assistance with care, and her weight was 183 with a BMI of 36, which was in the obese range. She had shortness of breath, or dyspnea, at rest and with exertion, NYHA Class IV. She had residual issues from her prior stroke, including muscle weakness on the left side. She was immediately admitted to a higher level of hospice care. Patient N.M. met the criteria for Medicaid hospice eligibility at the beginning of the dates at issue because she had evidence of terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less, she had multiple hospitalizations, and she had multiple physician assessments and radiologic assessments. N.M. further had progression of the disease, declining functional status with a PPS of 40 percent. She had gone from chronic heart disease to end-stage heart disease. In August 2011, N.M. had signs of muscle atrophy and wasting, she remained bedbound, and she had a skin abscess in her axilla, or armpit, in the previous month. She remained a NYHA Class IV, and she was on six medications to try to control her cardiac symptoms. N.M. was also on oxygen 24 hours a day and had nitroglycerin tablets for when she had chest pains. Between August and November of 2011, N.M. had another abscess under her arm and she continued to have shortness of breath at rest and was NYHA Class IV. In November 2011, N.M. continued to have an abscess, needed extensive care, and had a PPS of 40 percent. In January 2012, N.M. had yet another skin infection. She required multiple doses of sublingual nitroglycerin and she required oxygen continuously. Her PPS was down to 30 percent. She needed extensive assistance and she had another UTI in addition to the abscess. N.M. had shortness of breath at rest and she became incontinent and was wearing diapers. In February 2012, N.M. was having continuous episodes of chest pain and shortness of breath at rest. In March 2012, she had more episodes of abscesses in her sweat glands and axilla which had become a recurrent infection. She had increased episodes of pain, which required more doses of pain medication. She was having more psychosocial symptoms, anxiety and depression, because of her symptoms related to her end-stage heart disease and medication was started for those symptoms. She continued to be a NYHA Class IV and continued to need oxygen 24 hours a day. N.M. was appropriately recertified for Medicaid hospice at each point in time and had evidence of a prognosis of six months or less at each point in time. On 04/06/12, N.M. had a worsening of her symptoms, and her family called 911. She went to the hospital and revoked hospice and was admitted to the hospital with decompensating symptoms. N.M. did not have any significant improvement during the dates at issue. Even though the EF found on the echocardiogram at the time N.M. revoked hospice showed some improvement, other issues on the echocardiogram showed the patient remained Medicaid hospice eligible, such as pericardial effusion more related to her intrinsic heart disease than to heart failure per se. She also had evidence of valve disease and inoperable multivessel coronary artery disease. Although there were a few nursing notes in N.M.'s records where the orthopnea box was not checked, the nurses frequently noted the patient had dyspnea, and that the patient was bedbound or lying in bed, which is the definition of orthopnea. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that N.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 29, V.R. Patient V.R. was a 56-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cirrhosis of the liver. The claim period at issue is just over seven months, from 04/05/12 to 11/20/12. Rather than being referred to hospice from a hospital admission, V.R. was referred to hospice by her primary care physician. Dr. Eisner testified that V.R.'s liver disease was related to her chronic Hepatitis C. V.R. had suffered from liver disease since 1998. During the disputed period, Dr. Eisner opined that V.R. had a life expectancy of greater than six months because the file did not contain evidence to show her cirrhosis was progressing and her functional status did not change. Although she suffered from ascites, it did not worsen to the point of requiring a paracentesis. Dr. Vermette noted V.R. had a "declining functional status, including a PPS of 40 percent." However, her PPS score was 40 percent on admission and remained static at 40 percent until 09/20/12, when it rose to 50 percent. Dr. Vermette admitted that the most common markers for liver functionality are albumin scores and INR scores, which are assessed through a blood test. Vitas' training document, created by Dr. Shega, states that a patient must have an INR of greater than 1.5 and an albumin score of less than 2.5 AND other evidence of end-stage liver disease, such as ascites or encephalopathy. Dr. Vermette admitted that no blood tests were performed for V.R. during the disputed period. Therefore, V.R. did not have lab values which would lead a physician to conclude she had a life expectancy of less than six months. The medical records contained in this patient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that V.R. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $35,999.98. Patient 30, J.A. Patient J.A. was an 86-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of debility unspecified. The claim period at issue is less than one year, from 10/29/09 to 09/29/10. Patient J.A. was transferred to Vitas from a different hospice at the beginning of the dates at issue. The medical director from the prior hospice believed J.A. was still hospice eligible at the time of transfer and noted that J.A. had an increase in healthcare utilization as well as a fall causing a head injury. At admission to Vitas, J.A. had underlying organ systems insufficiency with significant cognitive and nutritional impairment, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and required maximum assistance in going from bed to chair. He had dysphagia with micro aspirations, end-stage dementia with a FAST greater than 7, lung disease which required nebulizers frequently, coronary artery disease, and his PPS was 40 percent. On 11/02/09, Patient J.A. was on a pureed diet and was using oxygen and bronchodilators for cough, congestion, and agitation. He had a recent respiratory infection requiring antibiotics. His FAST score was 7c, he was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, and he had a PPS of 40 percent. He required a Velcro support to keep him from falling out of his wheelchair. By December 2009, J.A. had lost a pound and a half more weight. He had another fall later that month, hit his head, and required a skull X-ray. In January 2010, J.A.'s PPS decreased to 30 percent while his FAST remained in the terminal stage. In April 2010, J.A.'s weight decreased to 123 pounds. He had chest congestion requiring nebulizer treatment, increased weakness, dysphagia, and needed to be fed. In June 2010, J.A. was incoherent in speech and his FAST score was 7c to 7d. His weight was between 122 and 123 pounds, he had decreased tolerance to activity and sitting in a wheelchair, he had increased weakness and confusion, and he remained on a pureed diet due to the risk of aspiration. In August 2010, J.A. had shortness of breath and chest congestion intermittently, increased weakness and agitation, and restlessness. He was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, had further decreased tolerance to sitting in a chair and increased mental confusion. On 09/27/10, Patient J.A. developed a sudden change in level of consciousness and respiratory distress. He was placed on continuous care and over the next two days, he had very rapid breathing and respiratory distress with a respiratory rate as high as 42. His skin became mottled as he was getting less oxygen to the tissues. He had apnea spells and ultimately died of respiratory distress on 09/29/10. Dr. Eisner testified that J.A. did not exhibit functional decline over the dates at issue. Dr. Vermette explained that this patient was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs at admission requiring maximum assistance so there was no way to decline in functional status, although he did exhibit decline in his inability to tolerate just sitting in a chair. Dr. Eisner also stated that J.A.'s weight had been stable at admission at 128 pounds. However, J.A.'s weight declined by ten pounds in the months leading up to admission. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that J.A. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 31, A.J.M. Patient A.J.M. was a 77-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The three claim periods at issue total about six months: 03/13/12 to 03/15/12; 03/20/12 to 03/24/12; and 03/30/12 to 09/28/12. A.J.M. had a history of heart disease which required a defibrillator be placed three years prior to admission at Vitas. She was hospitalized in the days leading up to the first claim period with significant heart failure, diastolic dysfunction, and an EF of only 10 percent. She also had severe global hypokinesis of the left ventricle, which means heart tissue had died so the heart beat in an abnormal pattern with less strength than normal. A.J.M. was admitted directly from the hospital to Vitas. On admission on 03/13/12, A.J.M. had a PPS of 30 percent, was bedbound, had reduced intake, was NYHA Class IV, and had leg edema. She also had comorbidities of recurrent pneumonias and dementia. She was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs. A.J.M. revoked hospice care less than three days after admission on 03/15/12. A.J.M. returned to the hospital on 03/16/12. She presented to the ER with a hypertensive emergency and pulmonary edema. Her EF was 10 percent. She was intubated during this hospitalization and her blood gas was monitored. A.J.M. was immediately readmitted to Vitas hospice from this hospitalization on 03/20/12. At this admission, she had a PPS of 30 percent, was total care, still had reduced intake, had edema in both legs, was short of breath at rest, and had a wound on her sacrum. More history was noted including that the patient had pneumonia and UTIs in the last six months. Given the hospitalization with respiratory failure requiring intubation between the first and second period, this patient's terminal prognosis had worsened since the initial admission to hospice. During the second admission, A.J.M. had chest pains which required nitroglycerin. Vitas was arranging to transfer A.J.M. to the IPU for pain management when her family instead elected to seek aggressive treatment in the hospital and revoked hospice care again on 03/24/12. Patient A.J.M. was again admitted to Vitas directly from a hospitalization on 03/30/12. On admission, A.J.M. had a PPS of 30 percent, shortness of breath, an EF of 10 percent, a FAST score of worse than 7, diabetes, anemia, and dysphagia. A.J.M.'s weight had decreased to 130 pounds and she was experiencing chest pains. In April 2012, A.J.M. required an IPU stay for shortness of breath and had chest pain which was treated with nitroglycerin. A.J.M. received four bursts of defibrillation because she had three episodes of ventricular tachycardia and one episode of ventricular fibrillation, requiring the automatic device to shock her. On 05/06/12, Patient A.J.M. required a stay in the IPU for chest pains. Her respiratory rate was high and she was tachycardic. A.J.M. was in significant distress at this time. On 05/21/12, A.J.M. again required care in the IPU, this time for a change in level of consciousness. She was hypotensive, and as a result, some of her blood pressure medications were withheld. On 06/22/12, A.J.M. again required IPU care due to pain and respiratory distress. Her weight decreased to 122 pounds. On 09/14/12, Patient A.J.M. had significant respiratory and cardiac symptoms, increased weakness, and muscle wasting. On 09/24/12, she again was transferred to the IPU for change in level consciousness and agitation. She was in respiratory distress with a respiratory rate of 26, was becoming more delirious, and experienced more shortness of breath. A.J.M. died on hospice care on 09/28/12. Dr. Vermette opined that each of the IPU stays would have resulted in another hospitalization if A.J.M. had not been on hospice at the time. Dr. Vermette also opined that this patient died of end-stage heart disease or end-stage congestive heart failure with respiratory arrest. Dr. Talakkottur stated A.J.M. was not hospice eligible because she did not have significant respiratory or cardiac symptoms, had no frequent hospitalizations, and had no recurrent infections. These statements are directly contrary to the evidence. A.J.M. was noted to have recurrent UTIs and pneumonia within the six months prior to hospice admission. She had three hospitalizations in March 2012 due to her cardiac and respiratory distress along with five other IPU stays. Dr. Talakkottur also stated that A.J.M.'s nutritional status was not compromised despite a decrease in weight from 175 pounds to 122 pounds from the time of initial admission until the patient's death. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that A.J.M. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 33, M.V. Patient M.V. was an 89-year-old female admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cardiovascular disease and also exhibited symptoms of end-stage cerebral degeneration. The claim period at issue is 12/14/10 to 03/25/12. On recertification for the period beginning 12/14/10, M.V. had shortness of breath, a PPS of 30 percent, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, a comorbidity of end-stage dementia with a FAST of 7d, and had dysphagia which required a pureed diet, as well as the Thick-It compound added to her fluids. M.V. remained 6 of 6 ADLs during the dates in dispute with a PPS of 30 percent. In April 2011, M.V. suffered a respiratory infection requiring antibiotics. In June 2011, she had visible signs of cachexia and muscle wasting. On 08/12/11, M.V. had a significant infection. Similarly, on 08/25/11, M.V. had congestion, shortness of breath, cough, and secretions, which was consistent with an aspiration event in a patient such as this with severe dementia and dysphagia. On 08/31/11, M.V. required a suction machine to help with the secretions. In October 2011, Patient M.V. became hypotensive and had another upper respiratory infection. M.V. continued to experience brachycardia and hypotension in December 2011. Her FAST score also worsened to 7e. Dr. Talakkottur agreed that this progression of M.V.'s FAST score would be consistent with her comorbidity of Alzheimer's disease. On 03/23/12, Patient M.V. developed acute respiratory distress with a respiratory rate of 24. She had cyanosis and was placed on continuous care for respiratory distress. M.V. died on hospice services on 03/25/12. Dr. Vermette testified that each of M.V.'s episodes of infection where she developed respiratory distress and developed cough, congestion, and required antibiotics were likely aspiration events. As noted from the Mitchell study, an episode of pneumonia in the presence of advanced dementia results in a grave prognosis. Patient M.V. had three episodes of significant respiratory distress, the last one of which ended up killing her, and either of the other two could have done so. Dr. Talakkottur stated this patient was not hospice eligible because she did not have recurrent infections. However, the record shows that M.V. had three respiratory infections within a year. Dr. Talakkottur stated that this patient had a hip fracture but that such an injury would have no impact on her prognosis. This is directly refuted by the credible testimony of Dr. Shega in prior claims. Dr. Talakkottur admitted that the medical record on 03/25/12 immediately preceding M.V.'s death evidenced that M.V.'s life expectancy at that point was less than six months. According to the audit instructions, if any day during a certification period was approved by a peer reviewer, then the entire certification period was to be approved. Dr. Talakkottur agreed that M.V. was hospice appropriate on 03/25/12; accordingly, that entire period must be approved for reason of the instruction alone. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that M.V. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 34, L.S.L. Patient L.S.L. was an 85-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage cerebral vascular disease. The claim period at issue is 12/03/10 to 09/28/11. In 2008, L.S.L. suffered a significant stroke. Over time, he became increasingly debilitated. He was hospitalized prior to admission to repair and replace his PEG tube, but was noted by his daughter to have declined since that hospitalization, including that he required a Foley catheter. At the time of admission, he required a PEG tube for his feedings, had developed vascular dementia and was nonverbal. He had problems swallowing and had dysphagia. He had a seizure disorder and was on seizure medications. The medical records indicate that this patient was admitted to hospice for "agitation." Dr. Vermette testified that he thought it was "very likely" that the agitation experienced by L.S.L. was associated with the PEG tube reinsertion and Foley catheter insertion. Dr. Eisner opined that although L.S.L. was sick on presentation, it was the result of his stroke in 2008. He showed no change in his cerebral vascular disease and no progressive decline in his functional or nutritional status. Besides one brief inpatient overnight stay in June of 2011 to service his PEG tube, L.S.L. lived at home with his daughter. His daughter was a nurse who described herself as having experience working around patients like her father. In July 2011, a social worker noted the daughter stated her father was doing well, and he seemed like a chronic patient and had not declined since admission. The medical records show that discharge planning was discussed with L.S.L.'s daughter as early as 06/29/11; however, he was not discharged until 09/28/11, for extended prognosis. The medical records contained in this patient's file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met during the disputed period. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that L.S.L. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $46,830.90. Patient 35, R.B. Patient R.B. was a 52-year-old male admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage AIDS. The claim period at issue is just two weeks, from 01/14/11 to 01/28/11. R.B. was admitted to the hospital with pneumonia just prior to his hospice admission. The chest x-ray from that admission was consistent with pneumocystis carinii pneumonia ("PCP"), which is one of the defining opportunistic infections in AIDS patients. Patient R.B. was admitted to hospice directly from that hospitalization. He had a combined CD3 CD4 count of 88. At admission, R.B. had a PPS of 30 percent, was drowsy, was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, had weight loss from 125 to 110 pounds in the prior three months, and had a BMI of 18. In addition to AIDS, R.B. had thrush, a history of AIDS wasting, systemic lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and COPD. He was placed in IPU for shortness of breath upon admission to hospice. He was also agitated and restless during that time. R.B. was going to be placed in a nursing home because he was homeless, but when the transfer to the nursing home was scheduled to occur, he became angry and belligerent and revoked hospice care. On the date R.B. revoked, his ADLs had improved to needing assistance with 1 of 6. However, Dr. Vermette stated it is not uncommon for a patient to show improvement in the first weeks after admission to hospice from an acute hospitalization. Dr. Vermette also stated that a combined CD3 CD4 count is very similar to a CD4 count. He stated a combined CD3 CD4 count below 200 would be AIDS-defining. During the dates at issue, R.B. required antipsychotic medications. He was also treated with oxygen and nebulizer treatments every four hours. He required two different narcotics for pain. Dr. Eisner found no evidence of decline during the two weeks R.B. was in hospice. However, this again shows the problematic nature of the retrospective review and does not take into account that at admission, this patient was hospice eligible. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that R.B. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment. Patient 36, J.D. Patient J.D. was a 79-year-old male, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage heart disease. The claim period at issue is just under six months, from 10/21/10 to 04/18/11. Leading up to and at the beginning of the dates at issue, Patient J.D. had been hospitalized because of gangrene in one of his legs, requiring amputation. He was referred to hospice from that hospitalization. In addition to his obvious peripheral vascular disease and anemia, J.D. had a history of stroke and dementia and a comorbidity of hypertension. He had a PPS of 30 percent, was bedbound, disoriented at times and required total care, had shortness of breath at rest and required frequent oxygen. J.D. was also having episodes of chest pain and having episodes of edema in his lower extremity. J.D. had experienced a MI (heart attack) ten years prior to admission to hospice. At admission the recipient's EF was 45 percent. Notably, J.D. was not suffering from shortness of breath or requiring oxygen after admission to hospice care. Moreover, starting with the nursing assessment on 11/16/10, Dr. Talakkottur noted that the nurses' notes fail to evidence anything of significance for either the cardiovascular or respiratory systems of J.D. which would lead him to believe J.D. had a prognosis of six months or less to live. Dr. Vermette opined that J.D. was hospice eligible because of his recent hospitalization and the progression of his terminal illness, specifically that he was a NYHA Class IV. However, in addition to the nurses' notes discussed during Dr. Talakkottur's testimony, the Plan of Care Reviews failed to report this recipient suffered from dyspnea at any time from admission until 04/12/11. Moreover, Dr. Vermette admitted that Respondent conceded a portion of J.D.'s hospice stay based upon concerns that certain Plan of Care Reviews had been merely photocopied with dates changed. Based upon the greater weight of evidence in this case, it is determined that this recipient was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that AHCA is entitled to recover an overpayment of $148,606.85. Patient 38, L.F.P. Patient L.F.P. was an 83-year-old female, admitted to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage Alzheimer's disease. The claim period at issue is just over four months, from 08/09/12 to 12/31/12. In July 2012, L.F.P. was a FAST of 7c to 7d, dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs, PPS of 30 percent, had muscle wasting, decreased oral intake, was having episodes of agitation, and had a recent UTI. Following that recertification, a week prior to the beginning of the denied period, L.F.P. was placed on continuous care because of a change of mental status with significant lethargy and she was also dehydrated and having shortness of breath. On the first day of the denied period, L.F.P. developed a tremor possibly due to medications. L.F.P. then had improvement since the continuous care began and was more awake and alert. Her altered mental status appeared to be improving. Patient L.F.P. displayed the indicators for end-stage Alzheimer's, such as high FAST score, functional impairment, nutritional impairment, and other comorbidities or secondary symptom burden. Dr. Vermette testified that L.F.P. was appropriate for Medicaid hospice at the beginning of the dates at issue because the factors that were present when the patient was appropriately recertified on 07/08/12 were still present one month later, and indeed the patient had shown a need for significantly more care during those two weeks just prior to the beginning of the denied period. Because the first month of the recertification period was approved, the second month, including the beginning of the denied period, must be approved in accordance with the audit instructions. In August 2012, L.F.P. developed blood in her urine and a UTI, requiring an antibiotic. In September 2012, L.F.P. developed a wound in the sacral region and it was a Stage II, over an inch in diameter in all directions. While a patient does not die specifically from a skin wound of this size, he/she can develop an infection which then can debilitate a patient such as this and lead to sepsis and ultimately death from the infection. More commonly, this type of a wound is a marker of nutritional impairment and a general functional decline. In October 2012, L.F.P. remained FAST 7d and remained bedbound, total care. The prior wound healed in October; however, later in the month and early November, she developed a new wound in that area. L.F.P. developed contractures, her muscles tightened up because of disuse and caused her joints to flex and be locked in that position. L.F.P. began receiving baclofen to help with her contractures. L.F.P. was also at risk for aspiration and was on aspiration precautions, requiring a pureed diet and thickened liquids. In December 2012, Patient L.F.P. had a FAST score of 7d, a PPS of 30 percent, dysphagia requiring a pureed diet with thickened liquids, still had contractures, and she had a sacral wound. Additionally, she had shortness of breath at rest, which was an additional symptom burden and additional organ system involvement in her symptom burden. L.F.P. displayed the indicators of end-stage Alzheimer's disease throughout the dates at issue. Dr. Talakkottur confirmed that throughout the dates at issue, L.F.P. was incontinent of bowel and bladder, her PPS score never ranged above 30 percent, her FAST level was never better than 7d, and she was dependent in 6 of 6 ADLs. AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that L.F.P. was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and it is not entitled to recover an overpayment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order directing VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida to repay an overpayment to AHCA the sum of $954,488.60, plus the overpayments to be recalculated for Melbourne Patients 11 and 21, and Boynton Beach Patient 5. The undersigned reserves jurisdiction to the extent AHCA provides the revised sanctions, fines, and costs it is entitled to recover against VITAS and that amount is determined in a later proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the application of Catholic Hospice, Inc., to establish a hospice program in District 10 meets the statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact 1. Catholic Hospice, Inc. (Catholic Hospice) is the preliminarily approved applicant for Certificate of Need (CON) Number 9333, to expand hospice services, currently provided in Dade County, into adjacent Broward County, Florida. 2. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the department authorized to administer the Florida CON program for health care facilities and services. 3. Catholic Hospice applied for CON Number 9333 to initiate services in Eroward County, which is designated AHCA, District 10, for the July 2001, planning horizon. As the parties stipulated prior to the final hearing, AHCA published zero as the numeric need for an additional hospice program in Broward County. At the time the CON application was submitted, Catholic Hospice asserted that its proposal would meet an unmet need for hospice care for the Hispanic and Haitian populations, in particular, and the growing multi-ethnic population in Broward County, in general. Catholic Hospice also initially indicated that its program would increase access to hospice care by eliminating financial, language, religious, and cultural barriers. At the hearing, Catholic Hospice presented evidence to support its intention to improve access for the Hispanic population by overcoming language and cultural barriers, and its assertion that the existing hospice programs are not consistently and aggressively reaching Hispanics. 4. Catholic Hospice is a partnership established in 1988 by the Archdiocese of Miami, St. Francis Medical and Health Care Services, and Mercy Hospital. The governing body is a 15-member Board of Directors with five directors from each of the three member organizations. The Board is ethnically diverse and includes three directors who are native Spanish language speakers. Catholic Hospice serves people of various religions, having, within the last year and a half, established the L'Chaim Jewish Hospice Program. 5. Catholic Hospice has steadily increased the proportion of care it gives to Hispanics in Dade County. In 1989, approximately 30% of Catholic Hospice patients were Hispanic. By 1999, Catholic Hospice served 740 Hispanic patients out of a total of 1157. By 2000, the number and proportion of Hispanic patients increased to 841 out of a total of 1228. Currently, over 60% of Catholic Hospice's patients are Hispanics, while 55% of the total populaticn of Dade County is Hispanic. Existing Hospice Programs and Services 6. The existing hospice providers in Broward County are vitas Healthcare Corporation (Vitas), Hospice Care of Broward County, Inc. (Hospice Care of Broward), Hospice by the Sea, Inc. (HBTS), and Hospice of the Gold Coast. All of the existing hospices have elected to qualify for and to obtain accreditation from the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. 7. Vitas is the successor to the organization known as Hospice of Miami, established in 1978. Vitas is a for-profit organization, having been established prior to the enactment of the Florida law which currently requires hospices to be not-for- profit corporations. ‘Currently, Vitas operates twenty separately licensed programs in seven states with an average daily census of 5,400 patients. In 1999, Vitas admitted 5,921 patients in Broward County and 4,382 in Dade County. It is the largest provider of hospice care in the United States, and in Broward and Dade Counties. In Broward County, Vitas cared for 180 Hispanic patients in 1998, 238 in 1999, and 206 through November 15, 2000. Approximately 3.3 to 4% of its total number of Broward County patients are Hispanic. 8. Hospice Care of Broward operates in both Dade and Broward Counties, with offices in both Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The main business office is the one in Fort Lauderdale with close to 180 employees as compared to a staff of 50 in the Miami office. The Miami and Fort Lauderdale operations share the same board of directors, executive director, development director, finance director, and clinical director of operations. 9. Hospice Care of Broward cares for patients in their homes, in hospitals or nursing homes, and in its own 5-bed residence in Fort Lauderdale. Approximately half of their Dade County patients and 2% of their Broward County patients are Hispanic. In 1999, Hospice Care of Broward admitted a total of 999 patients in Broward County and 172 in Dade County. 10. HBTS, established in 1979, is a not-for-profit corporation, which serves both AHCA District 9, for Palm Beach County and AHCA District 10, for Broward County. It operates a 30-bed inpatient center in Palm Beach and, by contract, provides care at various hospitals, including Hollywood Medical Center, Holy Cross Hospital, Cleveland Clinic Hospital and North Ridge Hospital. 11. In Broward County, HBTS served five Hispanic patients out of a total of 287, in 1998; 7 out of 415 in 1999; and 15 out of 641 in 2000, or almost 2.4%. 12. Hospice of the Gold Coast is a relatively small operation, serving approximately 200 patients a year, primarily at the North Broward Hospital District facilities. Its office located in the northeastern area of the County, which has a relatively small Hispanic population. As a result, Hispanic utilization of Hospice of the Gold Coast was estimated at 2% by one expert. 13. In general, hospice care is provided to terminally ill patients who are certified by a medical doctor as having a prognosis of death within six months. The care is, therefore, palliative, that is, to provide comfort to the dying patient, not curative. The patient and family members are treated as a unit by an interdisciplinary team which includes doctors, nurses, home health aides, chaplains, social workers, and counselors. Hospice services are gaining in acceptance and utilization in the United States. It is considered cost effective and is, therefore, subject to reimbursement by Medicare, Medicaid and private insurances. Many hospice services to relatives and the community, however, including camps for bereaved children, are funded by charitable donations to the programs. 14. In its CON application, Catholic Hospice describe two cases in which hospice patients in Broward expressed a preference for its care. One doctor who testified by deposition for Catholic Hospice said he supports the application because there is no real advocate for Hispanics in Broward County. He complained of discriminatory practices in county hospital emergency rooms. He also expressed frustration that the existing hospices are not supporting his clinic, but admitted that he is not familiar with referrals to hospices. When his hospital patients need hospice, the social service departments handle referrals. He refers his other potential hospice patients to their churches. See Catholic Hospice Exhibit 20. Demographic Data 15. Approximately 80% of all hospice patients are over 65 years old. Hospice patients, obviously, are those whose deaths 10 are not unexpected, that is, not the victims of homicides, suicides or fatal motor vehicle accidents. Hospice services were traditionally provided largely to terminally-ill cancer patients, who still make-up the majority of patients statewide. 16. Catholic Hospice's expert noted that, particularly after some Dade County communities were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, the trend of Hispanic migration into Broward County has been increasing. The projected increase in the Broward Hispanic population, from 2000 to 2005, is 45,900 for people under age 65 and 7,000 for people 65 and over. 17. The total Hispanic population of Broward County, is approximately 205,000 people out of a total of 1.5 million, or an estimated 12.6 to 13.4%. It is projected to increase to 15.6% by 2005. By comparison, Hispanics are approximately 55% of the population in Dade County. In Broward, Hispanics are more heavily concentrated in south central and southwestern areas of the County. One of Catholic Hospice’s offices is located in the northern Dade County area of Miami Lakes, conveniently near the southern areas of Broward County. Broward County residents are included in the staff and volunteers working in that office. The other office is in Kendall. Consistent with the concentration of the population, the largest number of Hispanics discharged from a Broward County hospital come from Memorial Hospital West. il 18. Catholic Hospice took the position that hospice care for Hispanics in Broward County should be provided within two or three percentage points of that which the group represents in the total population. The fact that the Broward providers serve from two to 4% Hispanic patients is, according to Catholic Hospice, indicative of underservice to the group. 19. Catholic Hospice's health planning expert conceded, however, that a better analysis than Hispanic population as a percentage of the total, would take into consideration more specific demographic data, including age, death rates by ethnicity, and causes of death. 20. Hispanics over 65 were 8.7% of the total Hispanic population in Broward County, 3.4% were over 75 years old. By comparison, over 20% of the total Broward County population is over 65, and over 10% over 75. Catholic Hospice offered its Dade County service, where 60% of its patients are Hispanics, as an example of its ability to achieve better results serving Hispanics in Broward County. In Dade County, however, the pool of potential patients is larger, with smaller differences between ethnic groups. Hispanics over 65 are 14.4% of the total population, almost identical to the 14.6% the non-Hispanic and total Dade populations over age 65. 21. Differences in age cohorts in the population are, as expected, reflected in differences in death rates. In 1998, 12 there were 641 Hispanic deaths in Broward County. of these, 383 were in the 65 and over age group, and 258 were under 65 years old. For 1999, there were 718 Hispanic deaths, of which 455 were 65 and over, and 261 were under 65. In the larger and older Hispanic population of Dade County, there were 9,220 Hispanic deaths, in 1999. 22. Hispanics in Broward County have a lower number of deaths per thousand, which is consistent with the relative youth of the group, as compared to the total population. In 1998, Hispanics accounted for 3.64 deaths per thousand, while there were 10.71 deaths per thousand in the total population of Broward County. In 1999, the Hispanic rate was 3.83 per thousand, as compared to 10.89 per thousand for the total population. When death rates are adjusted to exclude as causes accidents, suicides, and homicides, the Broward Hispanic death rates for 1998 and 1999 were 3.8 and 4%, respectively. 23. The analysis of the Hispanic population by age, death rates, and causes of death indicates that the current level hospice services, ranging between 2% for lower volume providers to 4% for Vitas, is the appropriate, expected level. 24. The level of hospice care which Catholic Hospice deemed appropriate is virtually impossible to reach considering the reality of the causes of death. Using Catholic Hospice's expert health planner's expectation that nine percent of all 13 Hispanics who died in Broward County should have hospice care, then 680 of 718 deaths in 1999, would have had to have been admitted to hospice. Numeric Need 25. Due to the demographic make-up and the level of care provided by the existing four hospice programs in District 10, AHCA published a zero numeric need for additional programs. AHCA publishes a need for a new hospice program when its formula demonstrates that the number of additional patients who would elect hospice care equals or exceeds 350 patients over and above the current volume of hospice admissions. 26. The formula, in Rule 59C-1.0355(4) (a), Florida Administrative Code, for projecting additional hospice deaths, uses actual three-year resident deaths in four groups of people, those with and without cancer, who are both over and under age 65. 27. When the formula was applied to the Broward County data, the result was 5,947 projected hospice patients for the July 2001, planning horizon. When compared to the actual volume, in 1999, of 7,550 patients served by the four existing hospice programs, the number of projected additional patients is a negative 1,603. The negative number is based on the statewide hospice experience and indicates that the hospices in Broward 14 County, in 1999, served 1,603 more people than they were expected to serve two years later. Penetration Rate, Accessibility and Availability 28. Although not used in the formula, the negative need calculation is, in part, a function of what the health planners described as the hospice use rate or hospice penetration rate. All of the expert health planners who testified agreed that the hospice penetration rate is the single most significant factor in determining the extent of the existing hospice utilization. The total number of hospice deaths divided by the total number of deaths during the same time period in the same planning area gives that planning area's penetration rate. 29. In Florida, the statewide hospice penetration rate for is 33.5%. In Broward County, District 10, the rate is 46.6%, the highest in the State. By contrast, the national average is approximately 29%. For adjacent District 11, which includes Dade County, the penetration rate is 30.7%. 30. For Hispanics in Broward County, the hospice penetration rate was 37.3% in 1999. In Dade County, the Hispanic hospice penetration rate was 28.2% in 1999, indicating greater opportunities for growth in Dade. In general, the data indicates that Hispanics in Broward are utilizing hospice care more than Hispanics in Dade County, and more than the total population of Florida. 15 31. The adequacy of access to hospice care in terms of geographical coverage has been considered. In Broward, with a total of 1,211 square miles and four hospices, each one averages 303 square miles. The smallest geographical area for hospices in Florida was 280 square miles for the one hospice operating in Pinellas County. The statewide average, however, is 1,083 square miles for each hospice in Florida. There are no apparent geographical limitations on access to hospice care in Broward County. 32. As the parties stipulated, accessibility in terms of timeliness is not at issue. There is no indication that hospice referrals do not get a response within 48 hours, a special circumstance, specified in Rule 59C-1.0355(4) (d)3., Florida Administrative Code. Spanish Language Material and Spanish-Speaking Staff 33. Catholic Hospice conceded that the existing Broward County hospices provide appropriate printed material, forms, and promotional information in Spanish. But, Catholic Hospice argued that it has the ability to reach out to and serve Hispanic patients better than any of the other existing providers based on its experience and staff. Catholic Hospice noted that the percentages of Hispanics to total Dade County patients it serves is higher, ranging between 61 to 67% than Vitas' to 35 to 40%, even though in absolute numbers Vitas 16 served twice as many Hispanics, in Dade County in 1999, as did Catholic Hospice. 34. Spanish-speaking staff is inadequate to serve Spanish- speaking patients, according to Catholic Hospice, unless every member of the hospice interdisciplinary team speaks Spanish. In response to discovery requesting numbers of fluent Spanish speakers on staff in Broward County, HBTS reported three full- time equivalent (FTE) employees. Each FTE represents a 40-hour work week. 35. Hospice Care of Broward reported that it employs, in Broward, three nurses, one home health aide, two chaplains, but no social workers or bereavement counselors who speak Spanish. Although that was considered inadequate by Catholic Hospice's expert, Hospice Care of Broward noted its ability to use Spanish-speaking staff from its Dade office. Catholic Hospice also indicated its intention to use its staff from Dade, if needed, as well as some of its current staff members and volunteers in Dade who actually reside in Broward County. 36. Vitas employed three chaplains, six registered nurses, three doctors, three home health aides, a secretary, a case worker, six pool staff and various others, for a total of 42 Spanish speakers in Broward County. Vitas was considered inadequately staffed by Catholic Hospice's expert for not having a Spanish-speaking social worker, although its chaplains and not 17 just social workers provide bereavement counseling. At the time, Vitas' census of Hispanic patients included seven in three different nursing homes, and 29 patients at home. 37. Catholic Hospice listed the names of 69 Spanish- speaking employees, who staff Catholic Hospices current operations in Dade County. Catholic Hospice's expert testified that, with 69 Spanish-speaking staff members, it adequately met the needs of 840 Hispanic patients. It must be concluded, logically, that Vitas, with 42 Spanish-speaking staff members, also had an adequate number to serve 238 Broward County Hispanic admissions in 1999. Including all of Catholic Hospice's administrators and excluding all but apparently fluent Spanish- speaking staff, the ratio of staff to Hispanic admissions is 9.9 to one for Catholic and 5.7 to one for Vitas. 38. All of the hospices rely on volunteers to help provide care to patients and their relatives. They also rely on relatives to serve as translators, if necessary. In addition, some hospice employees who are not fluent in the language do speak and understand some Spanish. Staffing 39. The staffing and related expenses, included in Catholic Hospice's financial projections, were criticized as inadequate. An expert for Vitas testified that $80,000 rather than $50,000 is appropriate for an hospice administrator; that 18 $18.99 an hour, Catholic Hospice's second year projection, is more appropriate for the first year than the first year projection of $17.78 an hour, or $37,000 a year, which was proposed for the first year for a registered nurse; that, although starting salaries are $16,000, or $7.69 an hour for nurses' aides, Catholic Hospice should expect to pay a minimum of $8.50 an hour in Broward County; that $35,000 a year is unreasonable for a patient care manager, a position typically filled by a registered nurse; and that $37,000 rather than $32,000 is more reasonable for a licensed clinical social worker. 40. The Vitas' expert also testified that 7.6 not 6 FTEs for registered nurses are needed, and more than one FTE for a social worker for the entire County for the first year. The proposal to hire one bereavement counselor, and one volunteer coordinator in the second year, but none in the first was also criticized as an underestimate of staffing needs, considering an average daily census of 30 patients in the first year, and 50 patients in the second. 41. Catholic Hospice used its experience and ratios established by national associations to project staffing needs. The projections are reasonable in providing, for example, one nurse for every ten patients and one home health aide for every eight patients. The nursing shortage, which all parties concede 19 exists in South Florida will likely increase the time and expense for Catholic Hospice to recruit its staff. Some health care facilities also find it necessary to provide signing bonuses, which Catholic Hospice has not proposed to do. At the time of the hearing, Catholic Hospice needed more staff and was participating in a jobs fair in Dade County. 42. In terms of its own operations, Catholic Hospice could also use and benefit from economies of scale, by using some of its existing staff and volunteers in Broward County. Its per unit costs would decrease primarily from sharing administrative staff, in much the sawe way as Hospice Care of Broward operates in both counties. For this reason, the criticism of Catholic Hospice that its propesed staffing and salaries are adequate is rejected, even though its work papers showed more staff than its CON application. Financial Feasibility 43. Catholic Hospice expects to serve 220 patients in the first year and 400 in the second. The average length of stay for each hospice patient in Broward County was around 40 days For Catholic Hospice, in Dade County, it was 48.9 days in 1999. When patient days are calculated from admissions with an average of 48.9 days, the results are 10,219 for the first year, and 19,574 for the second year. Catholic Hospice's application uses 10,905 patient days for the first year, and 25,520 for the 20 second year. It appears that utilization is overestimated by 700 admission in the first year and 6000 in the second year. To reach the second year projection of 400 admissions, the average length of stay would have to be 63.8 days. 44. One expert quantified the effect on projected revenues as a result of Catholic Hospice's overstatement of utilization by patient days. The conclusion was that projected revenues would decrease by $136,000 in the first year, and $1,063.881, in the second year. When Medicare rate increases approved by Congress are considered, the projected revenue decreases are approximately $65,000 in the first year, and that adds back $123,000, to the expected decrease of $1,063,881, increasing it to about a $900,000 reduction in revenues for the second year. 45. The analysis of revenues as compared to patient days was flawed having not reflected a proportionate reduction in variable expenses. Vita's expert's assumed that expenses should not be reduced because: Catholic Hospice had underestimated staffing and salaries. The finding that staffing and salaries are adequate means that, although Catholic Hospice overestimated revenues, the exact amount cannot be determined. The evidence that revenues and utilization are overestimated means that Catholic Hospice failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible. The assumption is made that revenues are sufficient to‘cover projected start-up costs of $69,493. 21 46. Catholic Hospice's expert criticized the use of average length of stay to determine patient days. That approach is more reasonable than that used by Catholic Hospice which relied on its start-up experience in Dade County in 1989, to guess what Broward patient days might be in 2002 and 2003. When Catholic Hospice started, its average lengths of stay were 21.17 days in 1989, and 32.1 days in 1990. 47. Additional factors which cast doubt on the likelihood of Catholic Hospice achieving its projected utilization and revenues are the pattern of referral sources in Broward County and the level of charity care. Physicians referred approximately 43% of all hospice patients in Broward County, while approximately 24% came from hospitals in 1999. It will take Catholic Hospice longer to establish referral relationships with a number of different physicians. Lower revenues are also reasonably expected with higher percentages of charity care. Historically, in Dade County, charity care has accounted for -23% of Catholic Hospice's services, but it projected 3.5% for Broward County. 48. The CON application submitted to AHCA was incomplete, having omitted key information necessary for AHCA to determine financial feasibility, including the following: (1) failure to distinguish between Broward and Dade operations in sufficient detail for an evaluation of Broward separately, 22 although payer mix assumptions for each were different ; (2) inadequate breakdown of admission by payer type; (3) no provision for dietetic and nutritional counseling; (4) no specific allocation of FTEs for a medical director; (S) no details of a staff recruitment and retention plan; and (6) a material discrepancy of $3 million, given the projected year two net profit of $39,100, between revenues on one schedule as compared to the notes to the same schedule. Impact on Existing Providers 49. The existing providers presented evidence related to the potential impact on their admissions, revenues, and staffing, if Catholic Hospice begins operating in the Broward County market. They need to maintain or increase their censuses to have some leverage for contract negotiations, and to provide charity care and unreimbursed services, such as bereavement services. Catholic Hospice maintained that it would not adversely affect existing providers, citing the experience in Dade County when Hospice Care of Broward began operations in 1998. The situations are distinguishable. From 1997 to 1999, for example, hospice admissions increased 16.7% in Broward and 35.3% in Dade County. Dade County started with a lower-than- average hospice penetration rate in 1998. Most importantly, 23 AHCA published a numeric need for an additional hospice which led to the approval of the Hospice Care of Broward CON. 50. Although Vitas' market share in Dade County increased during the time that Hospice Care of Broward began operations there, the smaller hospices, Hospice Care of South Florida and Catholic Hospice lost market shares. Similarly, recent increases in the market share of HBTS in Broward County have adversely affected Hospice Care of Broward, but not Hospice of the Gold Coast, which has the affiliation with a hospital district, or Vitas. Based on these experiences, it is reasonable to expect that the smaller providers will experience a disproportionately greater adverse impact from the entry of Catholic Hospice into the Broward County market. 51. Assuming that: Catholic Hospice achieves it projection of 220 patients in its first year of operations in Broward County and 400 in the second year, then it will adversely affect all of the existing providers, at least to the extent of limiting their potential growth. 52. Using the total number of projected hospice patients for 2002 and 2003, and allocating all incremental admissions to Catholic Hospice first, the result is that 61 cases for 2002, and 120 for 2003, are available for Catholic Hospice. That leaves an additional 159 admissions for the first year and 280 24 for the second year, waich must come from patients who would have otherwise used the existing hospices. 53. When proportional losses of cases to Catholic Hospice are assumed with static market shares, the expected impact in terms of lost admissions are 5 and 8 from Hospice of the Gold Coast, 11 and 20 from HBTS, 21 and 37 from Hospice Care of Broward, and 121 and 215 from Vitas, in years one and two, respectively. 54. If the assumption is made that the market shares will change, following established trends, then projected losses will increase most (to 16 in 2002 and 29 in 2003) for the hospice which has been expanding most rapidly, HBTS. More consistent providers, in terms of volume, would have lower projected losses, for example, 15 and 26 admissions in years one and two, respectively, for Hospice Care of Broward County. 55. Of the three scenarios presented, the most reasonable assumptions are that proportional losses of the type which occurred in Dade County would also occur in Broward, and that market share trends would continue. If that happens, then the smaller providers would lose more potential patients, up to 91 and 165 from HBTS, 87 and 158 from Hospice Care of Broward, and 27 and 49 from Hospice of the Gold Coast, in years one and two, respectively. For Hospice Care of Broward, the loss of 158 is 25 significant when compared to total volume of approximately 1000 patients. 56. The market share analyses could be criticized for relying on projected population growth, but not factoring in an increase in the penetration rate. In fact, the penetration rate in Broward, as high as it is, has been increasing, but in relatively small increments, from 45.8% in 1993 to 46.6% in 1999. The .8% increase is considered approximately flat, particularly having followed a 7% decline in the Broward hospice penetration rate from 45.8% in 1993 to 38.6% in 1994. The fluctuations in the penetration rate and the decline in deaths from cancer and AIDs support the reasonableness of the assumption of a static penetration rate in the market share analysis. 57. Only HBTS presented evidence on the financial impact of the projected losses, ranging from a low of $61,554 for 20 lost admissions to a high of $507,464 for the more reasonable assumption of 165 lost admissions. The magnitude of the detrimental impact, put in context, is significant given HBTS' losses from operations of $1.8 million in 1999, and $1 million in 2000, which had to be offset by charitable contributions and income from investments. 58. In addition to lower operating revenues from patient care reimbursements, HBTS also projected losses from charitable 26 contributions. In 1993, HBTS received $629 in charitable donation for each hospice patient admitted, from bequests, memorials, tributes, holiday remembrances from families and friends. Contributions from these sources are directly related to the care given to individual patients and, therefore, to the total number of patients. At HBTS, over 64% of its total charitable contributions are in the combined categories of tributes and bequests. The adverse financial impact on HBTS including reduced charitable contributions, is $74,149 for 20 cases and up to $611,301 for 165 cases. 59. WVitas received referrals from Holy Cross Hospital, a Catholic facility in Broward County which would be expected to enter an agreement with Catholic Hospice. Vitas also runs a bereavement group for Spanish speakers at Holy Cross Hospital. Holy Cross Hospital is listed, in the CON application, as the likely source of a contract for services with Catholic Hospice. In a three-month period, Vitas received 30 referrals resulting in 25 hospice admissions from Holy Cross Hospital. In Dade County, Vitas receives virtually no referrals from Mercy Hospital, which is also a Catholic institution and one of the Catholic Hospice partners. Therefore, despite the projected disproportionate impact in the market, to Vitas' advantage, if all other things were comparable to the Dade County experience, because of the institutional relationships between Catholic 27 Hospice and Holy Cross Hospital, Vitas' is reasonably expected to be adversely affected. It is impossible to determine if projected losses are significant in terms of the total Vitas operation, since it provides over three-fourths of all hospice care in Broward and returned approximately $10 million in revenues in 1999, to its corporate operations. There is also no evidence that more competition with Vitas will enhance services or reduce costs. 60. Expert witnesses acknowledged a severe nursing shortage in South Florida, approaching crisis proportions. The existing providers are always recruiting and never fully staffed. The kind of care required of hospice nurses, the pressure of dealing with dying patients, the need for them to be on call rather than working only on scheduled shifts, the preference for oncology nurses, and the need for bilingual nurses further limits the available pool. The shortage has increased since 1998, when Hospice Care of Broward expanded into Dade County. Hospices are also not free to attract nurses by raising rates to pay increasingly higher salaries, but must resort to other incentives which increase recruiting costs. Hospice patient care is usually reimbursed on a per diem basis, regardless of actual costs, at rates set by the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The existing hospices reasonably expect an adverse impact on their staffing, recruiting time and costs, 28 particularly for nurses and home health aides, if Catholic Hospice enters the market in Broward County and succeeds in staffing its project as proposed. Agency Action and Rules 61. The Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation for AHCA, who is also an expert in health planning, testified that the review process in this case was the same as for most CONs. Within AHCA, however, the initial recommendation was to deny the application because of insufficient data to support the allegation of a lack of access for the Hispanic population. 62. The decision to approve CON Number 9333 was made because AHCA Secretary, "Ruben King-Shaw indicated that he felt that it was a policy priority at the highest level of the current administration, both within the Agency and I would say at the level of the Governor, to promote culturally sensitive access to end of life care. And that he referenced a presentation that I believe that he had heard Secretary Brookes (phonetic) of the Department of Health make a day or two prior to our meeting where he said that Dr. Brookes was one of the best speakers that he had ever seen on the issue of culturally sensitive health care and barriers to -- cultural barriers to health care." Transcript, p. 955-956. 63. In addition to the statutory review criteria for CONs, AHCA relied on Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code, which lists general criteria for evaluation of CON applications, 29 and Rule programs. there is included 64. follows: 59C-1.0355, which applies specifically to hospice The need to serve a particular ethnic minority, if evidence that their access to a service is limited, is in the criteria. The most relevant provisions of Rule 59C-1.030 are as (2) Health Care Access Criteria. (a) The need that the population served or to be served has for the health or hospice services proposed to be offered or changed, and the extent to which all residents of the district, and in particular low income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women, handicapped persons, other underserved groups and the elderly, are likely to have access to those services. (b) The extent to which that need will be met adequately under a proposed reduction, elimination or relocation of a service, under a proposed substantial change in admissions policies or practices, or by alternative arrangements, and the effect of the proposed change on the ability of members of medically underserved groups which have traditionally experienced difficulties in obtaining equal access to health services to obtain needed health care. (c) The contribution of the proposed service in meeting the health needs of members of such medically underserved groups, particularly those needs identified in the applicable local health plan and State health plan as deserving of priority. (d) In determining the extent to which a proposed service will be accessible, the following will be considered: 30 1. The extent to which medically underserved individuals currently use the applicant's services, as a proportion of the medically underserved population in the applicant's proposed service area(s), and the extent to which medically underserved individuals are expected to use the proposed services, if approved; 65. In the absence of numeric need, the special circumstances subsection in Rule 59C-1.0355(4) (d)1., Florida Administrative Code, on which Catholic Hospice relied is as follows: Evidence submitted by the applicant must document one of the following: 1. That a specific terminally ill population is not being served. 66. One expert testified that the provision should be narrowly construed to require a proposal to care for a specific terminal diagnosis, such as AIDS, but AHCA reasonably rejected that interpretation as applied to this case. Care fora particular ethnic group is specifically recognized as a valid consideration in Rule 59C-1.030. 67. AHCA's expert also noted, that under its rules, there is no reason to approve the application of Catholic Hospice if it fails to show that there is an underserved population, in this case, Hispanics in Broward County. The CON was prepared based on a belief that Hispanics are underserved, but without any data on Hispanic utilization. That data is not routinely 31 collected by AHCA and only became available in this case as a result of discovery. AHCA also determined that Catholic Hospice needed to show evidence that the existing providers are not meeting the area's needs. Catholic Hospice failed to show any need for its services in Broward County. In fact, there is affirmative evidence that the Hispanic hospice penetration rate should be what it is, which is approximately the same as the Hispanic death rate, adjusted to exclude unexpected causes of death. Therefore, the application of Catholic Hospice should be denied.
Conclusions For Petitioner Hospice by the Sea, Inc.: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 118 North Gadsden Street The Perkins House, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Petitioner Vitas Healthcare Corporation: Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Steven E. Oole, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 For Petitioner Hospice Care of Broward County, Inc.: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 For Respondent Catholic Hospice, Inc.: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the application of Catholic Hospice for Certificate of Need Number 9333 to establish a hospice program in District lo. DONE AND ENTERED this [3% day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Ahicamae rn Yt. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this /.3r* day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 38 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Robert A. Weiss, Esquite Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 118 North Gadsden Street The Perkins House, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Steven E. Oole, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 22302-0551 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner is entitled to recover Medicaid funds paid to Respondent pursuant to section 409.913(1), Florida Statutes, for hospice services Respondent provided during the audit period between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012; and the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to section 409.913(15), (17).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties and the evidence presented at hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made. Parties Petitioner, AHCA, is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. (2016). Medicaid is a joint federal and state partnership to provide health care and related services to certain qualified individuals. Respondent, Halifax, is a provider of hospice and end- of-life services in Volusia and Flagler counties. During the audit period of September 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, Halifax was enrolled as a Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. Hospice Services Hospice is a form of palliative care. However, hospice care is focused upon patients at the end-of-life-stage while palliative care is for any patient with an advanced illness. Both hospice and palliative care patients are amongst the sickest patients, generally. Hospice is focused upon serving the patient and family to provide symptom management, supportive care, and emotional and spiritual support during this difficult period when the patient is approaching their end-of-life. Hospice care, as with Halifax, uses an inter-disciplinary team (IDT) to provide comfort, symptom management, and support to allow patients and their families to come to terms with the patient’s terminal condition, i.e., that the patient is expected to die. Each patient is reviewed in a meeting of the IDT no less than every two weeks. For hospice, a terminally-ill patient must choose to elect hospice and to give up seeking curative care and aggressive treatments. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was authorized to provide hospice services to Medicaid recipients. AHCA Audit A Medicaid provider is a person or entity that has voluntarily chosen to provide and be reimbursed for goods or services provided to Medicaid recipients. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Halifax was subject to federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule, which were in effect during the audit period. AHCA is required to oversee the integrity of the Medicaid program. Among other duties, AHCA is required to conduct (or cause to be conducted) audits to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayments, or recipient neglect in the Medicaid program. § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. Under Florida law, “overpayment” is defined as “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” § 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat. The federal Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (“CMS”), contracted with Health Integrity, LLC (“HI”), a private vendor, to perform an audit of Halifax on behalf of AHCA. HI, in turn, retained a company called Advanced Medical Reviews (“AMR”) to provide physician reviews of claims during the audit process to determine whether an audited claim was eligible for payment. The audit in this matter was conducted to determine whether Medicaid recipients met eligibility for hospice services. To establish the scope of the audit, HI identified patients that had greater than six months of service, and then, excluded recipients with cancer diagnoses and patients who were dual eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. All the claims at issue, along with patient medical records, were first reviewed by a claims analyst, who is a nurse consultant, to determine whether the claims met the criteria for hospice services. The patient records and the nurse consultant's summary for each patient were then forwarded to a peer reviewer, a physician who used his or her medical expertise to determine the medical necessity of the hospice services provided. In this case, AHCA employed the services of two peer reviewers: Dr. Alan Heldman was the peer reviewer who specializes in internal medicine and cardiology, and Dr. Todd Eisner, who specializes in gastroenterology. The peer reviewers prepared reports that offered their opinion as to whether a patient was qualified for hospice services. A draft audit report (“DAR”) was prepared by HI, which initially identified overpayment of Medicaid claims totaling $694,250.75, relating to 12 patients. Halifax provided a response to the DAR, and contested the overpayments for each of the 12 patients. Halifax’s response was provided to the peer review physicians, who, after reviewing the response, maintained their original conclusions. HI then prepared the FAR, upholding the overpayments identified in the DAR, and submitted it to CMS. CMS provided the FAR to AHCA with instructions that AHCA was responsible for initiating the state recovery process and furnishing the FAR to the provider. The FAR contains the determinations of the peer review physicians, specifically, whether each of the 12 patients at issue had a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six or less months if their disease progressed at its normal course. After the FAR had been issued, upon further review, of certain patient files at issue, AHCA determined that four of the original 12 patients were eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and revised the amount of overpayment it seeks to $529,906.88, with a reduction in the fine it seeks to $105,981.38. Halifax is challenging the eligibility determination, i.e., the medical necessity of services provided, regarding the following patients1/: Patient D; Patient H; Patient P; Patient Q; Patient S; Patient U; Patient V; and Patient O. The Florida Medicaid Hospice Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, the January 2007 edition (“Handbook”), governs whether a service is medically necessary and meets certification criteria for hospice services. MPI instructs each peer reviewer to review the criteria set forth in the Handbook to determine whether services provided to a patient are eligible for Medicaid coverage. To qualify for the Medicaid hospice program, all recipients must: Be eligible for Medicaid hospice; Be certified by a physician as terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less if the disease runs its normal course; Voluntarily elect hospice care for the terminal illness; Sign and date a statement electing hospice care; Disenroll as a participant in a Medicaid or Medicare health maintenance organization (HMO), MediPass, Provider Service Network (PSN), Medicaid Exclusive Provider Organization, MediPass Pilot Programs or the Children’s Medical Services Network; Disenroll as a participant in Project AIDS Care; and Disenroll as a participant in the Nursing Home Diversion Waiver. The Handbook also provides certification of terminal illness requirements as follows: For each period of hospice coverage, the hospice must obtain written certification from a physician indicating that the recipient is terminally ill and has a life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness progresses at its normal course. The initial certification must be signed by the medical director of the hospice or a physician member of the hospice team and the recipient’s attending physician (if the recipient has an attending physician). For the second and subsequent election periods, the certification is required to be signed by either the hospice medical director or the physician member of the hospice team. Certification documentation requirements used by the peer review physicians are as follows: Documentation to support the terminal prognosis must accompany the initial certification of terminal illness. This documentation must be on file in the recipient’s hospice record. The documentation must include, where applicable, the following: Terminal diagnosis with life expectancy of six months or less if the terminal illness progresses at its normal course; Serial physician assessments, laboratory, radiological, or other studies; Clinical progression of the terminal disease; Recent impaired nutritional status related to the terminal process; Recent decline in functional status; and Specific documentation that indicates that the recipient has entered an end- stage of a chronic disease. The Medicaid hospice provider must provide written certification of eligibility for hospice services for each patient. The certification is also required for each election period. A patient may elect to receive hospice services for one or more of the election periods. The election periods include: an initial 90-day period; a subsequent 90-day period; and subsequent 60-day time periods. The Handbook further provides guidance regarding the election periods as follows: The first 90 days of hospice care is considered the initial hospice election period. For the initial period, the hospice must obtain written certification statements from a hospice physician and the recipient’s attending physician, if the recipient has an attending physician, no later than two calendar days after the period begins. An exception is if the hospice is unable to obtain written certification, the hospice must obtain verbal certification within two days following initiation of hospice care, with a written certification obtained before billing for hospice care. If these requirements are not met, Medicaid will not reimburse for the days prior to the certification. Instead, reimbursement will begin with the date verbal certification is obtained . . . . For the subsequent election periods, written certification from the hospice medical director or physician member of the interdisciplinary group is required. If written certification is not obtained before the new election period begins, the hospice must obtain a verbal certification statement no later than two calendar days after the first day of each period from the hospice medical director or physician member of the hospice’s interdisciplinary group. A written certification must be on file in the recipient’s record prior to billing hospice services. Supporting medical documentation must be maintained by the hospice in the recipient’s medical record. Peer Review Physicians The two peer reviewers assigned to review claims in this matter were Florida-licensed physicians, who were matched by specialty or subspecialty to the claims they were reviewing. Each physician testified as to his medical education, background, and training. Petitioner offered each physician as an expert, and the undersigned accepted each expert as such. Dr. Heldman has been licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida for 10 years. While in Florida, he worked as a professor and practitioner within the University of Miami Medical School and Health System until 2015. Since 2015 he has maintained an independent private practice. Before practicing in Florida, Dr. Heldman practiced at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, for 19 years. Dr. Heldman received his training at Johns Hopkins in cardiology and interventional cardiology. He has been board-certified in cardiovascular disease since 1995, and board-certified in interventional cardiology since 1999. Both cardiology specialties are subspecialties of the board of internal medicine. Dr. Heldman was previously board-certified in internal medicine in 1992 but was not certified in that area when he reviewed the claims in this matter.2/ Dr. Heldman has referred patients to hospice. Dr. Eisner, who is board-certified in gastroenterology, has seen numerous patients with liver disease throughout his career and, based upon his experience, Dr. Eisner understands what factors are properly considered when estimating a patient’s life expectancy. He also refers patients to hospice on a regular basis, which routinely requires him to make the type of prognosis determination such as those at issue in this matter. Although Dr. Eisner has some experience dealing with patients who have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”), he does not have board-certification in pulmonary disease. Also, Dr. Eisner has never provided expert testimony regarding pulmonology conditions. Halifax Hospice Providers Dr. Zimmerman, Halifax’s medical director, authored the provider response to the eight patients at issue and testified at the final hearing in that regard. Although he is board-certified in hospice and palliative medicine, he is not and has never been certified in internal medicine, gastroenterology, or cardiology. Halifax did not elicit testimony from Dr. Zimmerman that he had any experience in examining and treating patients with liver disease, COPD, dementia, or end-stage lung disease. Likewise, none of the other Halifax physicians testified at hearing and there was no evidence of their respective experience in examining and treating patients with the illnesses involved in this case. Additionally, although Dr. Zimmerman initially certified the patients selected for the audit for hospice services, and attempted to support the other Halifax hospice physicians when they repeatedly recertified the patients as eligible, Dr. Zimmerman admitted he never examined any of these patients himself and was unable to attest that any of his in- house physicians ever personally examined any of the patients. In addition to Dr. Zimmerman, the hospice physicians involved in the certification of the eight patients at issue in this audit were as follows: Dr. Richard C. Weiss: board-certified in internal medicine, oncology, and hospice & palliative medicine Dr. John Bunnell: board-certified in family medicine and hospice & palliative medicine Dr. Arlen Stauffer: board-certified in family medicine and hospice & palliative medicine Dr. Susan Howard: board-certified in family medicine and hospice & palliative medicine Dr. Lyle E. Wadsworth: board-certified in internal medicine, geriatrics, and hospice & palliative medicine Dr. Gregory Favis: board-certified in internal medicine, with subspecialty certification in hematology and oncology; and Dr. Justin Chan: board-certified in family medicine Specific Patient Review At the time of the hearing, the hospice service claims related to eight patients remained at issue. The findings of fact regarding eligibility of each patient for hospice services are set forth below in the following order: D, H, P, Q, S, U, V, and O. Patient D Patient D, a 53-year-old male, was first admitted to Halifax Hospice on February 25, 2011, with a terminal diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer and cirrhosis secondary to hepatitis C. He was discharged on May 29, 2012, and then readmitted on June 13, 2012, through December 31, 2012 (audit period). He had previously been in various hospices for six to seven years. Dr. Eisner noted there was no recent decline in functional status. In June 2011, a nurse noted the patient was ambulating well and went fishing, but he experienced frequent falls. He continued to experience falls (from his couch and bicycle) and also had mild to moderate arm and hand tremors. His weight decreased from 176 to 162 over seven months. Thus, the patient records reflected some indication of functional decline. However, as Dr. Eisner credibly testified, even considering the alleged terminal diagnosis, the patient showed no evidence of having refractory ascites, hepatic encephalopathy nor gastrointestinal bleeding. Further, he indicated there was no documentation of variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which he would expect to see if the patient truly had six or less months to live. The medical records support Dr. Eisner’s conclusion that the patient did not meet the standard of six or less months to live. Throughout the period of the hospice stay, nursing notes indicate that the patient was stable, ambulating well, felt good, and was observed by an ER doctor after a fall off his bike, as “well-nourished, well-developed patient, [and] in no apparent distress.” Even Dr. Weiss, the hospice physician who worked with Patient D, noted in recertification that “It is a difficult case as he clearly has a terminal illness and at the same time is manipulative with no overt progression of disease.” Dr. Eisner credibly testified that the patient was not eligible for hospice services and, thus, the services provided were not eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. The greater weight of the evidence proves that Patient D was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $98,776.63 Patient H Patient H was admitted to Halifax on December 31, 2010, with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease secondary to chronic hepatitis C. Dr. Eisner determined that Patient H did not have a life expectancy of less than six months. Dr. Eisner opined that there was no clinical progression of the patient’s terminal disease. The patient did not have impaired nutritional or functional status related to the terminal illness. The patient had weight loss but experienced increased abdominal girth. The treating hospice physician was Dr. Wadsworth, who is board-certified in internal medicine. He noted that the patient had cirrhosis and variceal bleeding and hepatic encephalopathy. However, as correctly noted by Dr. Eisner, those conditions were the natural progression of the disease, but would not result in a life expectance of less than six months. Dr. Eisner also testified that patients with chronic liver disease can live up to 10 years and patients with hepatic encephalopathy can live up to 15 years. Patient H was ultimately discharged for drug diversion, and although her discharge note states: “Suspected drug diversion became evident over last 2 months when controlled medication was not available for nurses to check during visit,” the patient records reflect that Halifax was aware of this problem throughout her stay, but did not discharge her for an additional 12 months. The inconsistency of the medical records and Dr. Eisner’s opinions indicate that this patient did not have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less if her terminal disease progressed at its normal course at initial certification or at any recertification throughout her stay with Halifax. The medical records contained in this patient’s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence in this case, it is determined that Patient H was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $50,142.74. Patient P Patient P, a 48-year-old male, was admitted to Halifax on August 25, 2011, with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. The first 11 months of his stay were denied, however, the last month was approved. Dr. Eisner testified that although the patient had ascites requiring frequent paracentesis, he did not see documentation indicating there was a progression of the terminal disease until July 2012. Dr. Eisner also determined there was no documentation in the patient records of impaired nutritional status related to the disease or a decline in functional status. However, when the patient did show a decline in functional status, Dr. Eisner agreed the patient was eligible. Further, because, during the denied period, there was no evidence of variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome or recurrent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, Dr. Eisner opined that the life expectancy of the patient would typically be one to two years, not six or less months. There is also a discrepancy in the medical records for this patient. In the narrative for the recertification for November 24, 2011, Dr. Wadsworth indicates this is a “48 yo ES Dementia, and multiple comorbidities. Has had [hallucinations] has improved.” Certainly this is in error and cannot be the basis for a valid recertification–-this patient did not have dementia nor were there reported hallucinations. This patient did not have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less if his terminal disease progressed at its normal course at initial certification or at any recertification throughout the first 11 months of his stay with Halifax. The medical records contained in this patient’s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence in this case, it is determined that Patient P was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $60,872.04. Patient Q Patient Q was a 56-year-old male admitted with end- stage lung disease. Per the FAR overpayment recalculations, he was deemed ineligible for the first three months of his hospice admission beginning on December 13, 2011, and was thereafter approved through the end of the audit period. As Dr. Eisner reasoned, the medical records did not support hospice eligibility for the first three months that were billed. The patient was stable, using a walker, and had reasonable palliative performance scale scores, and showed no decline in functional status and Transient Ischemic Attacks (“TIA), if any, were stable. However, as Dr. Eisner noted, after three months, the records did contain evidence supporting a progressive deterioration of the patient’s condition and functional status. Much of the issue with this patient appears to be whether the patient actually had ongoing TIA episodes prior to and during the initial certification period. The patient’s medical record from a hospital visit six months prior to hospice admission, where he was seen for chest pains, made no mention of TIAs. Further, Dr. Zimmerman admitted that none of his doctors or nurses had witnessed the patient having a TIA, and the records do not support that the patient had mini-strokes prior to the approved period. While Dr. Zimmerman also attempted to justify his concerns with TIAs based upon one episode during the denied period where the patient reported being dizzy and short of breath, he admitted that these could have been caused by the extensive amount of opiates and other drugs the patient had been given. For the denied period, the patient did not have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less if his terminal disease progressed at its normal course at initial certification. The medical records do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence, it is determined that Patient P was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $12,716.10. Patient S Patient S, a 51-year-old patient, was admitted to Halifax with a terminal diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. Dr. Eisner determined that hospice services were not appropriate for Patient S. Specifically, he determined that the patient’s disease, while terminal, did not result in a life expectancy of six months or less. In refuting Dr. Zimmerman’s response, Dr. Eisner stated, “In the absence of recurrent, untreated, variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome or recurrent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, the life expectancy of patients with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy is typically 1 to 2 years.” There was no clinical progression of the disease. The Halifax treating physician, Dr. Weiss, noted that the patient’s condition included cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. However, as noted by Dr. Eisner, the condition was the natural progression of the disease. The greater weight of the evidence supports that Patient S was not eligible for hospice services for the period September 1, 2009, through December 1, 2010, and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $63,235.91. Patient U Patient U, a 61-year-old female, was admitted with a terminal diagnosis of dementia. She was first admitted to Halifax hospice in October 2010, however, the claims audit period for this patient did not begin until January 1, 2011. Dr. Heldman indicated that she was not eligible through the end of her initial stay in hospice on January 31, 2012. Dr. Heldman approved her second stay in hospice beginning on May 19, 2012. Dr. Heldman, who indicated he had dealt with dementia patients many times, testified that there were discrepancies throughout her medical records and that the file did not contain documentation showing serial physician assessments, clinical progression of the terminal disease, a decline in functional status, nor of the end stage of a terminal disease. Dr. Zimmerman, in his provider response after the DAR, focused on what he claimed was a significant weight loss with this patient over the period she remained in hospice care. As Dr. Zimmerman stated in the provider response: “when certifying physicians saw consistent weight gain/stabilization they became comfortable that the improvement was not a brief ‘honeymoon’ in her failing nutritional status and they no longer believed that her ‘normal course’ would result in a life expectancy of six months or less and they appropriately discharged her.” It is clear Dr. Zimmerman relied on the patient’s alleged dramatic weight loss to justify continued provision of hospice services to the patient. However, at the final hearing, Dr. Zimmerman conceded that the dramatic weight loss upon which he relied (and his physician who was recertifying the patient relied on) in evaluating this patient, was a mistake. The factor upon which Dr. Zimmerman relied upon to support the patient’s stay in hospice, including his initial certification and at least two recertifications, did not actually exist. Dr. Heldman likewise provided credible testimony regarding the inconsistencies in Halifax’s records for Patient U’s file and that the records did not contain sufficient documentation to support the initial certification and recertifications. The preponderance of the evidence proves that Patient U was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $47,159.40. Patient V Patient V, a 56-year-old male, was initially admitted to Halifax on May 22, 2012, with a terminal diagnosis of end- stage liver disease. Dr. Eisner testified that although this patient did have ascites, they are part of the normal progression of the disease and the condition was appropriately treated with paracentesis. Further, he indicated that throughout the course of the patient’s stay, there was no documentation to show a clinical progression of the terminal disease. Dr. Eisner also noted there was no evidence of impaired nutritional status related to the terminal disease or any decline in functional status. More importantly, Dr. Eisner opined that there was no evidence that the patient had entered the end stage of a chronic disease. Finally, he saw no evidence that the patient had variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, or recurrent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which would have indicated six months or less to live. Dr. Zimmerman testified that his team was extremely worried about the patient’s prior episode of ventricular tachycardia and the chance of another episode that would be fatal, and that this chance supported keeping him in hospice. Dr. Zimmerman highlighted this grave concern repeatedly through his written response to the DAR. However, on cross-examination, he admitted that the patient did not have a history of the tachycardia but rather had one episode that lasted 20 beats or less and that Halifax did not send the patient to be further evaluated by a cardiologist. He also admitted that the opiates Halifax treatment providers were giving Patient V could have caused the dizziness that prompted their concern and allegedly supported the prognostication of limited life expectancy. Patient V did not have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less if his terminal disease progressed at its normal course at initial certification or at any recertification throughout his stay with Halifax during the audit period. The medical records contained in this patient’s file do not support a finding that the Medicaid hospice eligibility standard was met. Based upon the greater weight of the evidence in this case, it is determined that Patient V was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services and that Petitioner is entitled to recover an overpayment of $38,769.20. Patient O Patient O, a 57-year-old female, was first admitted to Halifax on October 16, 2009, with a terminal diagnosis of COPD, a common breathing disorder. She was discharged November 9, 2012, because Halifax determined she did not meet the criteria for hospice. Although Patient O had COPD, Halifax never presented her for a FEV1 test which would have been a good indicator of the degree of COPD and would have assisted in properly obtaining a prognosis of life expectancy. Patient O was recertified for hospice 16 times, with little or no narrative from the recertifying Halifax physician present in the medical records. Patient O also regularly showed oxygen saturation levels within the normal range for a COPD patient. In May 2010, seven months into her hospice stay, there was no evidence of impaired nutritional status, no signs or symptoms of respiratory distress, no change in chest pain, residual weakness, fair appetite, no swallowing difficulties and her pain was well controlled. Additionally, in September 2010, there were notes that the patient’s lungs were clear, she had been removed from oxygen for activities, and had showered without difficulty. Between December 2010 through September 2012, the nurse’s notes reflect that patient O stated that she was doing better and had not experienced shortness of breath. It appears from the medical records that while the patient may have had COPD, it was not progressing. Dr. Eisner testified that other than intermittent upper respiratory infections, the patient’s pulmonary status remained stable and showed no progression over the course of time. Further, he saw no proof that her coronary heart disease or diabetes deteriorated over the three years and that, although she had some weight loss, there was no documentation of a decline in her functional status. However, Dr. Eisner provided an opinion regarding this patient outside his expertise. That a COPD terminal diagnosis was beyond his experience was made clear when Dr. Eisner could not identify the specific indicators for when a COPD patient was decompensating. Although Dr. Eisner may have treated patients with COPD, his primary practice treating patients was related to gastroenterological conditions. He was not board-certified in pulmonology and was not trained in the specialty. Therefore, AHCA has not met its burden by the greater weight of the evidence that Patient O was not eligible for Medicaid hospice services, and Petitioner is not entitled to recover an overpayment of $158,234.66. Fine Calculation When calculating the appropriate fine to impose against a provider, MPI uses a formula based on the number of claims that are in violation of rule 59G-9.070(7)(e). Specifically, the formula involves multiplying the number of claims in violation of the rule by $1,000 to calculate the total fine.3/ The final total may not exceed 20 percent of the total overpayment, which resulted in a fine of $64,981.38. Summary of Findings of Fact At the time of the hearing, AHCA sought from Respondent overpayments in the amount of $529,906.88 for eight patients who received hospice services at Halifax during the audit period. The findings of fact above upheld AHCA's denial of hospice services for patients: D, H, P, Q, S, U, and V. The Respondent rebutted the evidence regarding eligibility of Patient O. Therefore, AHCA is entitled to recover overpayment of $371,672.22. Each expert credibly testified as to when each patient was admitted and the certification for each patient. The experts provided the requisite support to both the DAR and FAR for the patients where there was a finding of ineligibility for hospice services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order directing Halifax to pay $371,672.22 for the claims found to be overpayments and a fine of $67,981.38. The undersigned reserves jurisdiction to award costs to the prevailing party. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2017.
