UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

Form 10-K

 

 

Commission File Number 1-11239

 

 

 

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (615) 344-9551

 

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

 

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value

 

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

As of February 1, 2011, there were approximately 94,889,400 shares of Registrant’s common stock outstanding. There is not a market for the Registrant’s common stock; therefore, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates is not calculable.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Information Statement in connection with its action on written consent of stockholders in lieu of an annual meeting are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

 

 

INDEX

 

 

 

General

 

HCA Holdings, Inc. is one of the leading health care services companies in the United States. At December 31, 2010, we operated 164 hospitals, comprised of 158 general, acute care hospitals; five psychiatric hospitals; and one rehabilitation hospital. The 164 hospital total includes eight hospitals (seven general, acute care hospitals and one rehabilitation hospital) owned by joint ventures in which an affiliate of HCA is a partner, and these joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method. In addition, we operated 106 freestanding surgery centers, nine of which are owned by joint ventures in which an affiliate of HCA is a partner, and these joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method. Our facilities are located in 20 states and England.

 

The terms “Company,” “HCA,” “we,” “our” or “us,” as used herein and unless otherwise stated or indicated by context, refer to HCA Inc. and its affiliates prior to the Corporate Reorganization (as defined below) and to HCA Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates after the Corporate Reorganization. The term “affiliates” means direct and indirect subsidiaries of HCA Holdings, Inc. and partnerships and joint ventures in which such subsidiaries are partners. The terms “facilities” or “hospitals” refer to entities owned and operated by affiliates of HCA and the term “employees” refers to employees of affiliates of HCA.

 

Our primary objective is to provide a comprehensive array of quality health care services in the most cost-effective manner possible. Our general, acute care hospitals typically provide a full range of services to accommodate such medical specialties as internal medicine, general surgery, cardiology, oncology, neurosurgery, orthopedics and obstetrics, as well as diagnostic and emergency services. Outpatient and ancillary health care services are provided by our general, acute care hospitals, freestanding surgery centers, diagnostic centers and rehabilitation facilities. Our psychiatric hospitals provide a full range of mental health care services through inpatient, partial hospitalization and outpatient settings.

 

On November 17, 2006, HCA Inc. was acquired by a private investor group comprised of affiliates of or funds sponsored by Bain Capital Partners, LLC (“Bain Capital”), Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (“KKR”) and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity (“MLGPE”), now BAML Capital Partners (each a “Sponsor”), Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corporation (the “Sponsor Assignees”) and HCA founder Dr. Thomas F. Frist, Jr. (the “Frist Entities”), a group we collectively refer to as the “Investors,” and by members of management and certain other investors. We refer to the merger, the financing transactions related to the merger and other related transactions collectively as the “Recapitalization.” The merger was accounted for as a recapitalization in our financial statements, with no adjustments to the historical basis of our assets and liabilities. As a result of the Recapitalization, our outstanding capital stock is owned by the Investors, certain members of management and key employees. On April 29, 2008, we registered our common stock pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), thus subjecting us to the reporting requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our common stock is not traded on a national securities exchange.

 

The Company was incorporated in Nevada in January 1990 and reincorporated in Delaware in September 1993. Our principal executive offices are located at One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, and our telephone number is (615) 344-9551.

 

Corporate Reorganization

 

On November 22, 2010, HCA Inc. reorganized by creating a new holding company structure (the “Corporate Reorganization”). We are the new parent company, and HCA Inc. is now our wholly-owned direct subsidiary. As part of the Corporate Reorganization, HCA Inc.’s outstanding shares of capital stock were automatically converted, on a share for share basis, into identical shares of our common stock. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated by-laws, executive officers and board of directors are the same as HCA Inc.’s in effect immediately prior to the Corporate Reorganization, and the rights, privileges and interests of HCA Inc.’s stockholders remain the same with respect to us as the new holding company. Additionally, as a result of the

Corporate Reorganization, we are deemed the successor registrant to HCA Inc. under the Exchange Act, and shares of our common stock are deemed registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. As part of the Corporate Reorganization, we will become a guarantor but will not assume the debt of HCA Inc.’s outstanding secured notes.

 

We have assumed all of HCA Inc.’s obligations with respect to the outstanding shares previously registered on Form S-8 for distribution pursuant to HCA Inc.’s stock incentive plan and have also assumed HCA Inc.’s other equity incentive plans that provide for the right to acquire HCA Inc.’s common stock, whether or not exercisable. We have also assumed and agreed to perform HCA Inc.’s obligations under its other compensation plans and agreements pursuant to which HCA Inc. is to issue equity securities to its directors, officers, or employees. The agreements and plans we assumed were each deemed to be automatically amended as necessary to provide that references therein to HCA Inc. now refer to HCA Holdings, Inc. Consequently, following the Corporate Reorganization, the right to receive HCA Inc.’s common stock under its various compensation plans and agreements automatically converted into rights for the same number of shares of our common stock, with the same rights and conditions as the corresponding HCA Inc. rights prior to the Corporate Reorganization.

 

Available Information

 

We file certain reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”), including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. The public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. We are an electronic filer, and the SEC maintains an Internet site at http://www.sec.gov that contains the reports, proxy and information statements and other information we file electronically. Our website address is www.hcahealthcare.com. Please note that our website address is provided as an inactive textual reference only. We make available free of charge, through our website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The information provided on our website is not part of this report, and is therefore not incorporated by reference unless such information is specifically referenced elsewhere in this report.

 

Our Code of Conduct is available free of charge upon request to our Corporate Secretary, HCA Holdings, Inc., One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.

 

Business Strategy

 

We are committed to providing the communities we serve with high quality, cost-effective health care while growing our business, increasing our profitability and creating long-term value for our stockholders. To achieve these objectives, we align our efforts around the following growth agenda:

 

 

Health Care Facilities

 

We currently own, manage or operate hospitals; freestanding surgery centers; diagnostic and imaging centers; radiation and oncology therapy centers; comprehensive rehabilitation and physical therapy centers; and various other facilities.

 

At December 31, 2010, we owned and operated 151 general, acute care hospitals with 38,321 licensed beds, and an additional seven general, acute care hospitals with 2,269 licensed beds are operated through joint ventures, which are accounted for using the equity method. Most of our general, acute care hospitals provide medical and

surgical services, including inpatient care, intensive care, cardiac care, diagnostic services and emergency services. The general, acute care hospitals also provide outpatient services such as outpatient surgery, laboratory, radiology, respiratory therapy, cardiology and physical therapy. Each hospital has an organized medical staff and a local board of trustees or governing board, made up of members of the local community.

 

Our hospitals do not typically engage in extensive medical research and education programs. However, some of our hospitals are affiliated with medical schools and may participate in the clinical rotation of medical interns and residents and other education programs.

 

At December 31, 2010, we operated five psychiatric hospitals with 506 licensed beds. Our psychiatric hospitals provide therapeutic programs including child, adolescent and adult psychiatric care, adult and adolescent alcohol and drug abuse treatment and counseling.

 

We also operate outpatient health care facilities which include freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (“ASCs”), diagnostic and imaging centers, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, outpatient radiation and oncology therapy centers and various other facilities. These outpatient services are an integral component of our strategy to develop comprehensive health care networks in select communities. Most of our ASCs are operated through partnerships or limited liability companies, with majority ownership of each partnership or limited liability company typically held by a general partner or subsidiary that is an affiliate of HCA.

 

Certain of our affiliates provide a variety of management services to our health care facilities, including patient safety programs; ethics and compliance programs; national supply contracts; equipment purchasing and leasing contracts; accounting, financial and clinical systems; governmental reimbursement assistance; construction planning and coordination; information technology systems and solutions; legal counsel; human resources services; and internal audit services.

 

Sources of Revenue

 

Hospital revenues depend upon inpatient occupancy levels, the medical and ancillary services ordered by physicians and provided to patients, the volume of outpatient procedures and the charges or payment rates for such services. Charges and reimbursement rates for inpatient services vary significantly depending on the type of payer, the type of service (e.g., medical/surgical, intensive care or psychiatric) and the geographic location of the hospital. Inpatient occupancy levels fluctuate for various reasons, many of which are beyond our control.

 

We receive payment for patient services from the federal government under the Medicare program, state governments under their respective Medicaid or similar programs, managed care plans, private insurers and directly from patients. The approximate percentages of our revenues from such sources were as follows:

 

 

Medicare is a federal program that provides certain hospital and medical insurance benefits to persons age 65 and over, some disabled persons, persons with end-stage renal disease and persons with Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Medicaid is a federal-state program, administered by the states, which provides hospital and medical benefits to qualifying individuals who are unable to afford health care. All of our general, acute care hospitals located in the United States are certified as health care services providers for persons covered under Medicare and Medicaid programs. Amounts received under Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally significantly less than established hospital gross charges for the services provided.

Our hospitals generally offer discounts from established charges to certain group purchasers of health care services, including private insurance companies, employers, HMOs, PPOs and other managed care plans. These discount programs generally limit our ability to increase revenues in response to increasing costs. See Item 1, “Business — Competition.” Patients are generally not responsible for the total difference between established hospital gross charges and amounts reimbursed for such services under Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs or PPOs and other managed care plans, but are responsible to the extent of any exclusions, deductibles or coinsurance features of their coverage. The amount of such exclusions, deductibles and coinsurance continues to increase. Collection of amounts due from individuals is typically more difficult than from governmental or third-party payers. We provide discounts to uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid or charity care under our charity care policy. These discounts are similar to those provided to many local managed care plans. In implementing the discount policy, we attempt to qualify uninsured patients for Medicaid, other federal or state assistance or charity care under our charity care policy. If an uninsured patient does not qualify for these programs, the uninsured discount is applied.

 

Medicare

 

Inpatient Acute Care

 

Under the Medicare program, we receive reimbursement under a prospective payment system (“PPS”) for general, acute care hospital inpatient services. Under the hospital inpatient PPS, fixed payment amounts per inpatient discharge are established based on the patient’s assigned Medicare severity diagnosis-related group (“MS-DRG”). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) completed a two-year transition to full implementation of MS-DRGs to replace the previously used Medicare diagnosis related groups in an effort to better recognize severity of illness in Medicare payment rates. MS-DRGs classify treatments for illnesses according to the estimated intensity of hospital resources necessary to furnish care for each principal diagnosis. MS-DRG weights represent the average resources for a given MS-DRG relative to the average resources for all MS-DRGs. MS-DRG payments are adjusted for area wage differentials. Hospitals, other than those defined as “new,” receive PPS reimbursement for inpatient capital costs based on MS-DRG weights multiplied by a geographically adjusted federal rate. When the cost to treat certain patients falls well outside the normal distribution, providers typically receive additional “outlier” payments.

 

MS-DRG rates are updated and MS-DRG weights are recalibrated using cost relative weights each federal fiscal year (which begins October 1). The index used to update the MS-DRG rates (the “market basket”) gives consideration to the inflation experienced by hospitals and entities outside the health care industry in purchasing goods and services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Health Reform Law”) provides for annual decreases to the market basket, including a 0.25% reduction in 2010 for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2010. The Health Reform Law also provides for the following reductions to the market basket update for each of the following federal fiscal years: 0.25% in 2011, 0.1% in 2012 and 2013, 0.3% in 2014, 0.2% in 2015 and 2016 and 0.75% in 2017, 2018 and 2019. For federal fiscal year 2012 and each subsequent federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be the projected, nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) will use the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for use by HHS in projecting the productivity figure. Based upon the latest available data, federal fiscal year 2012 market basket reductions resulting from this productivity adjustment are likely to range from 1.0% to 1.4%. CMS estimates that the combined market basket and productivity adjustments will reduce Medicare payments under the inpatient PPS by $112.6 billion from 2010 to 2019. A decrease in payments rates or an increase in rates that is below the increase in our costs may adversely affect the results of our operations.

 

For federal fiscal year 2010, CMS initially set the MS-DRG rate increase at the full market basket of 2.1%, but CMS reduced the increase to 1.85% for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2010, as required by the Health Reform Law. For federal fiscal year 2011, CMS increased the MS-DRG rate for federal fiscal year 2011 by 2.35%, representing the full market basket of 2.6% minus the 0.25% reduction required by the Health Reform Law. CMS also applied a documentation and coding adjustment of negative 2.9% in federal fiscal year 2011 to account for

increases in aggregate payments during implementation of the MS-DRG system. This reduction represents half of the documentation and coding adjustment that CMS intends to implement. CMS plans to recover the remaining 2.9% and interest in federal fiscal year 2012. The market basket update and the documentation and coding adjustment together result in an aggregate market basket adjustment for federal fiscal year 2011 of negative 0.55%. CMS has also announced that an additional prospective negative adjustment of 3.9% will be needed to avoid increased Medicare spending unrelated to patient severity of illness. CMS did not implement this additional 3.9% reduction in federal fiscal year 2011 but has stated that it will be required in the future.

 

Further realignments in the MS-DRG system could also reduce the payments we receive for certain specialties, including cardiology and orthopedics. CMS has focused on payment levels for such specialties in recent years in part because of the proliferation of specialty hospitals. Changes in the payments received for specialty services could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) provides for hospitals to receive a 2% reduction to their market basket updates if they fail to submit data for patient care quality indicators to the Secretary of HHS. As required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA 2005”), CMS has expanded, through a series of rulemakings, the number of quality measures that must be reported to avoid the market basket reduction. In federal fiscal year 2011, CMS requires hospitals to report 55 quality measures in order to avoid the market basket reduction for inpatient PPS payments in federal fiscal year 2012. All of our hospitals paid under the Medicare inpatient PPS are participating in the quality initiative by submitting the requested quality data. While we will endeavor to comply with all data submission requirements as additional requirements continue to be added, our submissions may not be deemed timely or sufficient to entitle us to the full market basket adjustment for all of our hospitals.

 

As part of CMS’ goal of transforming Medicare from a passive payer to an active purchaser of quality goods and services, for discharges occurring after October 1, 2008, Medicare no longer assigns an inpatient hospital discharge to a higher paying MS-DRG if a selected hospital acquired condition (“HAC”) was not present on admission. In this situation, the case is paid as though the secondary diagnosis was not present. Currently, there are ten categories of conditions on the list of HACs. In addition, CMS has established three National Coverage Determinations that prohibit Medicare reimbursement for erroneous surgical procedures performed on an inpatient or outpatient basis. The Health Reform Law provides for reduced payments based on a hospital’s HAC rates. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, the 25% of hospitals with the worst national risk-adjusted HAC rates in the previous year will receive a 1% reduction in their total inpatient operating Medicare payments. In addition, effective July 1, 2011, the Health Reform Law prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical services provided to treat HACs.

 

The Health Reform Law also provides for reduced payments to hospitals based on readmission rates. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2013, inpatient payments will be reduced if a hospital experiences “excessive” readmissions within a time period specified by HHS from the date of discharge for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia or other conditions designated by HHS. Hospitals with what HHS defines as excessive readmissions for these conditions will receive reduced payments for all inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excessive readmission standard. Each hospital’s performance will be publicly reported by HHS. HHS has the discretion to determine what “excessive” readmissions means and other terms and conditions of this program.

 

The Health Reform Law additionally establishes a value-based purchasing program to further link payments to quality and efficiency. In federal fiscal year 2013, HHS is directed to implement a value-based purchasing program for inpatient hospital services. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2013, CMS will reduce the inpatient PPS payment amount for all discharges by the following: 1% for 2013; 1.25% for 2014; 1.5% for 2015; 1.75% for 2016; and 2% for 2017 and subsequent years. For each federal fiscal year, the total amount collected from these reductions will be pooled and used to fund payments to reward hospitals that meet certain quality performance standards established by HHS. HHS will determine the quality performance measures, the standards hospitals must achieve in order to meet the quality performance measures and the methodology for calculating payments to hospitals that meet the required quality threshold. HHS will also determine the amount each hospital that meets or exceeds the quality performance standards will receive from the pool of dollars created by the reductions related to the value-based

purchasing program. On January 7, 2011, CMS issued a proposed rule for the value-based purchasing program that would use 17 clinical process of care measures and eight dimensions of a patient’s experience of care using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (“HCAHPS”) survey to determine incentive payments for federal fiscal year 2013. As proposed, the incentive payments would be calculated based on a combination of measures of hospitals’ achievement of the performance standards and their improvement in meeting the performance standards compared to prior periods. To determine payments in federal fiscal year 2013, the baseline performance period (measurement standard) as proposed would be July 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. To determine whether hospitals meet performance standards, CMS would compare each hospital’s performance in the period July 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 to its performance in the baseline performance period. CMS has not yet proposed specific threshold values for the performance standards. CMS also proposes to add three outcome measures for federal fiscal year 2014, for which the performance period would be July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012 and the baseline performance period would be July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.

 

Historically, the Medicare program has set aside 5.10% of Medicare inpatient payments to pay for outlier cases. For federal fiscal year 2010, CMS established an outlier threshold of $23,140, and for federal fiscal year 2011, CMS reduced the outlier threshold to $23,075. We do not anticipate that the decrease to the outlier threshold for federal fiscal year 2011 will have a material impact on our results of operations.

 

Outpatient

 

CMS reimburses hospital outpatient services (and certain Medicare Part B services furnished to hospital inpatients who have no Part A coverage) on a PPS basis. CMS uses fee schedules to pay for physical, occupational and speech therapies, durable medical equipment, clinical diagnostic laboratory services and nonimplantable orthotics and prosthetics, freestanding surgery centers services and services provided by independent diagnostic testing facilities.

 

Hospital outpatient services paid under PPS are classified into groups called ambulatory payment classifications (“APCs”). Services for each APC are similar clinically and in terms of the resources they require. A payment rate is established for each APC. Depending on the services provided, a hospital may be paid for more than one APC for a patient visit. The APC payment rates were updated for calendar years 2008 and 2009 by market baskets of 3.30% and 3.60%, respectively. CMS updated payment rates for calendar year 2010 by the full market basket of 2.1%. However, the Health Reform Law includes a 0.25% reduction to the market basket for 2010. The Health Reform Law also provides for the following reductions to the market basket update for each of the following calendar years: 0.25% in 2011, 0.1% in 2012 and 2013, 0.3% in 2014, 0.2% in 2015 and 2016 and 0.75% in 2017, 2018 and 2019. For calendar year 2011, CMS implemented a market basket update of 2.6%. With the 0.25% reduction required by the Health Reform Law, this update results in a market basket increase of 2.35%. For calendar year 2012 and each subsequent calendar year, the Health Reform Law provides for an annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be the projected, nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will use the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for use by HHS in projecting the productivity figure. However, CMS estimates that the combined market basket and productivity adjustments will reduce Medicare payments under the outpatient PPS by $26.3 billion from 2010 to 2019. CMS continues to require hospitals to submit quality data relating to outpatient care to avoid receiving a 2% reduction to the market basket update under the outpatient PPS. CMS required hospitals to report data on 11 quality measures in calendar year 2010 for the payment determination in calendar year 2011 and requires hospitals to report 15 quality measures in calendar year 2011 to avoid reduced payments in calendar year 2012.

 

Rehabilitation

 

CMS reimburses inpatient rehabilitation facilities (“IRFs”) on a PPS basis. Under IRF PPS, patients are classified into case mix groups based upon impairment, age, comorbidities (additional diseases or disorders from which the patient suffers) and functional capability. IRFs are paid a predetermined amount per discharge that reflects the patient’s case mix group and is adjusted for area wage levels, low-income patients, rural areas and high-cost outliers. CMS provided for a market basket update of 2.5% for federal fiscal year 2010. However, the Health

Reform Law requires a 0.25% reduction to the market basket for 2010 for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2010. The Health Reform Law also provides for the following reductions to the market basket update for each of the following federal fiscal years: 0.25% in 2011, 0.1% in 2012 and 2013, 0.3% in 2014, 0.2% in 2015 and 2016 and 0.75% in 2017, 2018 and 2019. For federal fiscal year 2011, CMS implemented a market basket update of 2.5%. With the 0.25% reduction required by the Health Reform Law, this update results in a market basket increase of 2.25% for federal fiscal year 2011. For federal fiscal year 2012 and each subsequent federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be the projected, nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will use the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for use by HHS in projecting the productivity figure. However, CMS estimates that the combined market basket and productivity adjustments will reduce Medicare payments under the IRF PPS by $5.7 billion from 2010 to 2019. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2014, IRFs will be required to report quality measures to CMS or will receive a two percentage point reduction to the market basket update. As of December 31, 2010, we had one rehabilitation hospital, which is operated through a joint venture, and 43 hospital rehabilitation units.

 

On May 7, 2004, CMS published a final rule to change the criteria for being classified as an IRF. Pursuant to that final rule, 75% of a facility’s inpatients over a given year had to have been treated for at least one of 10 specified conditions, and a subsequent regulation expanded the number of specified conditions to 13. Since then, several statutory and regulatory adjustments have been made to the rule, including adjustments to the percentage of a facility’s patients that must be treated for one of the 13 specified conditions. Currently, the compliance threshold is set by statute at 60%. Implementation of this 60% threshold has reduced our IRF admissions and can be expected to continue to restrict the treatment of patients whose medical conditions do not meet any of the 13 approved conditions. In addition, effective January 1, 2010, IRFs must meet additional coverage criteria, including patient selection and care requirements relating to pre-admission screenings, post-admission evaluations, ongoing coordination of care and involvement of rehabilitation physicians. A facility that fails to meet the 60% threshold or other criteria to be classified as an IRF will be paid under the acute care hospital inpatient or outpatient PPS, which generally provide for lower payment amounts.

 

Psychiatric

 

Inpatient hospital services furnished in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units of general, acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals are reimbursed under a prospective payment system (“IPF PPS”), a per diem payment, with adjustments to account for certain patient and facility characteristics. IPF PPS contains an “outlier” policy for extraordinarily costly cases and an adjustment to a facility’s base payment if it maintains a full-service emergency department. CMS has established the IPF PPS payment rate in a manner intended to be budget neutral and has adopted a July 1 update cycle, with each twelve month period referred to as a “rate year.” CMS issued a proposed rule that includes changing the IPF PPS from the rate year update cycle to a fiscal year schedule. If implemented as proposed, the rates for 2012 would be effective from July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012, with future updates coinciding with the federal fiscal year (from October 1 through September 30). The rehabilitation, psychiatric and long-term care (“RPL”) market basket update is used to update the IPF PPS. The annual RPL market basket update for rate year 2010 was 2.1%, and the annual RPL market basket update for rate year 2011 is 2.4%. However, the Health Reform Law includes a 0.25% reduction to the market basket for rate year 2010 and again in 2011. The Health Reform Law also provides for the following reductions to the market basket update for rate years that begin in the following calendar years: 0.1% in 2012 and 2013, 0.3% in 2014, 0.2% in 2015 and 2016 and 0.75% in 2017, 2018 and 2019. For rate year 2012 and each subsequent rate year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be the projected, nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will use the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for use by HHS in projecting the productivity figure. However, CMS estimates that the combined market basket and productivity adjustments will reduce Medicare payments under the IPF PPS by $4.3 billion from 2010 to 2019. In a proposed rule, CMS proposes a market basket update of 3.0% for rate year 2012. If implemented as proposed, and with the 0.25% reduction

required by the Health Reform Law, this would result in a market basket update of 2.75%. As of December 31, 2010, we had five psychiatric hospitals and 35 hospital psychiatric units.

 

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

 

CMS reimburses ASCs using a predetermined fee schedule. Reimbursements for ASC overhead costs are limited to no more than the overhead costs paid to hospital outpatient departments under the Medicare hospital outpatient PPS for the same procedure. Effective January 1, 2008, ASC payment groups increased from nine clinically disparate payment groups to an extensive list of covered surgical procedures among the APCs used under the outpatient PPS for these surgical services. Because the new payment system has a significant impact on payments for certain procedures, for services previously in the nine payment groups, CMS has established a four-year transition period for implementing the required payment rates. Moreover, if CMS determines that a procedure is commonly performed in a physician’s office, the ASC reimbursement for that procedure is limited to the reimbursement allowable under the Medicare Part B Physician Fee Schedule, with limited exceptions. In addition, all surgical procedures, other than those that pose a significant safety risk or generally require an overnight stay, are payable as ASC procedures. As a result, more Medicare procedures now performed in hospitals may be moved to ASCs, reducing surgical volume in our hospitals. Also, more Medicare procedures now performed in ASCs may be moved to physicians’ offices. Commercial third-party payers may adopt similar policies. The Health Reform Law requires HHS to issue a plan by January 1, 2011 for developing a value-based purchasing program for ASCs, but HHS has not yet publicly issued this plan. Such a program may further impact Medicare reimbursement of ASCs or increase our operating costs in order to satisfy the value-based standards. For federal fiscal year 2011 and each subsequent federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be the projected nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will use the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old).

 

Physician Services

 

Physician services are reimbursed under the physician fee schedule (“PFS”) system, under which CMS has assigned a national relative value unit (“RVU”) to most medical procedures and services that reflects the various resources required by a physician to provide the services relative to all other services. Each RVU is calculated based on a combination of work required in terms of time and intensity of effort for the service, practice expense (overhead) attributable to the service and malpractice insurance expense attributable to the service. These three elements are each modified by a geographic adjustment factor to account for local practice costs then aggregated. The aggregated amount is multiplied by a conversion factor that accounts for inflation and targeted growth in Medicare expenditures (as calculated by the sustainable growth rate (“SGR”)) to arrive at the payment amount for each service. While RVUs for various services may change in a given year, any alterations are required by statute to be virtually budget neutral, such that total payments made under the PFS may not differ by more than $20 million from what payments would have been if adjustments were not made.

 

The PFS rates are adjusted each year, and reductions in both current and future payments are anticipated. The SGR formula, if implemented as mandated by statute, would result in significant reductions to payments under the PFS. Since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed multiple legislative acts delaying application of the SGR to the PFS. For calendar year 2011, CMS issued a final rule that would have applied the SGR and resulted in an aggregate reduction of 24.9% to all physician payments under the PFS for federal fiscal year 2011. On December 15, 2010, President Obama signed legislation delaying application of the SGR until January 1, 2012. We cannot predict whether the U.S. Congress will intervene to prevent this reduction to payments in the future.

 

Other

 

Under PPS, the payment rates are adjusted for the area differences in wage levels by a factor (“wage index”) reflecting the relative wage level in the geographic area compared to the national average wage level. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2007, CMS adjusted 100% of the wage index factor for occupational mix. The redistributive impact of wage index changes, while slightly negative in the aggregate, is not anticipated to have a material

financial impact for 2011. However, the Health Reform Law requires HHS to report to Congress by December 31, 2011 with recommendations on how to comprehensively reform the Medicare wage index system.

 

As required by the MMA, CMS is implementing contractor reform whereby CMS has competitively bid the Medicare fiscal intermediary and Medicare carrier functions to 15 Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”), which are geographically assigned and service both Part A and Part B providers within a given jurisdiction. Although CMS has awarded initial contracts to all 15 MAC jurisdictions, full transition to the MAC jurisdictions has been delayed due to CMS resoliciting some bids and implementing other corrective actions in response to filed protests. While chain providers had the option of having all hospitals use one home office MAC, HCA chose to use the MACs assigned to the geographic areas in which our hospitals are located. The individual MAC jurisdictions are in varying phases of transition. During the transition periods and for a potentially unforeseen period thereafter, all of these changes could impact claims processing functions and the resulting cash flow; however, we are unable to predict the impact at this time.

 

Under the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) program, CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program. The RAC program was originally limited to certain states, but in 2010, CMS implemented the RAC program on a permanent, nationwide basis as required by statute.

 

The U.S. Congress has not permanently addressed the SGR reductions in physician compensation under the PFS. Any repeal of the SGR may be offset by reductions in Medicare payments to other types of providers.

 

Managed Medicare

 

Managed Medicare plans relate to situations where a private company contracts with CMS to provide members with Medicare Part A, Part B and Part D benefits. Managed Medicare plans can be structured as HMOs, PPOs or private fee-for-service plans. The Medicare program allows beneficiaries to choose enrollment in certain managed Medicare plans. In 2003, MMA increased reimbursement to managed Medicare plans and expanded Medicare beneficiaries’ health care options. Since 2003, the number of beneficiaries choosing to receive their Medicare benefits through such plans has increased. However, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 imposed new restrictions and implemented focused cuts to certain managed Medicare plans. In addition, the Health Reform Law reduces, over a three year period, premium payments to managed Medicare plans such that CMS’ managed care per capita premium payments are, on average, equal to traditional Medicare. The Health Reform Law also implements fee payment adjustments based on service benchmarks and quality ratings. The Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) has estimated that, as a result of these changes, payments to plans will be reduced by $138 billion between 2010 and 2019, while CMS has estimated the reduction to be $145 billion. In addition, the Health Reform Law expands the RAC program to include managed Medicare plans. In light of the current economic downturn and the Health Reform Law, managed Medicare plans may experience reduced premium payments, which may lead to decreased enrollment in such plans.

 

Medicaid

 

Medicaid programs are funded jointly by the federal government and the states and are administered by states under approved plans. Most state Medicaid program payments are made under a PPS or are based on negotiated payment levels with individual hospitals. Medicaid reimbursement is often less than a hospital’s cost of services. The Health Reform Law also requires states to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (“FPL”) by 2014. However, the Health Reform Law also requires states to apply a “5% income disregard” to the Medicaid eligibility standard, so that Medicaid eligibility will effectively be extended to those with incomes up to 138% of the FPL. In addition, effective July 1, 2011, the Health Reform Law will prohibit the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical assistance provided to treat HACs.

 

Since most states must operate with balanced budgets and since the Medicaid program is often the state’s largest program, states can be expected to adopt or consider adopting legislation designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures. The current economic downturn has increased the budgetary pressures on most states, and these budgetary pressures have resulted and likely will continue to result in decreased spending, or decreased spending growth, for Medicaid programs in many states. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) allocated approximately $87.0 billion to temporarily increase the share of program costs paid by the federal government to fund each state’s Medicaid program.

Although initially scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, Congress has allocated additional funds to extend this increased federal funding to states through June 2011. These funds have helped avoid more extensive program and reimbursement cuts, but the expiration of the increased federal funding could result in significant reductions to state Medicaid programs.

 

Further, as permitted by law, certain states in which we operate have adopted broad-based provider taxes to fund the non-federal share of Medicaid programs. Many states have also adopted, or are considering, legislation designed to reduce coverage, enroll Medicaid recipients in managed care programs and/or impose additional taxes on hospitals to help finance or expand the states’ Medicaid systems. Effective March 23, 2010, the Health Reform Law requires states to at least maintain Medicaid eligibility standards established prior to the enactment of the law for adults until January 1, 2014 and for children until October 1, 2019. However, states with budget deficits may seek a waiver from this requirement to address eligibility standards that apply to adults making more than 133% of the FPL.

 

Through DRA 2005, Congress has expanded the federal government’s involvement in fighting fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid program by creating the Medicaid Integrity Program. Among other things, DRA 2005 requires CMS to employ private contractors, referred to as Medicaid Integrity Contractors (“MICs”), to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. MICs are assigned to five geographic regions and have commenced audits in states assigned to those regions. The Health Reform Law increases federal funding for the MIC program for federal fiscal year 2011 and later years. In addition to MICs, several other contractors and state Medicaid agencies have increased their review activities. The Health Reform Law expands the RAC program’s scope to include Medicaid claims.

 

Managed Medicaid

 

Managed Medicaid programs enable states to contract with one or more entities for patient enrollment, care management and claims adjudication. The states usually do not relinquish program responsibilities for financing, eligibility criteria and core benefit plan design. We generally contract directly with one of the designated entities, usually a managed care organization. The provisions of these programs are state-specific.

 

Enrollment in managed Medicaid plans has increased in recent years, as state governments seek to control the cost of Medicaid programs. However, general economic conditions in the states in which we operate may require reductions in premium payments to these plans and may reduce enrollment in these plans.

 

Electronic Health Records

 

ARRA provides for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments beginning in federal fiscal year 2011 for eligible hospitals and calendar year 2011 for eligible professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record (“EHR”) technology. A total of at least $20 billion in incentives is being made available through the Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive programs to eligible hospitals and eligible professionals in the adoption of EHRs.

 

Under the Medicare incentive program, acute care hospitals that demonstrate meaningful use will receive incentive payments for up to four fiscal years. The Medicare incentive payment amount is the product of three factors: (1) an initial amount comprised of a base amount of $2,000,000 plus $200 for each acute care inpatient discharge during a payment year, beginning with a hospital’s 1,150th discharge of the year and ending with a hospital’s 23,000th discharge of the year; (2) the “Medicare share,” which is the sum of Medicare Part A and Part C acute care inpatient-bed-days divided by the product of the total inpatient-bed-days and a charity care factor; and (3) a transition factor applicable to the payment year. In order to maximize their incentive payments, acute care hospitals must participate in the incentive program by federal fiscal year 2013. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, acute care hospitals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology will receive reduced market basket updates under inpatient PPS.

 

Eligible professionals who demonstrate meaningful use are entitled to incentive payments for up to five payment years in an amount equal to 75% of their estimated Medicare allowed charges for covered professional services furnished during the relevant calendar year, subject to an annual limit. Eligible professionals must participate in the incentive payment program by calendar year 2012 in order to maximize their incentive payments and must participate by calendar year 2014 in order to receive any incentive payments. Beginning in calendar year

2015, eligible professionals who do not demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology will face Medicare payment reductions.

 

The Medicaid EHR incentive program is voluntary for states to implement. For participating states, the Medicaid EHR incentive program will provide incentive payments for acute care hospitals and eligible professionals that meet certain volume percentages of Medicaid patients as well as children’s hospitals. Providers may only participate in a single state’s Medicaid EHR incentive program. Eligible professionals can only participate in either the Medicaid incentive program or the Medicare incentive program and can change this election only one time. Hospitals may participate in both the Medicare and Medicaid incentive programs.

 

To qualify for incentive payments under the Medicaid program, providers must adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of, certified EHR technology during their first participation year or successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology in subsequent participation years. Payments may be received for up to six participation years. For hospitals, the aggregate Medicaid EHR incentive amount is the product of two factors: (1) the overall EHR amount which is comprised of a base amount of $2,000,000 plus a discharge-related amount, multiplied by the Medicare share (which is set at one by statute) multiplied by a transition factor, and (2) the “Medicaid share,” which is the estimated Medicaid inpatient-bed days plus estimated Medicaid managed care inpatient bed-days, divided by the product of the estimated total inpatient bed-days and a charity care factor. Under the Medicaid incentive program, eligible professionals may receive payments based on their EHR costs, up to total amount of $63,750, or for pediatricians, $42,500. There is no penalty for hospitals or professionals under Medicaid for failing to meet EHR meaningful use requirements.

 

Accountable Care Organizations and Pilot Projects

 

The Health Reform Law requires HHS to establish a Medicare Shared Savings Program that promotes accountability and coordination of care through the creation of Accountable Care Organizations (“ACOs”), beginning no later than January 1, 2012. The program will allow providers (including hospitals), physicians and other designated professionals and suppliers to form ACOs and voluntarily work together to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to achieve high quality and efficient delivery of services. The program is intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. ACOs that achieve quality performance standards established by HHS will be eligible to share in a portion of the amounts saved by the Medicare program. HHS has significant discretion to determine key elements of the program, including what steps providers must take to be considered an ACO, how to decide if Medicare program savings have occurred, and what portion of such savings will be paid to ACOs. In addition, HHS will determine to what degree hospitals, physicians and other eligible participants will be able to form and operate an ACO without violating certain existing laws, including the Civil Monetary Penalty Law, the Anti-kickback Statute and the Stark Law. The Health Reform Law does not authorize HHS to waive other laws that may impact the ability of hospitals and other eligible participants to participate in ACOs, such as antitrust laws.

 

The Health Reform Law requires HHS to establish a five-year, voluntary national bundled payment pilot program for Medicare services beginning no later than January 1, 2013. Under the program, providers would agree to receive one payment for services provided to Medicare patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care. HHS will have the discretion to determine how the program will function. For example, HHS will determine what medical conditions will be included in the program and the amount of the payment for each condition. In addition, the Health Reform Law provides for a five-year bundled payment pilot program for Medicaid services to begin January 1, 2012. HHS will select up to eight states to participate based on the potential to lower costs under the Medicaid program while improving care. State programs may target particular categories of beneficiaries, selected diagnoses or geographic regions of the state. The selected state programs will provide one payment for both hospital and physician services provided to Medicaid patients for certain episodes of inpatient care. For both pilot programs, HHS will determine the relationship between the programs and restrictions in certain existing laws, including the Civil Monetary Penalty Law, the Anti-kickback Statute, the Stark Law and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, security and transaction standard requirements. However, the Health Reform Law does not authorize HHS to waive other laws that may impact the ability of hospitals and other eligible participants to participate in the pilot programs, such as antitrust laws.

Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments

 

In addition to making payments for services provided directly to beneficiaries, Medicare makes additional payments to hospitals that treat a disproportionately large number of low-income patients (Medicaid and Medicare patients eligible to receive Supplemental Security Income). Disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) payments are determined annually based on certain statistical information required by HHS and are calculated as a percentage addition to MS-DRG payments. The primary method used by a hospital to qualify for Medicare DSH payments is a complex statutory formula that results in a DSH percentage that is applied to payments on MS-DRGs.

 

Under the Health Reform Law, beginning in federal fiscal year 2014, Medicare DSH payments will be reduced to 25% of the amount they otherwise would have been absent the law. The remaining 75% of the amount that would otherwise be paid under Medicare DSH will be effectively pooled, and this pool will be reduced further each year by a formula that reflects reductions in the national level of uninsured who are under 65 years of age. Each DSH hospital will then be paid, out of the reduced DSH payment pool, an amount allocated based upon its level of uncompensated care. It is difficult to predict the full impact of the Medicare DSH reductions. The CBO estimates $22 billion in reductions to Medicare DSH payments between 2010 and 2019, while for the same time period, CMS estimates reimbursement reductions totaling $50 billion.

 

Hospitals that provide care to a disproportionately high number of low-income patients may receive Medicaid DSH payments. The federal government distributes federal Medicaid DSH funds to each state based on a statutory formula. The states then distribute the DSH funding among qualifying hospitals. States have broad discretion to define which hospitals qualify for Medicaid DSH payments and the amount of such payments. The Health Reform Law will reduce funding for the Medicaid DSH hospital program in federal fiscal years 2014 through 2020 by the following amounts: 2014 ($500 million); 2015 ($600 million); 2016 ($600 million); 2017 ($1.8 billion); 2018 ($5 billion); 2019 ($5.6 billion); and 2020 ($4 billion). How such cuts are allocated among the states and how the states allocate these cuts among providers, have yet to be determined.

 

TRICARE

 

TRICARE is the Department of Defense’s health care program for members of the armed forces. For inpatient services, TRICARE reimburses hospitals based on a DRG system modeled on the Medicare inpatient PPS. The Department of Defense has also implemented a PPS for hospital outpatient services furnished to TRICARE beneficiaries similar to that utilized for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. Because the Medicare outpatient PPS APC rates have historically been below TRICARE rates, the adoption of this payment methodology for TRICARE beneficiaries has reduced our reimbursement; however, TRICARE outpatient services do not represent a significant portion of our patient volumes.

 

Annual Cost Reports

 

All hospitals participating in the Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs, whether paid on a reasonable cost basis or under a PPS, are required to meet certain financial reporting requirements. Federal and, where applicable, state regulations require the submission of annual cost reports covering the revenues, costs and expenses associated with the services provided by each hospital to Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients.

 

Annual cost reports required under the Medicare and Medicaid programs are subject to routine audits, which may result in adjustments to the amounts ultimately determined to be due to us under these reimbursement programs. These audits often require several years to reach the final determination of amounts due to or from us under these programs. Providers also have rights of appeal, and it is common to contest issues raised in audits of cost reports.

 

Managed Care and Other Discounted Plans

 

Most of our hospitals offer discounts from established charges to certain large group purchasers of health care services, including managed care plans and private insurance companies. Admissions reimbursed by commercial managed care and other insurers were 32%, 34% and 35% of our total admissions for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Managed care contracts are typically negotiated for terms between one and three years. While we generally received annual average yield increases of 5% to 6% from managed care payers during 2010, there can be no assurance that we will continue to receive increases in the future. It is not clear what impact, if

any, the increased obligations on managed care payers and other health plans imposed by the Health Reform Law will have on our ability to negotiate reimbursement increases.

 

Uninsured and Self-Pay Patients

 

A high percentage of our uninsured patients are initially admitted through our emergency rooms. For the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately 82% of our admissions of uninsured patients occurred through our emergency rooms. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) requires any hospital that participates in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every person who presents to the hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the individual is suffering from an emergency medical condition, to either stabilize that condition or make an appropriate transfer of the individual to a facility that can handle the condition. The obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of an individual’s ability to pay for treatment. The Health Reform Law requires health plans to reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to enrollees without prior authorization and without regard to whether a participating provider contract is in place. Further, as enacted, the Health Reform Law contains provisions that seek to decrease the number of uninsured individuals, including requirements and incentives, which do not become effective until 2014, for individuals to obtain, and large employers to provide, insurance coverage. These mandates may reduce the financial impact of screening for and stabilizing emergency medical conditions. However, many factors are unknown regarding the impact of the Health Reform Law, including how many previously uninsured individuals will obtain coverage as a result of the law or the change, if any, in the volume of inpatient and outpatient hospital services that are sought by and provided to previously uninsured individuals and the payer mix. In addition, it is difficult to predict the full impact of the Health Reform Law due to the law’s complexity, lack of implementing regulations or interpretive guidance, gradual and potentially delayed implementation, pending court challenges and possible amendment or repeal.

 

We are taking proactive measures to reduce our provision for doubtful accounts by, among other things:

 

Hospital Utilization

 

We believe the most important factors relating to the overall utilization of a hospital are the quality and market position of the hospital and the number and quality of physicians and other health care professionals providing patient care within the facility. Generally, we believe the ability of a hospital to be a market leader is determined by its breadth of services, level of technology, emphasis on quality of care and convenience for patients and physicians. Other factors that impact utilization include the growth in local population, local economic conditions and market penetration of managed care programs.

 

The following table sets forth certain operating statistics for our health care facilities. Health care facility operations are subject to certain seasonal fluctuations, including decreases in patient utilization during holiday periods and increases in the cold weather months. The data set forth in this table includes only those facilities that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

 

 

 

 

Competition

 

Generally, other hospitals in the local communities served by most of our hospitals provide services similar to those offered by our hospitals. Additionally, in recent years the number of freestanding ASCs and diagnostic centers (including facilities owned by physicians) in the geographic areas in which we operate has increased significantly. As a result, most of our hospitals operate in a highly competitive environment. In some cases, competing hospitals are more established than our hospitals. Some competing hospitals are owned by tax-supported government agencies and many others are owned by not-for-profit entities that may be supported by endowments, charitable contributions and/or tax revenues and are exempt from sales, property and income taxes. Such exemptions and support are not available to our hospitals. In certain localities there are large teaching hospitals that provide highly specialized facilities, equipment and services which may not be available at most of our hospitals. We face increasing competition from specialty hospitals, some of which are physician-owned, and both our own and unaffiliated freestanding ASCs for market share in high margin services.

 

Psychiatric hospitals frequently attract patients from areas outside their immediate locale and, therefore, our psychiatric hospitals compete with both local and regional hospitals, including the psychiatric units of general, acute care hospitals.

 

Our strategies are designed to ensure our hospitals are competitive. We believe our hospitals compete within local communities on the basis of many factors, including the quality of care, ability to attract and retain quality physicians, skilled clinical personnel and other health care professionals, location, breadth of services, technology offered and prices charged. The Health Reform Law requires hospitals to publish annually a list of their standard charges for items and services. We have increased our focus on operating outpatient services with improved accessibility and more convenient service for patients, and increased predictability and efficiency for physicians.

 

Two of the most significant factors to the competitive position of a hospital are the number and quality of physicians affiliated with or employed by the hospital. Although physicians may at any time terminate their relationship with a hospital we operate, our hospitals seek to retain physicians with varied specialties on the hospitals’ medical staffs and to attract other qualified physicians. We believe physicians refer patients to a hospital on the basis of the quality and scope of services it renders to patients and physicians, the quality of physicians on the medical staff, the location of the hospital and the quality of the hospital’s facilities, equipment and employees. Accordingly, we strive to maintain and provide quality facilities, equipment, employees and services for physicians and patients.

 

Another major factor in the competitive position of a hospital is our ability to negotiate service contracts with purchasers of group health care services. Managed care plans attempt to direct and control the use of hospital services and obtain discounts from hospitals’ established gross charges. In addition, employers and traditional health insurers continue to attempt to contain costs through negotiations with hospitals for managed care programs and discounts from established gross charges. Generally, hospitals compete for service contracts with group health care services purchasers on the basis of price, market reputation, geographic location, quality and range of services, quality of the medical staff and convenience. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our managed care contracts and enter into new managed care contracts on favorable terms. Other health care providers may impact our ability to enter into managed care contracts or negotiate increases in our reimbursement and other favorable terms and conditions. For example, some of our competitors may negotiate exclusivity provisions with managed care plans or otherwise restrict the ability of managed care companies to contract with us. The trend toward consolidation among non-government payers tends to increase their bargaining power over fee structures. In addition, as various provisions of the Health Reform Law are implemented, including the establishment of American Health Benefit Exchanges (“Exchanges”) and limitations on rescissions of coverage and pre-existing condition exclusions, non-government payers may increasingly demand reduced fees or be unwilling to negotiate reimbursement increases. The importance of obtaining contracts with managed care organizations varies from community to community, depending on the market strength of such organizations.

 

State certificate of need (“CON”) laws, which place limitations on a hospital’s ability to expand hospital services and facilities, make capital expenditures and otherwise make changes in operations, may also have the effect of restricting competition. We currently operate health care facilities in a number of states with CON laws. Before issuing a CON, these states consider the need for additional or expanded health care facilities or services. In

those states which have no CON laws or which set relatively high levels of expenditures before they become reviewable by state authorities, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. See Item 1, “Business — Regulation and Other Factors.”

 

We and the health care industry as a whole face the challenge of continuing to provide quality patient care while dealing with rising costs and strong competition for patients. Changes in medical technology, existing and future legislation, regulations and interpretations and managed care contracting for provider services by private and government payers remain ongoing challenges.

 

Admissions, average lengths of stay and reimbursement amounts continue to be negatively affected by payer-required pre-admission authorization, utilization review and payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. The Health Reform Law potentially expands the use of prepayment review by Medicare contractors by eliminating statutory restrictions on their use. Increased competition, admission constraints and payer pressures are expected to continue. To meet these challenges, we intend to expand our facilities or acquire or construct new facilities where appropriate, to enhance the provision of a comprehensive array of outpatient services, offer market competitive pricing to private payer groups, upgrade facilities and equipment and offer new or expanded programs and services.

 

Regulation and Other Factors

 

Licensure, Certification and Accreditation

 

Health care facility construction and operation are subject to numerous federal, state and local regulations relating to the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, maintenance of adequate records, fire prevention, rate-setting and compliance with building codes and environmental protection laws. Facilities are subject to periodic inspection by governmental and other authorities to assure continued compliance with the various standards necessary for licensing and accreditation. We believe our health care facilities are properly licensed under applicable state laws. Each of our acute care hospitals are certified for participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and are accredited by The Joint Commission. If any facility were to lose its Medicare or Medicaid certification, the facility would be unable to receive reimbursement from federal health care programs. If any facility were to lose accreditation by The Joint Commission, the facility would be subject to state surveys, potentially be subject to increased scrutiny by CMS and likely lose payment from non-government payers. Management believes our facilities are in substantial compliance with current applicable federal, state, local and independent review body regulations and standards. The requirements for licensure, certification and accreditation are subject to change and, in order to remain qualified, it may become necessary for us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel and services. The requirements for licensure also may include notification or approval in the event of the transfer or change of ownership. Failure to obtain the necessary state approval in these circumstances can result in the inability to complete an acquisition or change of ownership.

 

Certificates of Need

 

In some states where we operate hospitals and other health care facilities, the construction or expansion of health care facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities, the transfer or change of ownership and the addition of new beds or services may be subject to review by and prior approval of state regulatory agencies under a CON program. Such laws generally require the reviewing state agency to determine the public need for additional or expanded health care facilities and services. Failure to obtain necessary state approval can result in the inability to expand facilities, complete an acquisition or change ownership.

 

State Rate Review

 

Some states have adopted legislation mandating rate or budget review for hospitals or have adopted taxes on hospital revenues, assessments or licensure fees to fund indigent health care within the state. In the aggregate, indigent tax provisions have not materially, adversely affected our results of operations. Although we do not currently operate facilities in states that mandate rate or budget reviews, we cannot predict whether we will operate in such states in the future, or whether the states in which we currently operate may adopt legislation mandating such reviews.

Federal Health Care Program Regulations

 

Participation in any federal health care program, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, is heavily regulated by statute and regulation. If a hospital fails to substantially comply with the numerous conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs or performs certain prohibited acts, the hospital’s participation in the federal health care programs may be terminated, or civil and/or criminal penalties may be imposed.

 

Anti-kickback Statute

 

A section of the Social Security Act known as the “Anti-kickback Statute” prohibits providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration with the intent of generating referrals or orders for services or items covered by a federal health care program. Courts have interpreted this statute broadly and held that there is a violation of the Anti-kickback Statute if just one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals, even if there are other lawful purposes. Furthermore, the Health Reform Law provides that knowledge of the law or the intent to violate the law is not required. Violations of the Anti-kickback Statute may be punished by a criminal fine of up to $25,000 for each violation or imprisonment, civil money penalties of up to $50,000 per violation and damages of up to three times the total amount of the remuneration and/or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. The Health Reform Law provides that submission of a claim for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim and may be subject to additional penalties under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”).

 

The Office of Inspector General at HHS (“OIG”), among other regulatory agencies, is responsible for identifying and eliminating fraud, abuse and waste. The OIG carries out this mission through a nationwide program of audits, investigations and inspections. As one means of providing guidance to health care providers, the OIG issues “Special Fraud Alerts.” These alerts do not have the force of law, but identify features of arrangements or transactions that the government believes may cause the arrangements or transactions to violate the Anti-kickback Statute or other federal health care laws. The OIG has identified several incentive arrangements that constitute suspect practices, including: (a) payment of any incentive by a hospital each time a physician refers a patient to the hospital, (b) the use of free or significantly discounted office space or equipment in facilities usually located close to the hospital, (c) provision of free or significantly discounted billing, nursing or other staff services, (d) free training for a physician’s office staff in areas such as management techniques and laboratory techniques, (e) guarantees which provide, if the physician’s income fails to reach a predetermined level, the hospital will pay any portion of the remainder, (f) low-interest or interest-free loans, or loans which may be forgiven if a physician refers patients to the hospital, (g) payment of the costs of a physician’s travel and expenses for conferences, (h) coverage on the hospital’s group health insurance plans at an inappropriately low cost to the physician, (i) payment for services (which may include consultations at the hospital) which require few, if any, substantive duties by the physician, (j) purchasing goods or services from physicians at prices in excess of their fair market value, and (k) rental of space in physician offices, at other than fair market value terms, by persons or entities to which physicians refer. The OIG has encouraged persons having information about hospitals who offer the above types of incentives to physicians to report such information to the OIG.

 

The OIG also issues Special Advisory Bulletins as a means of providing guidance to health care providers. These bulletins, along with the Special Fraud Alerts, have focused on certain arrangements that could be subject to heightened scrutiny by government enforcement authorities, including: (a) contractual joint venture arrangements and other joint venture arrangements between those in a position to refer business, such as physicians, and those providing items or services for which Medicare or Medicaid pays, and (b) certain “gainsharing” arrangements, i.e., the practice of giving physicians a share of any reduction in a hospital’s costs for patient care attributable in part to the physician’s efforts.

 

In addition to issuing Special Fraud Alerts and Special Advisory Bulletins, the OIG issues compliance program guidance for certain types of health care providers. The OIG guidance identifies a number of risk areas under federal fraud and abuse statutes and regulations. These areas of risk include compensation arrangements with physicians, recruitment arrangements with physicians and joint venture relationships with physicians.

 

As authorized by Congress, the OIG has published safe harbor regulations that outline categories of activities deemed protected from prosecution under the Anti-kickback Statute. Currently, there are statutory exceptions and

safe harbors for various activities, including the following: certain investment interests, space rental, equipment rental, practitioner recruitment, personnel services and management contracts, sale of practice, referral services, warranties, discounts, employees, group purchasing organizations, waiver of beneficiary coinsurance and deductible amounts, managed care arrangements, obstetrical malpractice insurance subsidies, investments in group practices, freestanding surgery centers, ambulance replenishing, and referral agreements for specialty services.

 

The fact that conduct or a business arrangement does not fall within a safe harbor, or it is identified in a Special Fraud Alert or Advisory Bulletin or as a risk area in the Supplemental Compliance Guidelines for Hospitals, does not necessarily render the conduct or business arrangement illegal under the Anti-kickback Statute. However, such conduct and business arrangements may lead to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities.

 

We have a variety of financial relationships with physicians and others who either refer or influence the referral of patients to our hospitals and other health care facilities, including employment contracts, leases, medical director agreements and professional service agreements. We also have similar relationships with physicians and facilities to which patients are referred from our facilities. In addition, we provide financial incentives, including minimum revenue guarantees, to recruit physicians into the communities served by our hospitals. While we endeavor to comply with the applicable safe harbors, certain of our current arrangements, including joint ventures and financial relationships with physicians and other referral sources and persons and entities to which we refer patients, do not qualify for safe harbor protection.

 

Although we believe our arrangements with physicians and other referral sources have been structured to comply with current law and available interpretations, there can be no assurance regulatory authorities enforcing these laws will determine these financial arrangements comply with the Anti-kickback Statute or other applicable laws. An adverse determination could subject us to liabilities under the Social Security Act and other laws, including criminal penalties, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs.

 

Stark Law

 

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” The Stark Law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to entities with which they or any of their immediate family members have a financial relationship, if these entities provide certain “designated health services” reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid unless an exception applies. The Stark Law also prohibits entities that provide designated health services reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid from billing the Medicare and Medicaid programs for any items or services that result from a prohibited referral and requires the entities to refund amounts received for items or services provided pursuant to the prohibited referral. “Designated health services” include inpatient and outpatient hospital services, clinical laboratory services and radiology services. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties of up to $15,000 per claim submitted and exclusion from the federal health care programs. The statute also provides for a penalty of up to $100,000 for a circumvention scheme. There are exceptions to the self-referral prohibition for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases and recruitment agreements. Unlike safe harbors under the Anti-kickback Statute with which compliance is voluntary, an arrangement must comply with every requirement of a Stark Law exception or the arrangement is in violation of the Stark Law. Although there is an exception for a physician’s ownership interest in an entire hospital, the Health Reform Law prohibits newly created physician-owned hospitals from billing for Medicare patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals after December 31, 2010. While the Health Reform Law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

 

Through a series of rulemakings, CMS has issued final regulations implementing the Stark Law. Additional changes to these regulations, which became effective October 1, 2009, further restrict the types of arrangements facilities and physicians may enter, including additional restrictions on certain leases, percentage compensation arrangements, and agreements under which a hospital purchases services “under arrangements.” While these regulations were intended to clarify the requirements of the exceptions to the Stark Law, it is unclear how the government will interpret many of these exceptions for enforcement purposes. CMS has indicated it is considering

additional changes to the Stark Law regulations. We do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of these laws and regulations. We attempt to structure our relationships to meet an exception to the Stark Law, but the regulations implementing the exceptions are detailed and complex, and we cannot assure that every relationship complies fully with the Stark Law.

 

Similar State Laws

 

Many states in which we operate also have laws similar to the Anti-kickback Statute that prohibit payments to physicians for patient referrals and laws similar to the Stark Law that prohibit certain self-referrals. The scope of these state laws is broad, since they can often apply regardless of the source of payment for care, and little precedent exists for their interpretation or enforcement. These statutes typically provide for criminal and civil penalties, as well as loss of facility licensure.

 

Other Fraud and Abuse Provisions

 

HIPAA broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for health care fraud offenses that apply to all health benefit programs. The Social Security Act also imposes criminal and civil penalties for making false claims and statements to Medicare and Medicaid. False claims include, but are not limited to, billing for services not rendered or for misrepresenting actual services rendered in order to obtain higher reimbursement, billing for unnecessary goods and services and cost report fraud. Federal enforcement officials have the ability to exclude from Medicare and Medicaid any investors, officers and managing employees associated with business entities that have committed health care fraud, even if the officer or managing employee had no knowledge of the fraud. Criminal and civil penalties may be imposed for a number of other prohibited activities, including failure to return known overpayments, certain gainsharing arrangements, billing Medicare amounts that are substantially in excess of a provider’s usual charges, offering remuneration to influence a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary’s selection of a health care provider, contracting with an individual or entity known to be excluded from a federal health care program, making or accepting a payment to induce a physician to reduce or limit services, and soliciting or receiving any remuneration in return for referring an individual for an item or service payable by a federal health care program. Like the Anti-kickback Statute, these provisions are very broad. Under the Health Reform Law, civil penalties may be imposed for the failure to report and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment or by the date a corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. To avoid liability, providers must, among other things, carefully and accurately code claims for reimbursement, promptly return overpayments and accurately prepare cost reports.

 

Some of these provisions, including the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law, require a lower burden of proof than other fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-kickback Statute. Civil monetary penalties that may be imposed under the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law range from $10,000 to $50,000 per act, and in some cases may result in penalties of up to three times the remuneration offered, paid, solicited or received. In addition, a violator may be subject to exclusion from federal and state health care programs. Federal and state governments increasingly use the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law, especially where they believe they cannot meet the higher burden of proof requirements under the Anti-kickback Statute. Further, individuals can receive up to $1,000 for providing information on Medicare fraud and abuse that leads to the recovery of at least $100 of Medicare funds under the Medicare Integrity Program.

 

The Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Laws

 

The qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the FCA allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the defendant has defrauded the federal government. Further, the government may use the FCA to prosecute Medicare and other government program fraud in areas such as coding errors, billing for services not provided and submitting false cost reports. When a private party brings a qui tam action under the FCA, the defendant is not made aware of the lawsuit until the government commences its own investigation or makes a determination whether it will intervene. When a defendant is determined by a court of law to be liable under the FCA, the defendant may be required to pay three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each separate false claim. There are many potential bases for liability under the FCA. Liability often arises when an entity knowingly submits a false claim for

reimbursement to the federal government. The FCA defines the term “knowingly” broadly. Though simple negligence will not give rise to liability under the FCA, submitting a claim with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity constitutes a “knowing” submission under the FCA and, therefore, will qualify for liability. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 expanded the scope of the FCA by, among other things, creating liability for knowingly and improperly avoiding repayment of an overpayment received from the government and broadening protections for whistleblowers. Under the Health Reform Law, the FCA is implicated by the knowing failure to report and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment or by the date a corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. Further, the Health Reform Law expands the scope of the FCA to cover payments in connection with the Exchanges to be created by the Health Reform Law, if those payments include any federal funds.

 

In some cases, whistleblowers and the federal government have taken the position, and some courts have held, that providers who allegedly have violated other statutes, such as the Anti-kickback Statute and the Stark Law, have thereby submitted false claims under the FCA. The Health Reform Law clarifies this issue with respect to the Anti-kickback Statute by providing that submission of claims for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. Every entity that receives at least $5 million annually in Medicaid payments must have written policies for all employees, contractors or agents, providing detailed information about false claims, false statements and whistleblower protections under certain federal laws, including the FCA, and similar state laws. In addition, federal law provides an incentive to states to enact false claims laws comparable to the FCA. A number of states in which we operate have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions under which a private party may file a civil lawsuit in state court. We have adopted and distributed policies pertaining to the FCA and relevant state laws.

 

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy and Security Requirements

 

The Administrative Simplification Provisions of HIPAA require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for certain health care claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the health care industry. HHS has issued regulations implementing the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Provisions and compliance with these regulations is mandatory for our facilities. In addition, HIPAA requires that each provider use a National Provider Identifier. In January 2009, CMS published a final rule making changes to the formats used for certain electronic transactions and requiring the use of updated standard code sets for certain diagnoses and procedures known as ICD-10 code sets. While use of the ICD-10 code sets is not mandatory until October 1, 2013, we will be modifying our payment systems and processes to prepare for the implementation. Implementing the ICD-10 code sets will require significant administrative changes, but we believe that the cost of compliance with these regulations has not had and is not expected to have a material, adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. The Health Reform Law requires HHS to adopt standards for additional electronic transactions and to establish operating rules to promote uniformity in the implementation of each standardized electronic transaction.

 

The privacy and security regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA extensively regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information and require covered entities, including health plans and most health care providers, to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the security of such information. ARRA broadened the scope of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. In addition, ARRA extends the application of certain provisions of the security and privacy regulations to business associates (entities that handle identifiable health information on behalf of covered entities) and subjects business associates to civil and criminal penalties for violation of the regulations. On July 14, 2010, HHS issued a proposed rule that would implement many of these ARRA provisions. If finalized, these changes would likely require amendments to existing agreements with business associates and would subject business associates and their subcontractors to direct liability under the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. We currently enforce a HIPAA compliance plan, which we believe complies with HIPAA privacy and security requirements and under which a HIPAA compliance group monitors our compliance. The privacy regulations and security regulations have and will continue to impose significant costs on our facilities in order to comply with these standards.

 

As required by ARRA, HHS published an interim final rule on August 24, 2009, that requires covered entities to report breaches of unsecured protected health information to affected individuals without unreasonable delay but

not to exceed 60 days of discovery of the breach by a covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to HHS and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. HHS is required to publish on its website a list of all covered entities that report a breach involving more than 500 individuals. Various state laws and regulations may also require us to notify affected individuals in the event of a data breach involving individually identifiable information.

 

Violations of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations may result in civil and criminal penalties, and ARRA has strengthened the enforcement provisions of HIPAA, which may result in increased enforcement activity. Under ARRA, HHS is required to conduct periodic compliance audits of covered entities and their business associates. ARRA broadens the applicability of the criminal penalty provisions to employees of covered entities and requires HHS to impose penalties for violations resulting from willful neglect. ARRA also significantly increases the amount of the civil penalties, with penalties of up to $50,000 per violation for a maximum civil penalty of $1,500,000 in a calendar year for violations of the same requirement. In addition, ARRA authorizes state attorneys general to bring civil actions seeking either injunction or damages in response to violations of HIPAA privacy and security regulations that threaten the privacy of state residents. Our facilities also remain subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties.

 

There are numerous other laws and legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing privacy and security concerns. For example, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule in October 2007 requiring financial institutions and creditors, which arguably included health providers and health plans, to implement written identity theft prevention programs to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft in connection with certain accounts. The FTC delayed enforcement of this rule until December 31, 2010. In addition, on December 18, 2010, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 became law, restricting the definition of a “creditor.” This law may exempt many hospitals from complying with the rule.

 

EMTALA

 

All of our hospitals in the United States are subject to EMTALA. This federal law requires any hospital participating in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every individual who presents to the hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the individual is suffering from an emergency medical condition, to either stabilize the condition or make an appropriate transfer of the individual to a facility able to handle the condition. The obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of an individual’s ability to pay for treatment. There are severe penalties under EMTALA if a hospital fails to screen or appropriately stabilize or transfer an individual or if the hospital delays appropriate treatment in order to first inquire about the individual’s ability to pay. Penalties for violations of EMTALA include civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in the Medicare program. In addition, an injured individual, the individual’s family or a medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result of a hospital’s violation of the law can bring a civil suit against the hospital.

 

The government broadly interprets EMTALA to cover situations in which individuals do not actually present to a hospital’s emergency room, but present for emergency examination or treatment to the hospital’s campus, generally, or to a hospital-based clinic that treats emergency medical conditions or are transported in a hospital-owned ambulance, subject to certain exceptions. At least one court has interpreted the law also to apply to a hospital that has been notified of a patient’s pending arrival in a non-hospital owned ambulance. EMTALA does not generally apply to individuals admitted for inpatient services. The government has expressed its intent to investigate and enforce EMTALA violations actively in the future. We believe our hospitals operate in substantial compliance with EMTALA.

 

Corporate Practice of Medicine/Fee Splitting

 

Some of the states in which we operate have laws prohibiting corporations and other entities from employing physicians, practicing medicine for a profit and making certain direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements between health care providers designed to induce or encourage the referral of patients to, or the recommendation of, particular providers for medical products and services. Possible sanctions for violation of these

restrictions include loss of license and civil and criminal penalties. In addition, agreements between the corporation and the physician may be considered void and unenforceable. These statutes vary from state to state, are often vague and have seldom been interpreted by the courts or regulatory agencies.

 

Health Care Industry Investigations

 

Significant media and public attention has focused in recent years on the hospital industry. This media and public attention, changes in government personnel or other factors may lead to increased scrutiny of the health care industry. While we are currently not aware of any material investigations of the Company under federal or state health care laws or regulations, it is possible that governmental entities could initiate investigations or litigation in the future at facilities we operate and that such matters could result in significant penalties, as well as adverse publicity. It is also possible that our executives and managers could be included in governmental investigations or litigation or named as defendants in private litigation.

 

Our substantial Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental billings result in heightened scrutiny of our operations. We continue to monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigations or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with our or industry practices.

 

In public statements surrounding current investigations, governmental authorities have taken positions on a number of issues, including some for which little official interpretation previously has been available, that appear to be inconsistent with practices that have been common within the industry and that previously have not been challenged in this manner. In some instances, government investigations that have in the past been conducted under the civil provisions of federal law may now be conducted as criminal investigations.

 

Both federal and state government agencies have increased their focus on and coordination of civil and criminal enforcement efforts in the health care area. The OIG and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have, from time to time, established national enforcement initiatives, targeting all hospital providers that focus on specific billing practices or other suspected areas of abuse. The Health Reform Law includes additional federal funding of $350 million over the next 10 years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse, including $105 million for federal fiscal year 2011 and $65 million in federal fiscal year 2012. In addition, governmental agencies and their agents, such as MACs, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, may conduct audits of our health care operations. Private payers may conduct similar post-payment audits, and we also perform internal audits and monitoring.

 

In addition to national enforcement initiatives, federal and state investigations have addressed a wide variety of routine health care operations such as: cost reporting and billing practices, including for Medicare outliers; financial arrangements with referral sources; physician recruitment activities; physician joint ventures; and hospital charges and collection practices for self-pay patients. We engage in many of these routine health care operations and other activities that could be the subject of governmental investigations or inquiries. For example, we have significant Medicare and Medicaid billings, numerous financial arrangements with physicians who are referral sources to our hospitals, and joint venture arrangements involving physician investors. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and other facilities may receive, government inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. Any additional investigations of the Company, our executives or managers could result in significant liabilities or penalties to us, as well as adverse publicity.

 

Commencing in 1997, we became aware we were the subject of governmental investigations and litigation relating to our business practices. As part of the investigations, the United States intervened in a number of qui tam actions brought by private parties. The investigations related to, among other things, DRG coding, outpatient laboratory billing, home health issues, physician relations, cost report and wound care issues. The investigations were concluded through a series of agreements executed in 2000 and 2003 with the Criminal Division of the DOJ, the Civil Division of the DOJ, various U.S. Attorneys’ offices, CMS, a negotiating team representing states with claims against us, and others. In January 2001, we entered into an eight-year Corporate Integrity Act (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, which expired January 24, 2009. We submitted our final report pursuant to the CIA on April 30, 2009, and in April 2010, we received notice from the OIG that our final report was accepted, relieving us of future obligations under the CIA. If the government were to

determine that we violated or breached the CIA or other federal or state laws relating to Medicare, Medicaid or similar programs, we could be subject to substantial monetary fines, civil and criminal penalties and/or exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and other federal and state health care programs. Alleged violations may be pursued by the government or through private qui tam actions. Sanctions imposed against us as a result of such actions could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations and financial position.

 

Health Care Reform

 

As enacted, the Health Reform Law will change how health care services are covered, delivered and reimbursed through expanded coverage of uninsured individuals, reduced growth in Medicare program spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments, and the establishment of programs where reimbursement is tied to quality and integration. In addition, the law reforms certain aspects of health insurance, expands existing efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid payments to performance and quality, and contains provisions intended to strengthen fraud and abuse enforcement. More than 20 challenges to the Health Reform Law have been filed in federal courts. Some federal district courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law or dismissed cases on procedural grounds. Others have held unconstitutional the requirement that individuals maintain health insurance or pay a penalty and have either found the Health Reform Law void in its entirety or left the remainder of the Health Reform Law intact. These lawsuits are subject to appeal, and several are currently on appeal, including those that hold the law unconstitutional. It is unclear how these lawsuits will be resolved. Further, Congress is considering bills that would repeal or revise the Health Reform Law.

 

Expanded Coverage

 

Based on CBO and CMS estimates, by 2019, the Health Reform Law will expand coverage to 32 to 34 million additional individuals (resulting in coverage of an estimated 94% of the legal U.S. population). This increased coverage will occur through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance and other reforms.

 

Medicaid Expansion

 

The primary public program coverage expansion will occur through changes in Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”). The most significant changes will expand the categories of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage and permit individuals with relatively higher incomes to qualify. The federal government reimburses the majority of a state’s Medicaid expenses, and it conditions its payment on the state meeting certain requirements. The federal government currently requires that states provide coverage for only limited categories of low-income adults under 65 years old (e.g., women who are pregnant, and the blind or disabled). In addition, the income level required for individuals and families to qualify for Medicaid varies widely from state to state.

 

The Health Reform Law materially changes the requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Commencing January 1, 2014, all state Medicaid programs are required to provide, and the federal government will subsidize, Medicaid coverage to virtually all adults under 65 years old with incomes at or under 133% of the federal poverty level (“FPL”). This expansion will create a minimum Medicaid eligibility threshold that is uniform across states. Further, the Health Reform Law also requires states to apply a “5% income disregard” to the Medicaid eligibility standard, so that Medicaid eligibility will effectively be extended to those with incomes up to 138% of the FPL. These new eligibility requirements will expand Medicaid and CHIP coverage by an estimated 16 to 18 million persons nationwide. A disproportionately large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage is likely to be in states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements.

 

As Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, the federal government provides states with “matching funds” in a defined percentage, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (“FMAP”). Beginning in 2014, states will receive an enhanced FMAP for the individuals enrolled in Medicaid pursuant to the Health Reform Law. The FMAP percentage is as follows: 100% for calendar years 2014 through 2016; 95% for 2017; 94% in 2018; 93% in 2019; and 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

 

The Health Reform Law also provides that the federal government will subsidize states that create non- Medicaid plans for residents whose incomes are greater than 133% of the FPL but do not exceed 200% of the FPL.

Approved state plans will be eligible to receive federal funding. The amount of that funding per individual will be equal to 95% of subsidies that would have been provided for that individual had he or she enrolled in a health plan offered through one of the Exchanges, as discussed below.

 

Historically, states often have attempted to reduce Medicaid spending by limiting benefits and tightening Medicaid eligibility requirements. Effective March 23, 2010, the Health Reform Law requires states to at least maintain Medicaid eligibility standards established prior to the enactment of the law for adults until January 1, 2014 and for children until October 1, 2019. States with budget deficits may, however, seek a waiver from this requirement, but only to address eligibility standards that apply to adults making more than 133% of the FPL.

 

Private Sector Expansion

 

The expansion of health coverage through the private sector as a result of the Health Reform Law will occur through new requirements on health insurers, employers and individuals. Commencing January 1, 2014, health insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing annual coverage limits, dropping coverage, excluding persons based upon pre-existing conditions or denying coverage for any individual who is willing to pay the premiums for such coverage. Effective January 1, 2011, each health plan must keep its annual nonmedical costs lower than 15% of premium revenue for the group market and lower than 20% in the small group and individual markets or rebate its enrollees the amount spent in excess of the percentage. In addition, effective September 23, 2010, health insurers will not be permitted to deny coverage to children based upon a pre-existing condition and must allow dependent care coverage for children up to 26 years old.

 

Larger employers will be subject to new requirements and incentives to provide health insurance benefits to their full time employees. Effective January 1, 2014, employers with 50 or more employees that do not offer health insurance will be held subject to a penalty if an employee obtains coverage through an Exchange if the coverage is subsidized by the government. The employer penalties will range from $2,000 to $3,000 per employee, subject to certain thresholds and conditions.

 

As enacted, the Health Reform Law uses various means to induce individuals who do not have health insurance to obtain coverage. By January 1, 2014, individuals will be required to maintain health insurance for a minimum defined set of benefits or pay a tax penalty. The penalty in most cases is $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to a cost of living adjustment in subsequent years. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), in consultation with HHS, is responsible for enforcing the tax penalty, although the Health Reform Law limits the availability of certain IRS enforcement mechanisms. In addition, for individuals and families below 400% of the FPL, the cost of obtaining health insurance through the Exchanges will be subsidized by the federal government. Those with lower incomes will be eligible to receive greater subsidies. It is anticipated that those at the lowest income levels will have the majority of their premiums subsidized by the federal government, in some cases in excess of 95% of the premium amount.

 

To facilitate the purchase of health insurance by individuals and small employers, each state must establish an Exchange by January 1, 2014. Based on CBO and CMS estimates, between 29 and 31 million individuals will obtain their health insurance coverage through an Exchange by 2019. Of that amount, an estimated 16 million will be individuals who were previously uninsured, and 13 to 15 million will be individuals who switched from their prior insurance coverage to a plan obtained through the Exchange. The Health Reform Law requires that the Exchanges be designed to make the process of evaluating, comparing and acquiring coverage simple for consumers. For example, each state’s Exchange must maintain an internet website through which consumers may access health plan ratings that are assigned by the state based on quality and price, view governmental health program eligibility requirements and calculate the actual cost of health coverage. Health insurers participating in an Exchange must offer a set of minimum benefits to be defined by HHS and may offer more benefits. Health insurers must offer at least two, and up to five, levels of plans that vary by the percentage of medical expenses that must be paid by the enrollee. These levels are referred to as platinum, gold, silver, bronze and catastrophic plans, with gold and silver being the two mandatory levels of plans. Each level of plan must require the enrollee to share the following percentages of medical expenses up to the deductible/co-payment limit: platinum, 10%; gold, 20%; silver, 30%; bronze, 40%; and catastrophic, 100%. Health insurers may establish varying deductible/co-payment levels, up to the statutory maximum (estimated to be between $6,000 and $7,000 for an individual). The health insurers must

cover 100% of the amount of medical expenses in excess of the deductible/co-payment limit. For example, an individual making 100% to 200% of the FPL will have co-payments and deductibles reduced to about one-third of the amount payable by those with the same plan with incomes at or above 400% of the FPL.

 

Public Program Spending

 

The Health Reform Law provides for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care program spending reductions between 2010 and 2019. The CBO estimates that these will include $156 billion in Medicare fee-for-service market basket and productivity reimbursement reductions for all providers, the majority of which will come from hospitals; CMS sets this estimate at $233 billion. The CBO estimates also include an additional $36 billion in reductions of Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share funding ($22 billion for Medicare and $14 billion for Medicaid). CMS estimates include an additional $64 billion in reductions of Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share funding, with $50 billion of the reductions coming from Medicare.

 

Payments for Hospitals and Ambulatory Surgery Centers

 

Inpatient Market Basket and Productivity Adjustment.  Under the Medicare program, hospitals receive reimbursement under a PPS for general, acute care hospital inpatient services. CMS establishes fixed PPS payment amounts per inpatient discharge based on the patient’s assigned MS-DRG. These MS-DRG rates are updated each federal fiscal year, which begins October 1, using a market basket index that takes into account inflation experienced by hospitals and other entities outside the health care industry in purchasing goods and services.

 

The Health Reform Law provides for three types of annual reductions in the market basket. The first is a general reduction of a specified percentage each federal fiscal year starting in 2010 and extending through 2019. These reductions are as follows: federal fiscal year 2010, 0.25% for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2010; 2011 (0.25%); 2012 (0.1%); 2013 (0.1%); 2014 (0.3%); 2015 (0.2%); 2016 (0.2%); 2017 (0.75%); 2018 (0.75%); and 2019 (0.75%).

 

The second type of reduction to the market basket is a “productivity adjustment” that will be implemented by HHS beginning in federal fiscal year 2012. The amount of that reduction will be the projected nationwide productivity gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will use the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for HHS to use in projecting the productivity figure. Based upon the latest available data, federal fiscal year 2012 market basket reductions resulting from this productivity adjustment are likely to range from 1% to 1.4%.

 

The third type of reduction is in connection with the value-based purchasing program discussed in more detail below. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2013, CMS will reduce the inpatient PPS payment amount for all discharges by the following: 1% for 2013; 1.25% for 2014; 1.5% for 2015; 1.75% for 2016; and 2% for 2017 and subsequent years. For each federal fiscal year, the total amount collected from these reductions will be pooled and used to fund payments to hospitals that satisfy certain quality metrics. While some or all of these reductions may be recovered if a hospital satisfies these quality metrics, the recovery amounts may be delayed.

 

If the aggregate of the three market basket reductions described above is more than the annual market basket adjustments made to account for inflation, there will be a reduction in the MS-DRG rates paid to hospitals. For example, for the federal fiscal year 2011 hospital inpatient PPS, the market basket increase to account for inflation is 2.6% and the aggregate reduction due to the Health Reform Law and the documentation and coding adjustment is 3.15%. Thus, the rates paid to a hospital for inpatient services in federal fiscal year 2011 will be 0.55% less than rates paid for the same services in the prior year.

 

Quality-Based Payment Adjustments and Reductions for Inpatient Services.  The Health Reform Law establishes or expands three provisions to promote value-based purchasing and to link payments to quality and efficiency. First, in federal fiscal year 2013, HHS is directed to implement a value-based purchasing program for inpatient hospital services. This program will reward hospitals that meet certain quality performance standards established by HHS. The Health Reform Law provides HHS considerable discretion over the value-based purchasing program. For example, HHS will determine the quality performance measures, the standards hospitals

must achieve in order to meet the quality performance measures, and the methodology for calculating payments to hospitals that meet the required quality threshold. HHS will also determine how much money each hospital will receive from the pool of dollars created by the reductions related to the value-based purchasing program as described above. Because the Health Reform Law provides that the pool will be fully distributed, hospitals that meet or exceed the quality performance standards set by HHS will receive greater reimbursement under the value-based purchasing program than they would have otherwise. On the other hand, hospitals that do not achieve the necessary quality performance will receive reduced Medicare inpatient hospital payments. On January 7, 2011, CMS issued a proposed rule for the value-based purchasing program that would use 17 clinical process of care measures and eight dimensions of a patient’s experience of care using the HCAHPS survey to determine incentive payments for federal fiscal year 2013. As proposed, the incentive payments would be calculated based on a combination of measures of hospitals’ achievement of the performance standards and their improvement in meeting the performance standards compared to prior periods. To determine payments in federal fiscal year 2013, the baseline performance period (measurement standard) as proposed would be July 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. To determine whether hospitals meet performance standards, CMS would compare each hospital’s performance in the period July 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 to its performance in the baseline performance period. CMS has not yet proposed specific threshold values for the performance standards. CMS also proposes to add three outcome measures for federal fiscal year 2014, for which the performance period would be July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012 and the baseline performance period would be July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.

 

Second, beginning in federal fiscal year 2013, inpatient payments will be reduced if a hospital experiences “excessive readmissions” within a time period specified by HHS from the date of discharge for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia or other conditions designated by HHS. Hospitals with what HHS defines as “excessive readmissions” for these conditions will receive reduced payments for all inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excessive readmission standard. Each hospital’s performance will be publicly reported by HHS. HHS has the discretion to determine what “excessive readmissions” means and other terms and conditions of this program.

 

Third, reimbursement will be reduced based on a facility’s HAC rates. An HAC is a condition that is acquired by a patient while admitted as an inpatient in a hospital, such as a surgical site infection. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, the 25% of hospitals with the worst national risk-adjusted HAC rates in the previous year will receive a 1% reduction in their total inpatient operating Medicare payments. In addition, effective July 1, 2011, the Health Reform Law prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical services provided to treat HACs.

 

Outpatient Market Basket and Productivity Adjustment.  Hospital outpatient services paid under PPS are classified into APCs. The APC payment rates are updated each calendar year based on the market basket. The first two market basket changes outlined above — the general reduction and the productivity adjustment — apply to outpatient services as well as inpatient services, although these are applied on a calendar year basis. The percentage changes specified in the Health Reform Law summarized above as the general reduction for inpatients — e.g., 0.2% in 2015 — are the same for outpatients.

 

Medicare and Medicaid DSH Payments.  The Medicare DSH program provides for additional payments to hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of low-income patients. Under the Health Reform Law, beginning in federal fiscal year 2014, Medicare DSH payments will be reduced to 25% of the amount they otherwise would have been absent the law. The remaining 75% of the amount that would otherwise be paid under Medicare DSH will be effectively pooled, and this pool will be reduced further each year by a formula that reflects reductions in the national level of uninsured who are under 65 years of age. In other words, the greater the level of coverage for the uninsured nationally, the more the Medicare DSH payment pool will be reduced. Each hospital will then be paid, out of the reduced DSH payment pool, an amount allocated based upon its level of uncompensated care.

 

It is difficult to predict the full impact of the Medicare DSH reductions, and CBO and CMS estimates differ by $38 billion. The Health Reform Law does not mandate what data source HHS must use to determine the reduction, if any, in the uninsured population nationally. In addition, the Health Reform Law does not contain a definition of “uncompensated care.” As a result, it is unclear how a hospital’s share of the Medicare DSH payment pool will be calculated. CMS could use the definition of “uncompensated care” used in connection with hospital cost reports.

However, in July 2009, CMS proposed material revisions to the definition of “uncompensated care” used for cost report purposes. Those revisions would exclude certain significant costs that had historically been covered, such as unreimbursed costs of Medicaid services. CMS has not issued a final rule, and the Health Reform Law does not require HHS to use this definition, even if finalized, for DSH purposes. How CMS ultimately defines “uncompensated care” for purposes of these DSH funding provisions could have a material effect on a hospital’s Medicare DSH reimbursements.

 

In addition to Medicare DSH funding, hospitals that provide care to a disproportionately high number of low-income patients may receive Medicaid DSH payments. The federal government distributes federal Medicaid DSH funds to each state based on a statutory formula. The states then distribute the DSH funding among qualifying hospitals. Although federal Medicaid law defines some level of hospitals that must receive Medicaid DSH funding, states have broad discretion to define additional hospitals that also may qualify for Medicaid DSH payments and the amount of such payments. The Health Reform Law will reduce funding for the Medicaid DSH hospital program in federal fiscal years 2014 through 2020 by the following amounts: 2014 ($500 million); 2015 ($600 million); 2016 ($600 million); 2017 ($1.8 billion); 2018 ($5 billion); 2019 ($5.6 billion); and 2020 ($4 billion). How such cuts are allocated among the states, and how the states allocate these cuts among providers, have yet to be determined.

 

ACOs.  The Health Reform Law requires HHS to establish a Medicare Shared Savings Program that promotes accountability and coordination of care through the creation of ACOs. Beginning no later than January 1, 2012, the program will allow providers (including hospitals), physicians and other designated professionals and suppliers to form ACOs and voluntarily work together to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to achieve high quality and efficient delivery of services. The program is intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. ACOs that achieve quality performance standards established by HHS will be eligible to share in a portion of the amounts saved by the Medicare program. HHS has significant discretion to determine key elements of the program, including what steps providers must take to be considered an ACO, how to decide if Medicare program savings have occurred, and what portion of such savings will be paid to ACOs. In addition, HHS will determine to what degree hospitals, physicians and other eligible participants will be able to form and operate an ACO without violating certain existing laws, including the Civil Monetary Penalty Law, the Anti-kickback Statute and the Stark Law. However, the Health Reform Law does not authorize HHS to waive other laws that may impact the ability of hospitals and other eligible participants to participate in ACOs, such as antitrust laws.

 

Bundled Payment Pilot Programs.  The Health Reform Law requires HHS to establish a five-year, voluntary national bundled payment pilot program for Medicare services beginning no later than January 1, 2013. Under the program, providers would agree to receive one payment for services provided to Medicare patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care. HHS will have the discretion to determine how the program will function. For example, HHS will determine what medical conditions will be included in the program and the amount of the payment for each condition. In addition, the Health Reform Law provides for a five-year bundled payment pilot program for Medicaid services to begin January 1, 2012. HHS will select up to eight states to participate based on the potential to lower costs under the Medicaid program while improving care. State programs may target particular categories of beneficiaries, selected diagnoses or geographic regions of the state. The selected state programs will provide one payment for both hospital and physician services provided to Medicaid patients for certain episodes of inpatient care. For both pilot programs, HHS will determine the relationship between the programs and restrictions in certain existing laws, including the Civil Monetary Penalty Law, the Anti-kickback Statute, the Stark Law and the HIPAA privacy, security and transaction standard requirements. However, the Health Reform Law does not authorize HHS to waive other laws that may impact the ability of hospitals and other eligible participants to participate in the pilot programs, such as antitrust laws.

 

Ambulatory Surgery Centers.  The Health Reform Law reduces reimbursement for ASCs through a productivity adjustment to the market basket similar to the productivity adjustment for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, beginning in federal fiscal year 2011.

 

Medicare Managed Care (Medicare Advantage or “MA”).  Under the MA program, the federal government contracts with private health plans to provide inpatient and outpatient benefits to beneficiaries who enroll in such plans. Nationally, approximately 22% of Medicare beneficiaries have elected to enroll in MA plans. Effective in 2014, the Health Reform Law requires MA plans to keep annual administrative costs lower than 15% of annual

premium revenue. The Health Reform Law reduces, over a three year period, premium payments to the MA plans such that CMS’ managed care per capita premium payments are, on average, equal to traditional Medicare. In addition, the Health Reform Law implements fee payment adjustments based on service benchmarks and quality ratings. As a result of these changes, payments to MA plans are estimated to be reduced by $138 to $145 billion between 2010 and 2019. These reductions to MA plan premium payments may cause some plans to raise premiums or limit benefits, which in turn might cause some Medicare beneficiaries to terminate their MA coverage and enroll in traditional Medicare.

 

Specialty Hospital Limitations

 

Over the last decade, we have faced significant competition from hospitals that have physician ownership. The Health Reform Law prohibits newly created physician-owned hospitals from billing for Medicare patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals after December 31, 2010. While the law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

 

Program Integrity and Fraud and Abuse

 

The Health Reform Law makes several significant changes to health care fraud and abuse laws, provides additional enforcement tools to the government, increases cooperation between agencies by establishing mechanisms for the sharing of information and enhances criminal and administrative penalties for non-compliance. For example, the Health Reform Law: (1) provides $350 million in increased federal funding over the next 10 years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse; (2) expands the scope of the RAC program to include MA plans and Medicaid; (3) authorizes HHS, in consultation with the OIG, to suspend Medicare and Medicaid payments to a provider of services or a supplier “pending an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud;” (4) provides Medicare contractors with additional flexibility to conduct random prepayment reviews; and (5) tightens up the rules for returning overpayments made by governmental health programs and expands FCA liability to include failure to timely repay identified overpayments.

 

Impact of Health Reform Law on the Company

 

The expansion of health insurance coverage under the Health Reform Law may result in a material increase in the number of patients using our facilities who have either private or public program coverage. In addition, a disproportionately large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage is likely to be in states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements. Two such states are Texas and Florida, where about one-half of the Company’s licensed beds are located. We also have a significant presence in other relatively low income eligibility states, including Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Virginia. Further, the Health Reform Law provides for a value-based purchasing program, the establishment of ACOs and bundled payment pilot programs, which will create possible sources of additional revenue.

 

However, it is difficult to predict the size of the potential revenue gains to the Company as a result of these elements of the Health Reform Law, because of uncertainty surrounding a number of material factors, including the following:

 

 

 

On the other hand, the Health Reform Law provides for significant reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments and the establishment of programs where reimbursement is tied to quality and integration. Since 40.7% of our revenues in 2010 were from Medicare and Medicaid, reductions to these programs may significantly impact the Company and could offset any positive effects of the Health Reform Law. It is difficult to predict the size of the revenue reductions to Medicare and Medicaid spending, because of uncertainty regarding a number of material factors, including the following:

 

 

 

Because of the many variables involved, we are unable to predict the net effect on the Company of the expected increases in insured individuals using our facilities, the reductions in Medicare spending and reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH Funding, and numerous other provisions in the Health Reform Law that may affect the Company. Further, it is unclear how efforts to repeal or revise the Health Reform Law and federal lawsuits challenging its constitutionality will be resolved or what the impact would be of any resulting changes to the law.

 

General Economic and Demographic Factors

 

The United States economy has weakened significantly in recent years. Depressed consumer spending and higher unemployment rates continue to pressure many industries. During economic downturns, governmental entities often experience budget deficits as a result of increased costs and lower than expected tax collections. These budget deficits have forced federal, state and local government entities to decrease spending for health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant payer sources for our hospitals. Other risks we face from general economic weakness include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective and nonemergency health care procedures, potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations and further difficulties in our collecting patient co-payment and deductible receivables. The Health Reform Law seeks to decrease over time the number of uninsured individuals, by among other things requiring employers to offer, and individuals to carry, health insurance or be subject to penalties. However, it is difficult to predict the full impact of the Health Reform Law due to the law’s complexity, lack of implementing regulations or interpretive guidance, gradual and potentially delayed implementation, pending court challenges, and possible amendment or repeal.

 

The health care industry is impacted by the overall United States economy. The federal deficit, the growing magnitude of Medicare expenditures and the aging of the United States population will continue to place pressure on federal health care programs.

 

Compliance Program

 

We maintain a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. The program is intended to monitor and raise awareness of various regulatory issues among employees and to emphasize the importance of complying with governmental laws and regulations. As part of the ethics and compliance program, we provide annual ethics and compliance training to our employees and encourage all employees to report any violations to their supervisor, an ethics and compliance officer or a toll-free telephone ethics line. The Health Reform Law requires providers to implement core elements of compliance program criteria to be established by HHS, on a timeline to be established by HHS, as a condition of enrollment in the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and we may have to modify our compliance programs to comply with these new criteria.

 

Antitrust Laws

 

The federal government and most states have enacted antitrust laws that prohibit certain types of conduct deemed to be anti-competitive. These laws prohibit price fixing, concerted refusal to deal, market monopolization, price discrimination, tying arrangements, acquisitions of competitors and other practices that have, or may have, an adverse effect on competition. Violations of federal or state antitrust laws can result in various sanctions, including criminal and civil penalties. Antitrust enforcement in the health care industry is currently a priority of the Federal Trade Commission. We believe we are in compliance with such federal and state laws, but courts or regulatory authorities may reach a determination in the future that could adversely affect our operations.

Environmental Matters

 

We are subject to various federal, state and local statutes and ordinances regulating the discharge of materials into the environment. We do not believe that we will be required to expend any material amounts in order to comply with these laws and regulations.

 

Insurance

 

As is typical in the health care industry, we are subject to claims and legal actions by patients in the ordinary course of business. Subject to a $5 million per occurrence self-insured retention, our facilities are insured by our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary for losses up to $50 million per occurrence. The insurance subsidiary has obtained reinsurance for professional liability risks generally above a retention level of $15 million per occurrence. We also maintain professional liability insurance with unrelated commercial carriers for losses in excess of amounts insured by our insurance subsidiary.

 

We purchase, from unrelated insurance companies, coverage for directors and officers liability and property loss in amounts we believe are adequate. The directors and officers liability coverage includes a $25 million corporate deductible for the period prior to the Recapitalization and a $1 million corporate deductible subsequent to the Recapitalization. In addition, we will continue to purchase coverage for our directors and officers on an ongoing basis. The property coverage includes varying deductibles depending on the cause of the property damage. These deductibles range from $500,000 per claim up to 5% of the affected property values for certain flood and wind and earthquake related incidents.

 

Employees and Medical Staffs

 

At December 31, 2010, we had approximately 194,000 employees, including approximately 48,000 part-time employees. References herein to “employees” refer to employees of our affiliates. We are subject to various state and federal laws that regulate wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions relating to employment. At December 31, 2010, employees at 32 of our hospitals are represented by various labor unions. It is possible additional hospitals may unionize in the future. We consider our employee relations to be good and have not experienced work stoppages that have materially, adversely affected our business or results of operations. Our hospitals, like most hospitals, have experienced labor costs rising faster than the general inflation rate. In some markets, nurse and medical support personnel availability has become a significant operating issue to health care providers. To address this challenge, we have implemented several initiatives to improve retention, recruiting, compensation programs and productivity.

 

Our hospitals are staffed by licensed physicians, who generally are not employees of our hospitals. However, some physicians provide services in our hospitals under contracts, which generally describe a term of service, provide and establish the duties and obligations of such physicians, require the maintenance of certain performance criteria and fix compensation for such services. Any licensed physician may apply to be accepted to the medical staff of any of our hospitals, but the hospital’s medical staff and the appropriate governing board of the hospital, in accordance with established credentialing criteria, must approve acceptance to the staff. Members of the medical staffs of our hospitals often also serve on the medical staffs of other hospitals and may terminate their affiliation with one of our hospitals at any time.

 

We may be required to continue to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other medical support personnel or to hire more expensive temporary or contract personnel. As a result, our labor costs could increase. We also depend on the available labor pool of semi-skilled and unskilled employees in each of the markets in which we operate. Certain proposed changes in federal labor laws, including the Employee Free Choice Act, could increase the likelihood of employee unionization attempts. To the extent a significant portion of our employee base unionizes, our costs could increase materially. In addition, the states in which we operate could adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or could reduce mandatory nurse-staffing ratios already in place. State-mandated nurse-staffing ratios could significantly affect labor costs, and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit patient admissions in order to meet the required ratios.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

 

As of February 11, 2011, our executive officers were as follows:

 

 

Richard M. Bracken has served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company since January 2009 and was appointed as Chairman of the Board in December 2009. Mr. Bracken served as President and Chief Executive Officer from January 2009 to December 2009. Mr. Bracken was appointed Chief Operating Officer in July 2001 and served as President and Chief Operating Officer from January 2002 to January 2009. Mr. Bracken served as President — Western Group of the Company from August 1997 until July 2001. From January 1995 to August 1997, Mr. Bracken served as President of the Pacific Division of the Company. Prior to 1995, Mr. Bracken served in various hospital Chief Executive Officer and Administrator positions with HCA-Hospital Corporation of America.

 

R. Milton Johnson has served as President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since February 2011 and was appointed as a director in December 2009. Mr. Johnson served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from July 2004 to February 2011 and as Senior Vice President and Controller of the Company from July 1999 until July 2004. Mr. Johnson served as Vice President and Controller of the Company from November 1998 to July 1999. Prior to that time, Mr. Johnson served as Vice President — Tax of the Company from April 1995 to October 1998. Prior to that time, Mr. Johnson served as Director of Tax for Healthtrust, Inc. — The Hospital Company from September 1987 to April 1995.

 

David G. Anderson has served as Senior Vice President — Finance and Treasurer of the Company since July 1999. Mr. Anderson served as Vice President — Finance of the Company from September 1993 to July 1999 and was appointed to the additional position of Treasurer in November 1996. From March 1993 until September 1993, Mr. Anderson served as Vice President — Finance and Treasurer of Galen Health Care, Inc. From July 1988 to March 1993, Mr. Anderson served as Vice President — Finance and Treasurer of Humana Inc.

Victor L. Campbell has served as Senior Vice President of the Company since February 1994. Prior to that time, Mr. Campbell served as HCA-Hospital Corporation of America’s Vice President for Investor, Corporate and Government Relations. Mr. Campbell joined HCA-Hospital Corporation of America in 1972. Mr. Campbell serves on the board of the Nashville Health Care Council, as a member of the American Hospital Association’s President’s Forum, and on the board and Executive Committee of the Federation of American Hospitals.

 

Jana J. Davis was appointed Senior Vice President — Communications in February 2011. Prior to that time, she served as Vice President of Communications for the Company from November 1997 to February 2011. Ms. Davis joined HCA in 1997 from Burson-Marsteller, where she was a Managing Director and served as Corporate Practice Chair for Latin American operations. Ms. Davis also held a number of Public Affairs positions in the George H.W. Bush and Reagan Administrations. Ms. Davis is an attorney and serves as chair of the Public Relations Committee for the Federation of American Hospitals.

 

Jon M. Foster was appointed Group President in February 2011. Prior to that, Mr. Foster served as Division President for the Central and West Texas Division from January 2006 to February 2011. Mr. Foster joined HCA in March 2001 as President and CEO of St. David’s HealthCare in Austin, Texas and served in that position until February 2011. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Foster served in various executive capacities within the Baptist Health System, Knoxville, Tennessee and The Methodist Hospital System in Houston, Texas.

 

Charles J. Hall was appointed Group President in October 2006; his formal title prior to February 2011 was President — Eastern Group. Prior to that time, Mr. Hall had served as President — North Florida Division since April 2003. Mr. Hall had previously served the Company as President of the East Florida Division from January 1999 until April 2003, as a Market President in the East Florida Division from January 1998 until December 1998, as President of the South Florida Division from February 1996 until December 1997, and as President of the Southwest Florida Division from October 1994 until February 1996, and in various other capacities since 1987.

 

Samuel N. Hazen was appointed President — Operations of the Company in February 2011. Mr. Hazen served as President — Western Group from July 2001 to February 2011 and as Chief Financial Officer — Western Group of the Company from August 1995 to July 2001. Mr. Hazen served as Chief Financial Officer — North Texas Division of the Company from February 1994 to July 1995. Prior to that time, Mr. Hazen served in various hospital and regional Chief Financial Officer positions with Humana Inc. and Galen Health Care, Inc.

 

A. Bruce Moore, Jr. was appointed Group President — Service Line and Operations Integration in February 2011. Mr. Moore had served as President — Outpatient Services Group since January 2006. Mr. Moore served as Senior Vice President and as Chief Operating Officer — Outpatient Services Group from July 2004 to January 2006 and as Senior Vice President — Operations Administration from July 1999 until July 2004. Mr. Moore served as Vice President — Operations Administration of the Company from September 1997 to July 1999, as Vice President — Benefits from October 1996 to September 1997, and as Vice President — Compensation from March 1995 until October 1996.

 

Dr. Jonathan B. Perlin was appointed President — Clinical and Physician Services Group and Chief Medical Officer in February 2011. Dr. Perlin had served as President — Clinical Services Group and Chief Medical Officer from November 2007 to February 2011 and as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President — Quality of the Company from August 2006 to November 2007. Prior to joining the Company, Dr. Perlin served as Under Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs since April 2004. Dr. Perlin joined the Veterans Health Administration in November 1999 where he served in various capacities, including as Deputy Under Secretary for Health from July 2002 to April 2004, and as Chief Quality and Performance Officer from November 1999 to September 2002.

 

W. Paul Rutledge was appointed as Group President in October 2005; his formal title prior to February 2011 was President — Central Group. Mr. Rutledge had served as President of the MidAmerica Division since January 2001. He served as President of TriStar Health System from June 1996 to January 2001 and served as President of Centennial Medical Center from May 1993 to June 1996. He has served in leadership capacities with HCA for more than 28 years, working with hospitals in the United States and London, England.

 

Joseph A. Sowell, III was appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer of the Company in December 2009. From 1987 to 1996 and again from 1999 to 2009, Mr. Sowell was a partner at the law firm of

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis where he specialized in the areas of health care law, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity financing, tax law and general corporate law. He also co-managed the firm’s corporate and commercial transactions practice. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Sowell served as the head of development, and later as the Chief Operating Officer of Arcon Healthcare.

 

Joseph N. Steakley has served as Senior Vice President — Internal Audit Services of the Company since July 1999. Mr. Steakley served as Vice President — Internal Audit Services from November 1997 to July 1999. From October 1989 until October 1997, Mr. Steakley was a partner with Ernst & Young LLP. Mr. Steakley is a member of the board of directors of J. Alexander’s Corporation, where he serves on the compensation committee and as chairman of the audit committee.

 

John M. Steele has served as Senior Vice President — Human Resources of the Company since November 2003. Mr. Steele served as Vice President — Compensation and Recruitment of the Company from November 1997 to October 2003. From March 1995 to November 1997, Mr. Steele served as Assistant Vice President — Recruitment.

 

Donald W. Stinnett has served as Senior Vice President and Controller since December 2008. Mr. Stinnett served as Chief Financial Officer — Eastern Group from October 2005 to December 2008 and Chief Financial Officer of the Far West Division from July 1999 to October 2005. Mr. Stinnett served as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance of Franciscan Health System of the Ohio Valley from 1995 until 1999, and served in various capacities with Franciscan Health System of Cincinnati and Providence Hospital in Cincinnati prior to that time.

 

Juan Vallarino was appointed Senior Vice President — Strategic Pricing and Analytics in February 2011. Prior to that time, Mr. Vallarino had served as Vice President — Strategic Pricing and Analytics since October 2006. Prior to that, Mr. Vallarino served as Vice President of Managed Care for the Western Group of the Company from January 1998 to October 2006.

 

Beverly B. Wallace was appointed President — NewCo Business Solutions in February 2011. From March 2006 until February 2011, Ms. Wallace served as President — Shared Services Group, and from January 2003 until March 2006, Ms. Wallace served as President — Financial Services Group. Ms. Wallace served as Senior Vice President — Revenue Cycle Operations Management of the Company from July 1999 to January 2003. Ms. Wallace served as Vice President — Managed Care of the Company from July 1998 to July 1999. From 1997 to 1998, Ms. Wallace served as President — Homecare Division of the Company. From 1996 to 1997, Ms. Wallace served as Chief Financial Officer — Nashville Division of the Company. From 1994 to 1996, Ms. Wallace served as Chief Financial Officer — Mid-America Division of the Company.

 

Robert A. Waterman has served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Company since November 1997 and Chief Labor Relations Officer since March 2009. Mr. Waterman served as a partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins from September 1993 to October 1997; he was Chair of the firm’s health care group during 1997.

 

Noel Brown Williams has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the Company since October 1997. From October 1996 to September 1997, Ms. Williams served as Chief Information Officer for American Service Group/Prison Health Services, Inc. From September 1995 to September 1996, Ms. Williams worked as an independent consultant. From June 1993 to June 1995, Ms. Williams served as Vice President, Information Services for HCA Information Services. From February 1979 to June 1993, she held various positions with HCA-Hospital Corporation of America Information Services.

 

Alan R. Yuspeh has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of the Company since May 2007. From October 1997 to May 2007, Mr. Yuspeh served as Senior Vice President — Ethics, Compliance and Corporate Responsibility of the Company. From September 1991 until October 1997, Mr. Yuspeh was a partner with the law firm of Howrey & Simon. As a part of his law practice, Mr. Yuspeh served from 1987 to 1997 as Coordinator of the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct.

 

If any of the events discussed in the following risk factors were to occur, our business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows or prospects could be materially, adversely affected. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known, or currently deemed immaterial, may also constrain our business and operations.

 

Our substantial leverage could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry, expose us to interest rate risk to the extent of our variable rate debt and prevent us from meeting our obligations.

 

We are highly leveraged. As of December 31, 2010, our total indebtedness was $28.225 billion. As of December 31, 2010, we had availability of $1.189 billion under our senior secured revolving credit facility and $125 million under our asset-based revolving credit facility, after giving effect to letters of credit and borrowing base limitations. Our high degree of leverage could have important consequences, including:

 

 

We and our subsidiaries have the ability to incur additional indebtedness in the future, subject to the restrictions contained in our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. If new indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face could intensify.

 

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness and may not be able to refinance our indebtedness on favorable terms. If we are unable to do so, we may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may not be successful.

 

Our ability to make scheduled payments on or to refinance our debt obligations depends on our financial condition and operating performance, which is subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to certain financial, business and other factors beyond our control. We cannot assure you we will maintain a level of cash flows from operating activities sufficient to permit us to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness.

 

In addition, we conduct our operations through our subsidiaries. Accordingly, repayment of our indebtedness is dependent on the generation of cash flow by our subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash available to us by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Our subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity, and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries.

 

We may find it necessary or prudent to refinance our outstanding indebtedness with longer-maturity debt at a higher interest rate. In February, April and August of 2009 and in March of 2010, for example, we issued $310 million in aggregate principal amount of 97/8% second lien notes due 2017, $1.500 billion in aggregate principal amount of 81/2% first lien notes due 2019, $1.250 billion in aggregate principal amount of 77/8% first lien notes due 2020 and $1.400 billion in aggregate principal amount of 71/4% first lien notes due 2020, respectively. The net proceeds of those offerings were used to prepay term loans under our cash flow credit facility, which currently bears interest at a lower floating rate. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness on favorable terms, or at all, is

directly affected by the current global economic and financial conditions. In addition, our ability to incur secured indebtedness (which would generally enable us to achieve better pricing than the incurrence of unsecured indebtedness) depends in part on the value of our assets, which depends, in turn, on the strength of our cash flows and results of operations, and on economic and market conditions and other factors.

 

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations or we are unable to refinance our indebtedness, we may be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, or to sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure our indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. If our operating results and available cash are insufficient to meet our debt service obligations, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet our debt service and other obligations. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions, or the proceeds from the dispositions may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

 

Our debt agreements contain restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business.

 

Our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our outstanding notes contain various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

 

 

Under our asset-based revolving credit facility, when (and for as long as) the combined availability under our asset-based revolving credit facility and our senior secured revolving credit facility is less than a specified amount for a certain period of time or, if a payment or bankruptcy event of default has occurred and is continuing, funds deposited into any of our depository accounts will be transferred on a daily basis into a blocked account with the administrative agent and applied to prepay loans under the asset-based revolving credit facility and to cash collateralize letters of credit issued thereunder.

 

Under our senior secured credit facilities, we are required to satisfy and maintain specified financial ratios. Our ability to meet those financial ratios can be affected by events beyond our control, and there can be no assurance we will continue to meet those ratios. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under both the cash flow credit facility and the asset-based revolving credit facility. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the senior secured credit facilities, the lenders thereunder could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the senior secured credit facilities to be immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit. If we were unable to repay those amounts, the lenders under the senior secured credit facilities could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness. We have pledged a significant portion of our assets under our senior secured credit facilities and that collateral (other than certain European collateral securing our senior secured European term loan facility) is also pledged as collateral under our first lien notes. If any of the lenders under the senior secured credit facilities accelerate the repayment of borrowings, there can be no assurance there will be sufficient assets to repay the senior secured credit facilities, the first lien notes and our other indebtedness.

 

Our hospitals face competition for patients from other hospitals and health care providers.

 

The health care business is highly competitive, and competition among hospitals and other health care providers for patients has intensified in recent years. Generally, other hospitals in the local communities we serve provide services similar to those offered by our hospitals. In addition, CMS publicizes on its Hospital Compare website performance data related to quality measures and data on patient satisfaction surveys hospitals submit in connection with their Medicare reimbursement. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of

quality measures that must be reported. Additional quality measures and future trends toward clinical transparency may have an unanticipated impact on our competitive position and patient volumes. Further, the Health Reform Law requires all hospitals to annually establish, update and make public a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results (or results that are lower than our competitors) on these quality measures or on patient satisfaction surveys or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, our patient volumes could decline.

 

In addition, the number of freestanding specialty hospitals, surgery centers and diagnostic and imaging centers in the geographic areas in which we operate has increased significantly. As a result, most of our hospitals operate in a highly competitive environment. Some of the facilities that compete with our hospitals are owned by governmental agencies or not-for-profit corporations supported by endowments, charitable contributions and/or tax revenues and can finance capital expenditures and operations on a tax-exempt basis. Our hospitals face increasing competition from specialty hospitals, some of which are physician-owned, and from both our own and unaffiliated freestanding surgery centers for market share in high margin services and for quality physicians and personnel. If ambulatory surgery centers are better able to compete in this environment than our hospitals, our hospitals may experience a decline in patient volume, and we may experience a decrease in margin, even if those patients use our ambulatory surgery centers. In states that do not require a CON for the purchase, construction or expansion of health care facilities or services, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. Further, if our competitors are better able to attract patients, recruit physicians, expand services or obtain favorable managed care contracts at their facilities than our hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, we may experience an overall decline in patient volume. See Item 1, “Business — Competition.”

 

The growth of uninsured and patient due accounts and a deterioration in the collectibility of these accounts could adversely affect our results of operations.

 

The primary collection risks of our accounts receivable relate to the uninsured patient accounts and patient accounts for which the primary insurance carrier has paid the amounts covered by the applicable agreement, but patient responsibility amounts (deductibles and copayments) remain outstanding. The provision for doubtful accounts relates primarily to amounts due directly from patients.

 

The amount of the provision for doubtful accounts is based upon management’s assessment of historical write-offs and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal and state governmental and private employer health care coverage, the rate of growth in uninsured patient admissions and other collection indicators. At December 31, 2010, our allowance for doubtful accounts represented approximately 93% of the $4.249 billion patient due accounts receivable balance. The sum of the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care increased from $7.009 billion for 2008 to $8.362 billion for 2009 and to $9.626 billion for 2010.

 

A continuation of the trends that have resulted in an increasing proportion of accounts receivable being comprised of uninsured accounts and a deterioration in the collectibility of these accounts will adversely affect our collection of accounts receivable, cash flows and results of operations. Prior to the Health Reform Law being fully implemented, our facilities may experience growth in bad debts, uninsured discounts and charity care as a result of a number of factors, including the economic downturn and increase in unemployment. The Health Reform Law seeks to decrease, over time, the number of uninsured individuals. As enacted, the Health Reform Law will, effective January 1, 2014, expand Medicaid and incentivize employers to offer, and require individuals to carry, health insurance or be subject to penalties. More than 20 challenges to the Health Reform Law have been filed in federal courts. Some federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law or dismissed cases on procedural grounds. Others have held unconstitutional the requirement that individuals maintain health insurance or pay a penalty and have either found the Health Reform Law void in its entirety or left the remainder of the law intact. These lawsuits are subject to appeal, and several are currently on appeal, including those that hold the law unconstitutional. It is difficult to predict the full impact of the Health Reform Law due to the law’s complexity, lack of implementing regulations or interpretive guidance, gradual and potentially delayed implementation, pending court challenges and possible amendment or repeal, as well as our inability to foresee how individuals and businesses will respond to the choices afforded them by the law. In addition, even after implementation of the Health Reform Law, we may continue to experience bad debts and have to provide uninsured discounts and charity care for

undocumented aliens who are not permitted to enroll in a health insurance exchange or government health care programs and certain others who may not have insurance coverage.

 

Changes in government health care programs may reduce our revenues.

 

A significant portion of our patient volume is derived from government health care programs, principally Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, we derived approximately 41% of our revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 2010. Changes in government health care programs may reduce the reimbursement we receive and could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

 

In recent years, legislative and regulatory changes have resulted in limitations on and, in some cases, reductions in levels of payments to health care providers for certain services under the Medicare program. For example, CMS completed a two-year transition to full implementation of the MS-DRG system, which represents a refinement to the existing diagnosis-related group system. Future realignments in the MS-DRG system could impact the margins we receive for certain services. Further, the Health Reform Law provides for material reductions in the growth of Medicare program spending, including reductions in Medicare market basket updates and Medicare DSH funding. Medicare payments in federal fiscal year 2011 for inpatient hospital services are expected to be slightly lower than payments for the same services in federal fiscal year 2010, because of reductions resulting from the Health Reform Law and the MS-DRG implementation.

 

Since most states must operate with balanced budgets and since the Medicaid program is often a state’s largest program, some states can be expected to enact or consider enacting legislation designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures. The current economic downturn has increased the budgetary pressures on many states, and these budgetary pressures have resulted, and likely will continue to result, in decreased spending, or decreased spending growth, for Medicaid programs and the CHIP in many states. The Health Reform Law provides for material reductions to Medicaid DSH funding. Further, many states have also adopted, or are considering, legislation designed to reduce coverage, enroll Medicaid recipients in managed care programs and/or impose additional taxes on hospitals to help finance or expand the states’ Medicaid systems. Effective March 23, 2010, the Health Reform Law requires states to at least maintain Medicaid eligibility standards established prior to the enactment of the law for adults until January 1, 2014 and for children until October 1, 2019. However, states with budget deficits may seek a waiver from this requirement to address eligibility standards that apply to adults making more than 133% of the federal poverty level. The Health Reform Law also provides for significant expansions to the Medicaid program, but these changes are not required until 2014. In addition, the Health Reform Law will result in increased state legislative and regulatory changes in order for states to comply with new federal mandates, such as the requirement to establish Exchanges, and to participate in grants and other incentive opportunities.

 

In some cases, commercial third-party payers rely on all or portions of the MS-DRG system to determine payment rates, which may result in decreased reimbursement from some commercial third-party payers. Other changes to government health care programs may negatively impact payments from commercial third-party payers.

 

Current or future health care reform efforts, changes in laws or regulations regarding government health care programs, other changes in the administration of government health care programs and changes to commercial third-party payers in response to health care reform and other changes to government health care programs could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

 

We are unable to predict the impact of the Health Reform Law, which represents a significant change to the health care industry.

 

As enacted, the Health Reform Law will change how health care services are covered, delivered, and reimbursed through expanded coverage of uninsured individuals, reduced growth in Medicare program spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments and the establishment of programs where reimbursement is tied to quality and integration. In addition, the law reforms certain aspects of health insurance, expands existing efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid payments to performance and quality, and contains provisions intended to strengthen fraud and abuse enforcement. The expansion of health insurance coverage under the Health Reform Law may result in a material increase in the number of patients using our facilities who have either private or public program coverage. In addition, a disproportionately large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage is likely to be in

states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements. Two such states are Texas and Florida, where about one-half of the Company’s licensed beds are located. The Company also has a significant presence in other relatively low income eligibility states, including Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Virginia. Further, the Health Reform Law provides for a value-based purchasing program, the establishment of ACOs and bundled payment pilot programs, which will create possible sources of additional revenue.

 

However, it is difficult to predict the size of the potential revenue gains to the Company as a result of these elements of the Health Reform Law, because of uncertainty surrounding a number of material factors, including the following:

 

 

On the other hand, the Health Reform Law provides for significant reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments and the establishment of programs where reimbursement is tied to quality and integration. Since 40.7% of our revenues in 2010 were from Medicare and Medicaid, reductions to these programs may significantly impact the Company and could offset any positive effects of the Health Reform Law. It is difficult to predict the size of the revenue reductions to Medicare and Medicaid spending, because of uncertainty regarding a number of material factors, including the following:

 

 

 

Because of the many variables involved, we are unable to predict the net effect on the Company of the expected increases in insured individuals using our facilities, the reductions in Medicare spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH funding, and numerous other provisions in the Health Reform Law that may affect the Company. Further, it is unclear how efforts to repeal or revise the Health Reform Law and federal lawsuits challenging its constitutionality will be resolved or what the impact would be of any resulting changes to the law.

 

If we are unable to retain and negotiate favorable contracts with nongovernment payers, including managed care plans, our revenues may be reduced.

 

Our ability to obtain favorable contracts with nongovernment payers, including health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations and other managed care plans significantly affects the revenues and operating results of our facilities. Revenues derived from these entities and other insurers accounted for 53.7% and 53.4% of our revenues for 2010 and 2009, respectively. Nongovernment payers, including managed care payers, continue to demand discounted fee structures, and the trend toward consolidation among nongovernment payers tends to increase their bargaining power over fee structures. As various provisions of the Health Reform Law are implemented, including the establishment of the Exchanges, nongovernment payers increasingly may demand reduced fees. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our managed care contracts and enter into new managed care contracts on terms favorable to us. Other health care providers may impact our ability to enter into managed care contracts or negotiate increases in our reimbursement and other favorable terms and conditions. For example, some of our competitors may negotiate exclusivity provisions with managed care plans or otherwise restrict the ability of managed care companies to contract with us. It is not clear what impact, if any, the increased obligations on managed care payers and other payers imposed by the Health Reform Law will have on our ability to negotiate reimbursement increases. If we are unable to retain and negotiate favorable contracts with managed care plans or experience reductions in payment increases or amounts received from nongovernment payers, our revenues may be reduced.

 

Our performance depends on our ability to recruit and retain quality physicians.

 

The success of our hospitals depends in part on the number and quality of the physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals, the admitting practices of those physicians and maintaining good relations with those physicians. Although we employ some physicians, physicians are often not employees of the hospitals at which they practice and, in many of the markets we serve, most physicians have admitting privileges at other hospitals in addition to our hospitals. Such physicians may terminate their affiliation with our hospitals at any time. If we are unable to provide adequate support personnel or technologically advanced equipment and hospital facilities that meet the needs of

those physicians and their patients, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities, admissions may decrease and our operating performance may decline.

 

Our hospitals face competition for staffing, which may increase labor costs and reduce profitability.

 

Our operations are dependent on the efforts, abilities and experience of our management and medical support personnel, such as nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians, as well as our physicians. We compete with other health care providers in recruiting and retaining qualified management and support personnel responsible for the daily operations of each of our hospitals, including nurses and other nonphysician health care professionals. In some markets, the availability of nurses and other medical support personnel has been a significant operating issue to health care providers. We may be required to continue to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other medical support personnel or to hire more expensive temporary or contract personnel. As a result, our labor costs could increase. We also depend on the available labor pool of semi-skilled and unskilled employees in each of the markets in which we operate. Certain proposed changes in federal labor laws, including the Employee Free Choice Act, could increase the likelihood of employee unionization attempts. To the extent a significant portion of our employee base unionizes, it is possible our labor costs could increase materially. When negotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions, whether such agreements are renewals or first contracts, there is the possibility that strikes could occur during the negotiation process, and our continued operation during any strikes could increase our labor costs. In addition, the states in which we operate could adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or could reduce mandatory nurse staffing ratios already in place. State-mandated nurse-staffing ratios could significantly affect labor costs and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit admissions in order to meet the required ratios. If our labor costs increase, we may not be able to raise rates to offset these increased costs. Because a significant percentage of our revenues consists of fixed, prospective payments, our ability to pass along increased labor costs is constrained. Our failure to recruit and retain qualified management, nurses and other medical support personnel, or to control labor costs, could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

If we fail to comply with extensive laws and government regulations, we could suffer penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

 

The health care industry is required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things:

 

 

Among these laws are the federal Anti-kickback Statute, the federal physician self-referral law (commonly called the Stark Law), the federal FCA and similar state laws. We have a variety of financial relationships with physicians and others who either refer or influence the referral of patients to our hospitals and other health care facilities, and these laws govern those relationships. The OIG has enacted safe harbor regulations that outline practices deemed protected from prosecution under the Anti-kickback Statute. While we endeavor to comply with the applicable safe harbors, certain of our current arrangements, including joint ventures and financial relationships with physicians and other referral sources and persons and entities to which we refer patients, do not qualify for safe harbor protection. Failure to qualify for a safe harbor does not mean the arrangement necessarily violates the Anti-kickback Statute but may subject the arrangement to greater scrutiny. However, we cannot offer assurance that practices outside of a safe harbor will not be found to violate the Anti-kickback Statute. Allegations of violations of the Anti-kickback Statute may be brought under the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law, which requires a lower burden of proof than other fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-kickback Statute.

 

Our financial relationships with referring physicians and their immediate family members must comply with the Stark Law by meeting an exception. We attempt to structure our relationships to meet an exception to the Stark Law, but the regulations implementing the exceptions are detailed and complex, and we cannot provide assurance that every relationship complies fully with the Stark Law. Unlike the Anti-kickback Statute, failure to meet an exception under the Stark Law results in a violation of the Stark Law, even if such violation is technical in nature.

 

Additionally, if we violate the Anti-kickback Statute or Stark Law, or if we improperly bill for our services, we may be found to violate the FCA, either under a suit brought by the government or by a private person under a qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suit. See Item 1, “Business — Regulation and Other Factors.”

 

If we fail to comply with the Anti-kickback Statute, the Stark Law, the FCA or other applicable laws and regulations, we could be subjected to liabilities, including civil penalties (including the loss of our licenses to operate one or more facilities), exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs and, for violations of certain laws and regulations, criminal penalties.

 

We do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of these laws and regulations. In the future, different interpretations or enforcement of, or amendment to, these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. A determination that we have violated these laws, or the public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of these laws, could have a material, adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects, and our business reputation could suffer significantly. In addition, other legislation or regulations at the federal or state level may be adopted that adversely affect our business.

 

We have been and could become the subject of governmental investigations, claims and litigation.

 

Health care companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Further, under the FCA, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and other facilities may receive, government inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

 

Governmental agencies and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, as well as the OIG, CMS and state Medicaid programs, conduct audits of our health care operations. Private payers may conduct similar post-payment audits, and we also perform internal audits and monitoring. Depending on the nature of the conduct found in such audits and whether the underlying conduct could be considered systemic, the resolution of these audits could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

As required by statute, CMS has implemented the RAC program on a nationwide basis. Under the program, CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency fee basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program. The Health Reform Law expands the RAC program’s scope to include managed Medicare plans and to include Medicaid claims. In addition, CMS employs MICs to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. The Health Reform Law increases federal funding for the MIC program for federal fiscal year 2011 and later years. In addition to RACs and MICs, the state Medicaid agencies and other contractors have increased their review activities.

 

Should we be found out of compliance with any of these laws, regulations or programs, depending on the nature of the findings, our business, our financial position and our results of operations could be negatively impacted.

 

Controls designed to reduce inpatient services may reduce our revenues.

 

Controls imposed by Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid and commercial third-party payers designed to reduce admissions and lengths of stay, commonly referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Utilization review entails the review of the admission and course of treatment of a patient by health plans. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by payer-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. For example, the Health Reform Law potentially expands the use of prepayment review by Medicare contractors by eliminating statutory restrictions on their use. Although we are unable to predict the effect these changes will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates and fees could have a material, adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

 

Our overall business results may suffer from the economic downturn.

 

During periods of high unemployment, governmental entities often experience budget deficits as a result of increased costs and lower than expected tax collections. These budget deficits at federal, state and local government entities have decreased, and may continue to decrease, spending for health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant payer sources for our hospitals. Other risks we face during periods of high unemployment include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective and non-emergency health care procedures, potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations and further difficulties in our collecting patient co-payment and deductible receivables.

 

The industry trend towards value-based purchasing may negatively impact our revenues.

 

There is a trend in the health care industry towards value-based purchasing of health care services. These value-based purchasing programs include both public reporting of quality data and preventable adverse events tied to the quality and efficiency of care provided by facilities. Governmental programs including Medicare and Medicaid currently require hospitals to report certain quality data to receive full reimbursement updates. In addition, Medicare does not reimburse for care related to certain preventable adverse events (also called “never events”). Many large commercial payers currently require hospitals to report quality data, and several commercial payers do not reimburse hospitals for certain preventable adverse events. Further, we have implemented a policy pursuant to which we do not bill patients or third-party payers for fees or expenses incurred due to certain preventable adverse events.

 

Effective July 1, 2011, the Health Reform Law will prohibit the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical assistance provided to treat HACs. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, the 25% of hospitals with the worst national risk-adjusted HAC rates in the previous year will receive a 1% reduction in their total inpatient operating Medicare payments. Hospitals with excessive readmissions for

conditions designated by HHS will receive reduced payments for all inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excessive readmission standard.

 

The Health Reform Law also requires HHS to implement a value-based purchasing program for inpatient hospital services. The Health Reform Law requires HHS to reduce inpatient hospital payments for all discharges by a percentage beginning at 1% in federal fiscal year 2013 and increasing by 0.25% each fiscal year up to 2% in federal fiscal year 2017 and subsequent years. HHS will pool the amount collected from these reductions to fund payments to reward hospitals that meet or exceed certain quality performance standards established by HHS. HHS will determine the amount each hospital that meets or exceeds the quality performance standards will receive from the pool of dollars created by these payment reductions. As proposed by CMS, the value-based purchasing program will initially calculate incentive payments based on hospitals’ achievement of 17 clinical process of care measures and eight dimensions of a patient’s experience of care using the HCAHPS survey and their improvement in meeting these standards compared to prior periods. For federal fiscal year 2013, CMS estimates the value-based purchasing program will redistribute $850 million among the nation’s hospitals.

 

We expect value-based purchasing programs, including programs that condition reimbursement on patient outcome measures, to become more common and to involve a higher percentage of reimbursement amounts. We are unable at this time to predict how this trend will affect our results of operations, but it could negatively impact our revenues.

 

Our operations could be impaired by a failure of our information systems.

 

Any system failure that causes an interruption in service or availability of our systems could adversely affect operations or delay the collection of revenues. Even though we have implemented network security measures, our servers are vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering. The occurrence of any of these events could result in interruptions, delays, the loss or corruption of data, cessations in the availability of systems or liability under privacy and security laws, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations and harm our business reputation.

 

The performance of our information technology and systems is critical to our business operations. In addition to our shared services initiatives, our information systems are essential to a number of critical areas of our operations, including:

 

 

If we fail to effectively and timely implement electronic health record systems, our operations could be adversely affected.

 

As required by the ARRA, the Secretary of HHS is in the process of developing and implementing an incentive payment program for eligible hospitals and health care professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified EHR technology. HHS intends to use the Provider Enrollment, Chain and Ownership System (“PECOS”) to verify Medicare enrollment prior to making EHR incentive program payments. During 2011, we anticipate receiving Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments for being a meaningful user of certified EHR technology. We anticipate a majority of 2011 incentive payments will be received and recognized as revenues during the fourth quarter of 2011. Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments for our eligible hospitals and professionals are estimated to range from $275 million to $325 million for 2011. Actual incentive payments could vary from these estimates due to certain

factors such as availability of federal funding for both Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments, timing of the approval of state Medicaid incentive payment plans by CMS and our ability to implement and demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology.

 

We have incurred and will continue to incur both capital costs and operating expenses in order to implement our certified EHR technology and meet meaningful use requirements. These expenses are ongoing and are projected to continue over all stages of implementation of meaningful use. The timing of expenses will not correlate with the receipt of the incentive payments and the recognition of revenues. We estimate that operating expenses to implement our certified EHR technology and meet meaningful use will range from $125 million to $150 million for 2011. Actual operating expenses could vary from these estimates. If our hospitals and employed professionals are unable to meet the requirements for participation in the incentive payment program, including having an enrollment record in PECOS, we will not be eligible to receive incentive payments that could offset some of the costs of implementing EHR systems. Further, eligible providers that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology will be subject to reduced payments from Medicare, beginning in federal fiscal year 2015 for eligible hospitals and calendar year 2015 for eligible professionals. Failure to implement certified EHR systems effectively and in a timely manner could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

 

State efforts to regulate the construction or expansion of health care facilities could impair our ability to operate and expand our operations.

 

Some states, particularly in the eastern part of the country, require health care providers to obtain prior approval, known as a CON, for the purchase, construction or expansion of health care facilities, to make certain capital expenditures or to make changes in services or bed capacity. In giving approval, these states consider the need for additional or expanded health care facilities or services. We currently operate health care facilities in a number of states with CON laws. The failure to obtain any requested CON could impair our ability to operate or expand operations. Any such failure could, in turn, adversely affect our ability to attract patients to our facilities and grow our revenues, which would have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

Our facilities are heavily concentrated in Florida and Texas, which makes us sensitive to regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive conditions and changes in those states.

 

We operated 164 hospitals at December 31, 2010, and 74 of those hospitals are located in Florida and Texas. Our Florida and Texas facilities’ combined revenues represented approximately 52% of our consolidated revenues for the year ended December 31, 2010. This concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive conditions and changes in those states. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, environmental or competitive conditions in those states could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business results.

 

In addition, our hospitals in Florida, Texas and other areas across the Gulf Coast are located in hurricane-prone areas. In the recent past, hurricanes have had a disruptive effect on the operations of our hospitals in Florida, Texas and other coastal states, and the patient populations in those states. Our business activities could be harmed by a particularly active hurricane season or even a single storm, and the property insurance we obtain may not be adequate to cover losses from future hurricanes or other natural disasters.

 

We may be subject to liabilities from claims by the Internal Revenue Service.

 

We are currently contesting, before the IRS Appeals Division, certain claimed deficiencies and adjustments proposed by the IRS Examination Division in connection with its audit of HCA Inc.’s 2005 and 2006 federal income tax returns. The disputed items include the timing of recognition of certain patient service revenues, the deductibility of certain debt retirement costs and our method for calculating the tax allowance for doubtful accounts. In addition, eight taxable periods of HCA Inc. and its predecessors ended in 1997 through 2004, for which the primary remaining issue is the computation of the tax allowance for doubtful accounts, are currently pending before the IRS Examination Division. The IRS Examination Division began an audit of HCA Inc.’s 2007, 2008 and 2009 federal income tax returns in December 2010.

 

Management believes HCA Holdings, Inc., its predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates properly reported taxable income and paid taxes in accordance with applicable laws and agreements established with the IRS and final resolution of these disputes will not have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

However, if payments due upon final resolution of these issues exceed our recorded estimates, such resolutions could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

 

We may be subject to liabilities from claims brought against our facilities.

 

We are subject to litigation relating to our business practices, including claims and legal actions by patients and others in the ordinary course of business alleging malpractice, product liability or other legal theories. Many of these actions involve large claims and significant defense costs. We insure a portion of our professional liability risks through a wholly-owned subsidiary. Management believes our reserves for self-insured retentions and insurance coverage are sufficient to cover insured claims arising out of the operation of our facilities. Our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary has entered into certain reinsurance contracts, and the obligations covered by the reinsurance contracts are included in its reserves for professional liability risks, as the subsidiary remains liable to the extent that the reinsurers do not meet their obligations under the reinsurance contracts. If payments for claims exceed actuarially determined estimates, are not covered by insurance, or reinsurers, if any, fail to meet their obligations, our results of operations and financial position could be adversely affected.

 

We are exposed to market risks related to changes in the market values of securities and interest rate changes.

 

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in market values of securities. The investments in debt and equity securities of our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary were $734 million and $8 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010. These investments are carried at fair value, with changes in unrealized gains and losses being recorded as adjustments to other comprehensive income. At December 31, 2010, we had a net unrealized gain of $10 million on the insurance subsidiary’s investment securities.

 

We are exposed to market risk related to market illiquidity. Liquidity of the investments in debt and equity securities of our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary could be impaired by the inability to access the capital markets. Should the wholly-owned insurance subsidiary require significant amounts of cash in excess of normal cash requirements to pay claims and other expenses on short notice, we may have difficulty selling these investments in a timely manner or be forced to sell them at a price less than what we might otherwise have been able to in a normal market environment. At December 31, 2010, our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary had invested $250 million ($251 million par value) in tax-exempt student loan auction rate securities that continue to experience market illiquidity. It is uncertain if auction-related market liquidity will resume for these securities. We may be required to recognize other-than-temporary impairments on these long-term investments in future periods should issuers default on interest payments or should the fair market valuations of the securities deteriorate due to ratings downgrades or other issue specific factors.

 

We are also exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates, and we periodically enter into interest rate swap agreements to manage our exposure to these fluctuations. Our interest rate swap agreements involve the exchange of fixed and variable rate interest payments between two parties, based on common notional principal amounts and maturity dates. The notional amounts of the swap agreements represent balances used to calculate the exchange of cash flows and are not our assets or liabilities.

 

Since the Recapitalization, the Investors control us and may have conflicts of interest with us in the future.

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Investors indirectly owned approximately 96.8% of our capital stock due to the Recapitalization. As a result, the Investors have control over our decisions to enter into any significant corporate transaction and have the ability to prevent any transaction that requires the approval of stockholders. For example, the Investors could cause us to make acquisitions that increase the amount of our indebtedness or sell assets.

 

Additionally, the Sponsors are in the business of making investments in companies and may acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. One or more of the Sponsors may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business and, as a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. So long as investment funds associated with or designated by the Sponsors continue to indirectly own a significant amount of the outstanding shares of our common stock, even if such amount is less than 50%, the Sponsors will continue to be able to strongly influence or effectively control our decisions.

 

 

None.

 

 

The following table lists, by state, the number of hospitals (general, acute care, psychiatric and rehabilitation) directly or indirectly owned and operated by us as of December 31, 2010:

 

 

In addition to the hospitals listed in the above table, we directly or indirectly operate 106 freestanding surgery centers. We also operate medical office buildings in conjunction with some of our hospitals. These office buildings are primarily occupied by physicians who practice at our hospitals. Fourteen of our general, acute care hospitals and three of our other properties have been mortgaged to support our obligations under our senior secured cash flow credit facility and the first lien secured notes we issued in 2009 and 2010. These three other properties are also subject to second mortgages to support our obligations under the second lien secured notes we issued in 2006 and 2009.

 

We maintain our headquarters in approximately 1,200,000 square feet of space in the Nashville, Tennessee area. In addition to the headquarters in Nashville, we maintain regional service centers related to our shared services initiatives. These service centers are located in markets in which we operate hospitals.

 

We believe our headquarters, hospitals and other facilities are suitable for their respective uses and are, in general, adequate for our present needs. Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local statutes and ordinances regulating their operation. Management does not believe that compliance with such statutes and ordinances will materially affect our financial position or results of operations.

 

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims or legal and regulatory proceedings could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial position in a given period.

 

Government Investigations, Claims and Litigation

 

Health care companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Further, under the federal FCA, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, government inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

 

The Civil Division of the DOJ has contacted us in connection with its nationwide review of whether, in certain cases, hospital charges to the federal government relating to implantable cardio-defibrillators (“ICDs”) met the CMS criteria. In connection with this nationwide review, the DOJ has indicated that it will be reviewing certain ICD billing and medical records at 95 HCA hospitals; the review covers the period from October 2003 to the present. The review could potentially give rise to claims against us under the federal FCA or other statutes, regulations or laws. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, this review or any resulting claims could have on us.

 

New Hampshire Hospital Merger Litigation

 

In 2006, the Foundation for Seacoast Health (the “Foundation”) filed suit against HCA in state court in New Hampshire. The Foundation alleged that both the 2006 Recapitalization transaction and a prior 1999 intra-corporate transaction violated a 1983 agreement that placed certain restrictions on transfers of the Portsmouth Regional Hospital. In May 2007, the trial court ruled against the Foundation on all its claims. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the ruling on the Recapitalization, but remanded to the trial court the claims based on the 1999 intra-corporate transaction. The trial court ruled in December 2009 that the 1999 intra-corporate transaction breached the transfer restriction provisions of the 1983 agreement. The court will now conduct additional proceedings to determine whether any harm has flowed from the alleged breach, and if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. The court may consider whether to, among other things, award monetary damages, rescind or undo the 1999 intra-corporate transfer or give the Foundation a right to purchase hospital assets at a price to be determined (which the Foundation asserts should be below the fair market value of the hospital). The trial for the remedies phase is currently set for May 2011.

 

General Liability and Other Claims

 

We are a party to certain proceedings relating to claims for income taxes and related interest before the IRS Appeals Division. For a description of those proceedings, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — IRS Disputes” and Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements.

 

We are also subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for personal injuries or for wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges. In certain of these actions the claimants have asked for punitive damages against us, which may not be covered by insurance. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of these pending claims and legal proceedings will not have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

 

 

 

Our outstanding common stock is privately held, and there is no established public trading market for our common stock. As of February 1, 2011, there were 669 holders of our common stock. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Financing Activities” for a description of the restrictions on our ability to pay dividends. We did not pay any dividends in 2008 or 2009.

 

On January 27, 2010, our Board of Directors declared a distribution to the Company’s stockholders and holders of vested stock options. The distribution was $17.50 per share and vested stock option, or $1.751 billion in the aggregate. The distribution was paid on February 5, 2010 to holders of record on February 1, 2010. The distribution was funded using funds available under our existing senior secured credit facilities and approximately $100 million of cash on hand. Pursuant to the terms of our stock option plans, the holders of nonvested stock options received a $17.50 per share reduction to the exercise price of their share-based awards.

 

On May 5, 2010, our Board of Directors declared a distribution to the Company’s stockholders and holders of vested stock options. The distribution was $5.00 per share and vested stock option, or $500 million in the aggregate. The distribution was paid on May 14, 2010 to holders of record on May 6, 2010. The distribution was funded using funds available under our existing senior secured credit facilities. Pursuant to the terms of our stock option plans, the holders of nonvested stock options received a $5.00 per share reduction to the exercise price of their share-based awards.

 

On November 23, 2010, our Board of Directors declared a distribution to the Company’s stockholders and holders of stock options. The distribution was $20.00 per share and vested stock option, or approximately $2.1 billion in the aggregate. The distribution to stockholders and holders of vested options was paid on December 1, 2010 to holders of record on November 24, 2010. The distribution was funded using the proceeds from the November 2010 issuance of $1.525 billion aggregate principal amount of 73/4% senior notes due 2021, together with borrowings under our existing senior secured credit facilities. Pursuant to the terms of our stock option plans, the holders of nonvested options received $20.00 per share reductions (subject to certain tax imitations that resulted in deferred distributions for a portion of the declared distribution, which will be paid upon the vesting of the applicable stock options) to the exercise price of the share-based awards.

 

During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, we issued and sold 80,750 shares of common stock in connection with the cashless exercise of stock options for aggregate consideration of $1,029,563 resulting in 46,319 net settled shares. We also issued and sold 186,533 shares of common stock in connection with the cash exercise of stock options for aggregate consideration of $2,378,296. The shares were issued without registration in reliance on the exemptions afforded by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Rule 701 promulgated thereunder.

 

On April 29, 2008, we registered our common stock pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

There were no repurchases of our common stock from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

 

 

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

 

The selected financial data and the accompanying consolidated financial statements present certain information with respect to the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of HCA Holdings, Inc. which should be read in conjunction with the following discussion and analysis. The terms “HCA,” “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us,” as used herein, refer HCA Inc. and our affiliates prior to the Corporate Reorganization and to HCA Holdings, Inc. and our affiliates after the Corporate Reorganization unless otherwise stated or indicated by context. The term “affiliates” means direct and indirect subsidiaries of HCA Holdings, Inc. and partnerships and joint ventures in which such subsidiaries are partners.

 

Forward-Looking Statements

 

This annual report on Form 10-K includes certain disclosures which contain “forward-looking statements.” Forward-looking statements include all statements that do not relate solely to historical or current facts, and can be identified by the use of words like “may,” “believe,” “will,” “expect,” “project,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “initiative” or “continue.” These forward-looking statements are based on our current plans and expectations and are subject to a number of known and unknown uncertainties and risks, many of which are beyond our control, which could significantly affect current plans and expectations and our future financial position and results of operations. These factors include, but are not limited to, (1) the ability to recognize the benefits of the Recapitalization, (2) the impact of our substantial indebtedness incurred to finance the Recapitalization and distributions to stockholders and the ability to refinance such indebtedness on acceptable terms, (3) the effects related to the enactment of the Health Reform Law, the possible enactment of additional federal or state health care reforms and possible changes to the Health Reform Law and other federal, state or local laws or regulations affecting the health care industry, (4) increases in the amount and risk of collectibility of uninsured accounts and deductibles and copayment amounts for insured accounts, (5) the ability to achieve operating and financial targets, and attain expected levels of patient volumes and control the costs of providing services, (6) possible changes in the Medicare, Medicaid and other state programs, including Medicaid supplemental payments pursuant to upper payment limit (“UPL”) programs, that may impact reimbursements to health care providers and insurers, (7) the highly competitive nature of the health care business, (8) changes in revenue mix, including potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements and the ability to enter into and renew managed care provider agreements on acceptable terms, (9) the efforts of insurers, health care providers and others to contain health care costs, (10) the outcome of our continuing efforts to monitor, maintain and comply with appropriate laws, regulations, policies and procedures, (11) increases in wages and the ability to attract and retain qualified management and personnel, including affiliated physicians, nurses and medical and technical support personnel, (12) the availability and terms of capital to fund the expansion of our business and improvements to our existing facilities, (13) changes in accounting practices, (14) changes in general economic conditions nationally and regionally in our markets, (15) future divestitures which may result in charges and possible impairments of long-lived assets, (16) changes in business strategy or development plans, (17) delays in receiving payments for services provided, (18) the outcome of pending and any future tax audits, appeals and litigation associated with our tax positions, (19) potential adverse impact of known and unknown government investigations, litigation and other claims that may be made against us, and (20) other risk factors described in this annual report on Form 10-K. As a consequence, current plans, anticipated actions and future financial position and results of operations may differ from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of HCA. You are cautioned not to unduly rely on such forward-looking statements when evaluating the information presented in this report.

 

2010 Operations Summary

 

Net income attributable to HCA Holdings, Inc. totaled $1.207 billion for 2010, compared to $1.054 billion for 2009. The 2010 results include net gains on sales of facilities of $4 million and impairments of long-lived assets of

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

2010 Operations Summary (Continued)

 

$123 million. The 2009 results include net losses on sales of facilities of $15 million and impairments of long-lived assets of $43 million.

 

Revenues increased to $30.683 billion for 2010 from $30.052 billion for 2009. Revenues increased 2.1% on both a consolidated basis and on a same facility basis for 2010, compared to 2009. The consolidated revenues increase can be attributed to the combined impact of a 0.9% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.2% increase in equivalent admissions. The same facility revenues increase resulted from a 0.6% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.4% increase in same facility equivalent admissions.

 

During 2010, consolidated admissions declined 0.1% and same facility admissions increased 0.1%, compared to 2009. Inpatient surgical volumes declined 1.5% on a consolidated basis and declined 1.4% on a same facility basis during 2010, compared to 2009. Outpatient surgical volumes declined 1.4% on a consolidated basis and declined 1.2% on a same facility basis during 2010, compared to 2009. Emergency room visits increased 2.0% on a consolidated basis and increased 2.1% on a same facility basis during 2010, compared to 2009.

 

For 2010, the provision for doubtful accounts declined $628 million, to 8.6% of revenues from 10.9% of revenues for 2009. The combined self-pay revenue deductions for charity care and uninsured discounts increased $1.892 billion for 2010, compared to 2009. The sum of the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care, as a percentage of the sum of net revenues, uninsured discounts and charity care, was 25.6% for 2010, compared to 23.8% for 2009. Same facility uninsured admissions increased 5.4% and same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 1.2% for 2010, compared to 2009.

 

Interest expense totaled $2.097 billion for 2010, compared to $1.987 billion for 2009. The $110 million increase in interest expense for 2010 was due primarily to an increase in the average effective interest rate.

 

Cash flows from operating activities increased $338 million, from $2.747 billion for 2009 to $3.085 billion for 2010. The increase related primarily to the net impact of improvements from a $198 million increase in net income and a $547 million reduction in income tax payments, offsetting a $384 million net decline from changes in working capital items and the provision for doubtful accounts.

 

Business Strategy

 

We are committed to providing the communities we serve with high quality, cost-effective health care while growing our business, increasing our profitability and creating long-term value for our stockholders. To achieve these objectives, we align our efforts around the following growth agenda:

 

Grow Our Presence in Existing Markets.  We believe we are well positioned in a number of large and growing markets that will allow us the opportunity to generate long-term, attractive growth through the expansion of our presence in these markets. We plan to continue recruiting and strategically collaborating with the physician community and adding attractive service lines such as cardiology, emergency services, oncology and women’s services. Additional components of our growth strategy include expanding our footprint through developing various outpatient access points, including surgery centers, rural outreach, freestanding emergency departments and walk-in clinics. Since our Recapitalization, we have invested significant capital into these markets and expect to continue to see the benefit of this investment.

 

Achieve Industry-Leading Performance in Clinical and Satisfaction Measures.  Achieving high levels of patient safety, patient satisfaction and clinical quality are central goals of our business model. To achieve these goals, we have implemented a number of initiatives including infection reduction initiatives, hospitalist programs, advanced health information technology and evidence-based medicine programs. We routinely analyze operational practices from our best-performing hospitals to identify ways to implement organization-wide performance

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Business Strategy (Continued)

 

improvements and reduce clinical variation. We believe these initiatives will continue to improve patient care, help us achieve cost efficiencies, grow our revenues and favorably position us in an environment where our constituents are increasingly focused on quality, efficacy and efficiency.

 

Recruit and Employ Physicians to Meet Need for High Quality Health Services.  We depend on the quality and dedication of the health care providers and other team members who serve at our facilities. We believe a critical component of our growth strategy is our ability to successfully recruit and strategically collaborate with physicians and other professionals to provide high quality care. We attract and retain physicians by providing high quality, convenient facilities with advanced technology, by expanding our specialty services and by building our outpatient operations. We believe our continued investment in the employment, recruitment and retention of physicians will improve the quality of care at our facilities.

 

Continue to Leverage Our Scale and Market Positions to Enhance Profitability.  We believe there is significant opportunity to continue to grow the profitability of our company by fully leveraging the scale and scope of our franchise. We are currently pursuing next generation performance improvement initiatives such as contracting for services on a multistate basis and expanding our support infrastructure for additional clinical and support functions, such as physician credentialing, medical transcription and electronic medical recordkeeping. We believe our centrally managed business processes and ability to leverage cost-saving practices across our extensive network will enable us to continue to manage costs effectively. We are in the process of creating a subsidiary that will leverage key components of our support infrastructure, including revenue cycle management, healthcare group purchasing, supply chain management and staffing functions, by offering these services to other hospital companies.

 

Selectively Pursue a Disciplined Development Strategy.  We continue to believe there are significant growth opportunities in our markets. We will continue to provide financial and operational resources to successfully execute on our in-market opportunities. To complement our in-market growth agenda, we intend to focus on selectively developing and acquiring new hospitals, outpatient facilities and other health care service providers. We believe the challenges faced by the hospital industry may spur consolidation and we believe our size, scale, national presence and access to capital will position us well to participate in any such consolidation. We have a strong record of successfully acquiring and integrating hospitals and entering into joint ventures and intend to continue leveraging this experience.

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

 

The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. Our estimates are based on historical experience and various other assumptions we believe are reasonable under the circumstances. We evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis and make changes to the estimates and related disclosures as experience develops or new information becomes known. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

 

We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

 

Revenues

 

Revenues are recorded during the period the health care services are provided, based upon the estimated amounts due from payers. Estimates of contractual allowances under managed care health plans are based upon the payment terms specified in the related contractual agreements. Laws and regulations governing the Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to interpretation. The estimated reimbursement amounts are made on a payer-specific basis and are recorded based on the best information available regarding management’s

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (Continued)

 

Revenues (Continued)

 

interpretation of the applicable laws, regulations and contract terms. Management continually reviews the contractual estimation process to consider and incorporate updates to laws and regulations and the frequent changes in managed care contractual terms resulting from contract renegotiations and renewals. We have invested significant resources to refine and improve our computerized billing systems and the information system data used to make contractual allowance estimates. We have developed standardized calculation processes and related training programs to improve the utility of our patient accounting systems.

 

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) requires any hospital participating in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every person who presents to the hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the individual is suffering from an emergency medical condition, to either stabilize the condition or make an appropriate transfer of the individual to a facility able to handle the condition. The obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of an individual’s ability to pay for treatment. Federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to EMTALA, require, and our commitment to providing quality patient care encourages, the provision of services to patients who are financially unable to pay for the health care services they receive. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Health Reform Law”), requires health plans to reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to enrollees without prior authorization and without regard to whether a participating provider contract is in place. Further, as enacted, the Health Reform Law contains provisions that seek to decrease the number of uninsured individuals, including requirements or incentives, which do not become effective until 2014, for individuals to obtain, and large employers to provide, insurance coverage. These mandates may reduce the financial impact of screening for and stabilizing emergency medical conditions. However, many factors are unknown regarding the impact of the Health Reform Law, including the outcome of court challenges to the constitutionality of the law and Congressional efforts to amend or repeal the law, how many previously uninsured individuals will obtain coverage as a result of the law or the change, if any, in the volume of inpatient and outpatient hospital services that are sought by and provided to previously uninsured individuals and the payer mix.

 

We do not pursue collection of amounts related to patients who meet our guidelines to qualify as charity care; therefore, they are not reported in revenues. Patients treated at our hospitals for nonelective care, who have income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, are eligible for charity care. The federal poverty level is established by the federal government and is based on income and family size. We provide discounts from our gross charges to uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid or charity care. These discounts are similar to those provided to many local managed care plans. After the discounts are applied, we are still unable to collect a significant portion of uninsured patients’ accounts, and we record significant provisions for doubtful accounts (based upon our historical collection experience) related to uninsured patients in the period the services are provided.

 

Due to the complexities involved in the classification and documentation of health care services authorized and provided, the estimation of revenues earned and the related reimbursement are often subject to interpretations that could result in payments that are different from our estimates. Adjustments to estimated Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement amounts and disproportionate-share funds, which resulted in net increases to revenues, related primarily to cost reports filed during the respective year were $52 million, $40 million and $32 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The adjustments to estimated reimbursement amounts, which resulted in net increases to revenues, related primarily to cost reports filed during previous years were $50 million, $60 million and $35 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. We expect adjustments during the next 12 months related to Medicare and Medicaid cost report filings and settlements and disproportionate-share funds will result in increases to revenues within generally similar ranges.

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (Continued)

 

Provision for Doubtful Accounts and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

 

The collection of outstanding receivables from Medicare, managed care payers, other third-party payers and patients is our primary source of cash and is critical to our operating performance. The primary collection risks relate to uninsured patient accounts, including patient accounts for which the primary insurance carrier has paid the amounts covered by the applicable agreement, but patient responsibility amounts (deductibles and copayments) remain outstanding. The provision for doubtful accounts and the allowance for doubtful accounts relate primarily to amounts due directly from patients. An estimated allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded for all uninsured accounts, regardless of the aging of those accounts. Accounts are written off when all reasonable internal and external collection efforts have been performed. Our collection policies include a review of all accounts against certain standard collection criteria, upon completion of our internal collection efforts. Accounts determined to possess positive collectibility attributes are forwarded to a secondary external collection agency and the other accounts are written off. The accounts that are not collected by the secondary external collection agency are written off when they are returned to us by the collection agency (usually within 12 months). Writeoffs are based upon specific identification and the writeoff process requires a writeoff adjustment entry to the patient accounting system. We do not pursue collection of amounts related to patients that meet our guidelines to qualify as charity care.

 

The amount of the provision for doubtful accounts is based upon management’s assessment of historical writeoffs and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal, state, and private employer health care coverage and other collection indicators. Management relies on the results of detailed reviews of historical writeoffs and recoveries at facilities that represent a majority of our revenues and accounts receivable (the “hindsight analysis”) as a primary source of information in estimating the collectibility of our accounts receivable. We perform the hindsight analysis quarterly, utilizing rolling twelve-months accounts receivable collection and writeoff data. We believe our quarterly updates to the estimated allowance for doubtful accounts at each of our hospital facilities provide reasonable valuations of our accounts receivable. These routine, quarterly changes in estimates have not resulted in material adjustments to our allowance for doubtful accounts, provision for doubtful accounts or period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the allowance for doubtful accounts represented approximately 93% and 94%, respectively, of the $4.249 billion and $5.176 billion, respectively, patient due accounts receivable balance. The patient due accounts receivable balance represents the estimated uninsured portion of our accounts receivable. The estimated uninsured portion of Medicaid pending and uninsured discount pending accounts is included in our patient due accounts receivable balance.

 

The revenue deductions related to uninsured accounts (charity care and uninsured discounts) generally have the inverse effect on the provision for doubtful accounts. To quantify the total impact of and trends related to uninsured accounts, we believe it is beneficial to view these revenue deductions and provision for doubtful accounts in combination, rather than each separately. A summary of these amounts for the years ended December 31, follows (dollars in millions):

 

 

The provision for doubtful accounts, as a percentage of revenues, declined from 12.0% for 2008 to 10.9% for 2009 and declined to 8.6% for 2010. Our decision to increase uninsured discounts during the second half of 2009 has directly contributed to the decline in the provision for doubtful accounts. However, the sum of the provision for

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (Continued)

 

Provision for Doubtful Accounts and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (Continued)

 

doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care, as a percentage of the sum of net revenues, uninsured discounts and charity care increased from 21.9% for 2008 to 23.8% for 2009 and to 25.6% for 2010.

 

Days revenues in accounts receivable were 46 days, 45 days and 49 days at December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Management expects a continuation of the challenges related to the collection of the patient due accounts. Adverse changes in the percentage of our patients having adequate health care coverage, general economic conditions, patient accounting service center operations, payer mix, or trends in federal, state, and private employer health care coverage could affect the collection of accounts receivable, cash flows and results of operations.

 

The approximate breakdown of accounts receivable by payer classification as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 is set forth in the following table:

 

 

Our decisions, to increase uninsured discounts and to reduce the length of time accounts are left with our secondary collection agency, have contributed to improvements in our accounts receivable aging trends, particularly for our uninsured accounts receivable.

 

Professional Liability Claims

 

We, along with virtually all health care providers, operate in an environment with professional liability risks. Our facilities are insured by our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary for losses up to $50 million per occurrence, subject to a $5 million per occurrence self-insured retention. We purchase excess insurance on a claims-made basis for losses in excess of $50 million per occurrence. Our professional liability reserves, net of receivables under reinsurance contracts, do not include amounts for any estimated losses covered by our excess insurance coverage. Provisions for losses related to professional liability risks were $222 million, $211 million and $175 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

 

Reserves for professional liability risks represent the estimated ultimate cost of all reported and unreported losses incurred through the respective consolidated balance sheet dates. The estimated ultimate cost includes estimates of direct expenses and fees paid to outside counsel and experts, but does not include the general overhead costs of our insurance subsidiary or corporate office. Individual case reserves are established based upon the particular circumstances of each reported claim and represent our estimates of the future costs that will be paid on

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (Continued)

 

Professional Liability Claims (Continued)

 

reported claims. Case reserves are reduced as claim payments are made and are adjusted upward or downward as our estimates regarding the amounts of future losses are revised. Once the case reserves for known claims are determined, information is stratified by loss layers and retentions, accident years, reported years, and geographic location of our hospitals. Several actuarial methods are employed to utilize this data to produce estimates of ultimate losses and reserves for incurred but not reported claims, including: paid and incurred extrapolation methods utilizing paid and incurred loss development to estimate ultimate losses; frequency and severity methods utilizing paid and incurred claims development to estimate ultimate average frequency (number of claims) and ultimate average severity (cost per claim); and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods which add expected development to actual paid or incurred experience to estimate ultimate losses. These methods use our company-specific historical claims data and other information. Company-specific claim reporting and settlement data collected over an approximate 20-year period is used in our reserve estimation process. This company-specific data includes information regarding our business, including historical paid losses and loss adjustment expenses, historical and current case loss reserves, actual and projected hospital statistical data, professional liability retentions for each policy year, geographic information and other data.

 

Reserves and provisions for professional liability risks are based upon actuarially determined estimates. The estimated reserve ranges, net of amounts receivable under reinsurance contracts, were $1.067 billion to $1.276 billion at December 31, 2010 and $1.024 billion to $1.270 billion at December 31, 2009. Our estimated reserves for professional liability claims may change significantly if future claims differ from expected trends. We perform sensitivity analyses which model the volatility of key actuarial assumptions and monitor our reserves for adequacy relative to all our assumptions in the aggregate. Based on our analysis, we believe the estimated professional liability reserve ranges represent the reasonably likely outcomes for ultimate losses. We consider the number and severity of claims to be the most significant assumptions in estimating reserves for professional liabilities. A 2% change in the expected frequency trend could be reasonably likely and would increase the reserve estimate by $16 million or reduce the reserve estimate by $15 million. A 2% change in the expected claim severity trend could be reasonably likely and would increase the reserve estimate by $71 million or reduce the reserve estimate by $65 million. We believe adequate reserves have been recorded for our professional liability claims; however, due to the complexity of the claims, the extended period of time to settle the claims and the wide range of potential outcomes, our ultimate liability for professional liability claims could change by more than the estimated sensitivity amounts and could change materially from our current estimates.

 

The reserves for professional liability risks cover approximately 2,700 and 2,600 individual claims at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and estimates for unreported potential claims. The time period required to resolve these claims can vary depending upon the jurisdiction and whether the claim is settled or litigated. The average time period between the occurrence and payment of final settlement for our professional liability claims is approximately five years, although the facts and circumstances of each individual claim can result in an occurrence-to-settlement timeframe that varies from this average. The estimation of the timing of payments beyond a year can vary significantly.

 

Reserves for professional liability risks were $1.262 billion and $1.322 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The current portion of these reserves, $268 million and $265 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, is included in “other accrued expenses.” Obligations covered by reinsurance contracts are included in the reserves for professional liability risks, as the insurance subsidiary remains liable to the extent reinsurers do not meet their obligations. Reserves for professional liability risks (net of $14 million and $53 million receivable under reinsurance contracts at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively) were $1.248 billion and $1.269 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The estimated total net reserves for professional liability risks at

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (Continued)

 

Professional Liability Claims (Continued)

 

December 31, 2010 and 2009 are comprised of $758 million and $680 million, respectively, of case reserves for known claims and $490 million and $589 million, respectively, of reserves for incurred but not reported claims.

 

Changes in our professional liability reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable, for the years ended December 31, are summarized in the following table (dollars in millions):

 

 

The favorable development related to prior years’ claims resulted from declining claim frequency and moderating claim severity trends. We believe these favorable trends are primarily attributable to tort reforms enacted in key states, particularly Texas, and our risk management and patient safety initiatives, particularly in the area of obstetrics.

 

Income Taxes

 

We calculate our provision for income taxes using the asset and liability method, under which deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized by identifying the temporary differences that arise from the recognition of items in different periods for tax and accounting purposes. Deferred tax assets generally represent the tax effects of amounts expensed in our income statement for which tax deductions will be claimed in future periods.

 

Although we believe we have properly reported taxable income and paid taxes in accordance with applicable laws, federal, state or international taxing authorities may challenge our tax positions upon audit. Significant judgment is required in determining and assessing the impact of uncertain tax positions. We report a liability for unrecognized tax benefits from uncertain tax positions taken or expected to be taken in our income tax return. During each reporting period, we assess the facts and circumstances related to uncertain tax positions. If the realization of unrecognized tax benefits is deemed probable based upon new facts and circumstances, the estimated liability and the provision for income taxes are reduced in the current period. Final audit results may vary from our estimates.

 

Results of Operations

 

Revenue/Volume Trends

 

Our revenues depend upon inpatient occupancy levels, the ancillary services and therapy programs ordered by physicians and provided to patients, the volume of outpatient procedures and the charge and negotiated payment rates for such services. Gross charges typically do not reflect what our facilities are actually paid. Our facilities have entered into agreements with third-party payers, including government programs and managed care health plans, under which the facilities are paid based upon the cost of providing services, predetermined rates per diagnosis,

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Results of Operations (Continued)

 

Revenue/Volume Trends (Continued)

 

fixed per diem rates or discounts from gross charges. We do not pursue collection of amounts related to patients who meet our guidelines to qualify for charity care; therefore, they are not reported in revenues. We provide discounts to uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid or charity care that are similar to the discounts provided to many local managed care plans.

 

Revenues increased 2.1% to $30.683 billion for 2010 from $30.052 billion for 2009 and increased 5.9% for 2009 from $28.374 billion for 2008. The increase in revenues in 2010 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 0.9% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.2% increase in equivalent admissions compared to the prior year. The increase in revenues in 2009 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 2.6% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 3.2% increase in equivalent admissions compared to 2008. The decline in the rate of revenue growth from 5.9% for 2009 compared to 2008 to 2.1% for 2010 compared to 2009 is primarily due to a decline in the rate of volume growth (equivalent admission growth declined from 3.2% for 2009 compared to 2008 to 1.2% for 2010 compared to 2009) and a decline in uninsured revenues (uninsured revenues were $1.732 billion, $2.350 billion and $2.695 billion for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively) resulting from our increased uninsured discounts (uninsured discounts were $4.641 billion, $2.935 billion and $1.853 billion for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively).

 

Consolidated admissions declined 0.1% in 2010 compared to 2009 and increased 1.0% in 2009 compared to 2008. Consolidated inpatient surgeries declined 1.5% and consolidated outpatient surgeries declined 1.4% during 2010 compared to 2009. Consolidated inpatient surgeries increased 0.3% and consolidated outpatient surgeries declined 0.4% during 2009 compared to 2008. Consolidated emergency room visits increased 2.0% during 2010 compared to 2009 and increased 6.6% during 2009 compared to 2008.

 

Same facility revenues increased 2.1% for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009 and increased 6.1% for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. The 2.1% increase for 2010 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 0.6% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.4% increase in same facility equivalent admissions. The 6.1% increase for 2009 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 2.6% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 3.4% increase in same facility equivalent admissions.

 

Same facility admissions increased 0.1% in 2010 compared to 2009 and increased 1.2% in 2009 compared to 2008. Same facility inpatient surgeries declined 1.4% and same facility outpatient surgeries declined 1.2% during 2010 compared to 2009. Same facility inpatient surgeries increased 0.5% and same facility outpatient surgeries declined 0.1% during 2009 compared to 2008. Same facility emergency room visits increased 2.1% during 2010 compared to 2009 and increased 7.0% during 2009 compared to 2008.

 

Same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 1.2% and same facility uninsured admissions increased 5.4% during 2010 compared to 2009. Same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 6.5% and same facility uninsured admissions increased 4.7% during 2009 compared to 2008.

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Results of Operations (Continued)

 

Revenue/Volume Trends (Continued)

 

The approximate percentages of our admissions related to Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid, managed care and other insurers and the uninsured for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are set forth below.

 

 

The approximate percentages of our inpatient revenues related to Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid, managed care plans and other insurers and the uninsured for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are set forth below.

 

 

 

 

At December 31, 2010, we owned and operated 38 hospitals and 32 surgery centers in the state of Florida. Our Florida facilities’ revenues totaled $7.490 billion, $7.343 billion and $7.009 billion for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. At December 31, 2010, we owned and operated 36 hospitals and 23 surgery centers in the state of Texas. Our Texas facilities’ revenues totaled $8.352 billion, $8.042 billion and $7.351 billion for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. During 2010, 2009 and 2008, 57%, 57% and 55% of our admissions and 52%, 51% and 51%, respectively, of our revenues were generated by our Florida and Texas facilities. Uninsured admissions in Florida and Texas represented 63%, 64% and 63% of our uninsured admissions during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

 

We receive a significant portion of our revenues from government health programs, principally Medicare and Medicaid, which are highly regulated and subject to frequent and substantial changes. We have increased the indigent care services we provide in several communities in the state of Texas, in affiliation with other hospitals. The state of Texas has been involved in the effort to increase the indigent care provided by private hospitals. As a result of this additional indigent care provided by private hospitals, public hospital districts or counties in Texas

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Results of Operations (Continued)

 

Revenue/Volume Trends (Continued)

 

have available funds that were previously devoted to indigent care. The public hospital districts or counties are under no contractual or legal obligation to provide such indigent care. The public hospital districts or counties have elected to transfer some portion of these available funds to the state’s Medicaid program. Such action is at the sole discretion of the public hospital districts or counties. It is anticipated that these contributions to the state will be matched with federal Medicaid funds. The state then may make supplemental payments to hospitals in the state for Medicaid services rendered. Hospitals receiving Medicaid supplemental payments may include those that are providing additional indigent care services. Such payments must be within the federal UPL established by federal regulation. Our Texas Medicaid revenues included $657 million, $474 million and $262 million during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, of Medicaid supplemental payments pursuant to UPL programs.

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments beginning in 2011 for eligible hospitals and professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record (“EHR”) technology. We estimate a majority of our eligible hospitals will attest to adopting, implementing, upgrading or demonstrating meaningful use of certified EHR technology during the fourth quarter of 2011, and we will not recognize any revenues related to the Medicare or Medicaid incentive payments until we are able to complete these attestations. We currently estimate that, during 2011 (primarily during our fourth quarter), the amount of Medicare or Medicaid incentive payments realizable (and revenues recognized) will be in the range of $275 million to $325 million. Actual incentive payments could vary from these estimates due to certain factors such as availability of federal funding for both Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments, timing of the approval of state Medicaid incentive payment plans by CMS and our ability to implement and demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. We have incurred and will continue to incur both capital costs and operating expenses in order to implement our certified EHR technology and meet meaningful use requirements. These expenses are ongoing and are projected to continue over all stages of implementation of meaningful use. The timing of recognizing the expenses will not correlate with the receipt of the incentive payments and the recognition of revenues. We estimate that operating expenses to implement our certified EHR technology and meet meaningful use will be in the range of $125 million to $150 million for 2011. Actual operating expenses could vary from these estimates. There can be no assurance that we will be able to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology, and the failure to do so could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Results of Operations (Continued)

 

Operating Results Summary

 

The following are comparative summaries of operating results for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in millions):

 

 

 

 

HCA HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

Results of Operations (Continued)

 

Operating Results Summary (Continued)

 

Supplemental Non-GAAP Disclosures
Operating Measures on a Cash Revenues Basis
(Dollars in millions)

 

The results of operations presented on a cash revenues basis for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in millions):