Form 10-K
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

(Mark One)

 

x    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

 

or

 

¨

  

 

Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  

 

For the transition period from                      to                     

 

Commission File Number: 001-11141

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware   61-0963645

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

  (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
5811 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 500   34108-2710
Naples, Florida   (Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive offices)  
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (239) 598-3131
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class   Name of each exchange on which registered
Class A Common Stock, $0.01 par value   New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None

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

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  ¨  No x

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 x  No ¨

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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).      Yes  x    No  ¨

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.   x

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.

 

Large accelerated filer

 

x

  

Accelerated filer  ¨

Non-accelerated filer

 

¨  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

  

Smaller reporting company  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $2.63 billion, as determined by reference to the listed price of the registrant’s Class A common stock as of the close of business on such day. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, all directors and executive officers of the registrant have been deemed affiliates.

As of February 17, 2012, there were 254,435,258 shares of the registrant’s Class A common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement, to be issued in connection with the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the registrant to be held on May 22, 2012, have been incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Annual Report.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

Year Ended December 31, 2011

 

         Page  

PART I

    

Item 1.

 

Business

     1   

Item 1A.

 

Risk Factors

     20   

Item 1B.

 

Unresolved Staff Comments

     32   

Item 2.

 

Properties

     33   

Item 3.

 

Legal Proceedings

     35   

Item 4.

 

Mine Safety Disclosures

     38   

 

PART II

    

Item 5.

 

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

     38   

Item 6.

 

Selected Financial Data

     38   

Item 7.

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     40   

Item 7A.

 

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

     59   

Item 8.

 

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

     60   

Item 9.

 

Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

     102   

Item 9A.

 

Controls and Procedures

     102   

Item 9B.

 

Other Information

     103   

 

PART III

    

Item 10.

 

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

     104   

Item 11.

 

Executive Compensation

     105   

Item 12.

 

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

     105   

Item 13.

 

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

     106   

Item 14.

 

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

     106   

 

PART IV

    

Item 15.

 

Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

     106   

 

Signatures

       107   

 

i


Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.   Business.

Overview

Health Management Associates, Inc. by and through its subsidiaries (collectively, “we,” “our” or “us”) operates general acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in non-urban communities. As of December 31, 2011, we operated 66 hospitals with a total of 10,330 licensed beds in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. See Notes 10 and 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II for information about our pending acquisition and divestiture activities.

Services provided by our hospitals include general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care and pediatric services. We also provide outpatient services such as one-day surgery, laboratory, x-ray, respiratory therapy, cardiology and physical therapy. Additionally, some of our hospitals provide specialty services in, among other areas, cardiology (e.g., open-heart surgery, etc.), neuro-surgery, oncology, radiation therapy, computer-assisted tomography (“CT”) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”), lithotripsy and full-service obstetrics. Our facilities benefit from centralized resources, such as purchasing, information technology, finance and accounting systems, legal services, facilities planning, physician recruiting services, administrative personnel management, marketing and public relations.

Our Class A common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “HMA.” We were incorporated in Delaware in 1979 but began operations through a subsidiary that was formed in 1977. We became a public company in 1991. We have been named to the list of Fortune Magazine’s World’s Most Admired Companies for four of the past six years, appearing as the top hospital company in the “Health Care: Medical Facilities” category for two of those years.

Recent Acquisitions and Divestitures

Part of our strategic business plan calls for us to acquire underperforming non-urban general acute care hospitals that are available at a reasonable price, align with our business model and otherwise meet our strict acquisition criteria. We proactively identify acquisition targets and respond to requests for proposals from entities that are seeking to sell or lease hospital facilities. In addition to continually evaluating various hospital and other ancillary health care business acquisition candidates, we are also (i) improving, developing and enhancing the operations of our existing health care facilities and (ii) identifying opportunities to augment our position in the markets where we already have health care operations. We believe that the strength of our balance sheet and cash flow, as well as our available borrowing capacity, provide us the resources needed to pursue acquisition opportunities at this time; however, there can be no assurances that we will close any hospital or other acquisition transactions in 2012 and beyond.

We regularly review and evaluate our portfolio of hospitals and, if an individual hospital no longer meets our short and long-term performance criteria, we consider strategic alternatives, including, in some cases, divestiture. Where appropriate, and consistent with our performance criteria and other strategic objectives, we also explore collaborative relationships with physicians and other health care entities. At any given time, we are actively involved in negotiations concerning possible acquisitions, divestitures and joint ventures. Certain of our recently completed transactions are set forth below.

Acquisitions

Completed

 

   

On September 30, 2011, one of our subsidiaries acquired from Catholic Health Partners and its subsidiary Mercy Health Partners, Inc. (“Mercy”) substantially all of the assets of Mercy’s seven general acute care hospitals in east Tennessee (collectively licensed to operate 833 beds). Our subsidiary also acquired (i) substantially all of Mercy’s ancillary health care operations that are affiliated with the acquired hospitals (collectively, those ancillary facilities are licensed to operate 74 beds) and (ii) Mercy’s former Riverside hospital campus (which is licensed to operate 293 beds). Our east Tennessee hospital and health care network is now collectively referred to as Tennova Healthcare. The total purchase price for this acquisition was approximately $532.4 million.

 

   

Effective May 1, 2011, one of our subsidiaries acquired a 95% equity interest in a company that owns and operates Tri-Lakes Medical Center, a 112-bed general acute care hospital in Batesville, Mississippi, and certain related health care operations. The total purchase price for our 95% equity interest was approximately $38.8 million.

 

1


Table of Contents
   

Effective October 1, 2010, certain of our subsidiaries acquired from Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. the following general acute care hospitals and certain related health care operations: (i) 298-bed Wuesthoff Medical Center in Rockledge, Florida; and (ii) 115-bed Wuesthoff Medical Center in Melbourne, Florida. The total purchase price for this acquisition was approximately $152.0 million.

 

   

Effective July 1, 2010, certain of our subsidiaries acquired from Shands HealthCare a 60% equity interest in each of the following general acute care hospitals and certain related health care operations: (i) 99-bed Shands Lake Shore hospital in Lake City, Florida; (ii) 15-bed Shands Live Oak hospital in Live Oak, Florida; and (iii) 25-bed Shands Starke hospital in Starke, Florida. Shands HealthCare or one of its affiliates continues to hold a 40% equity interest in each of these hospitals. The total purchase price for our 60% interests in these three hospitals was approximately $21.5 million.

See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II for further discussion of our recently completed acquisitions.

Pending

 

   

On February 3, 2012, one of our subsidiaries signed a definitive agreement with a subsidiary of INTEGRIS Health, Inc. (“INTEGRIS”) to acquire an 80% equity interest in each of five Oklahoma-based general acute care hospitals (collectively licensed to operate 226 beds) and certain related health care operations. A subsidiary of INTEGRIS will retain a 20% equity interest in such entities. The total purchase price for our 80% equity interests will be $60.0 million. This pending acquisition, which we expect to close during the quarter ending June 30, 2012, is discussed at Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II.

Divestitures

 

   

During May 2011, one of our subsidiaries entered into a lease termination agreement for Fishermen’s Hospital, a 25-bed hospital in Marathon, Florida, that became effective on July 1, 2011. As part of the agreement, the hospital’s remaining equipment, as well as certain working capital items, were sold to our former lessor for approximately $1.5 million.

 

   

Effective December 31, 2010, certain of our subsidiaries completed the sale of Riley Hospital, a 140-bed general acute care hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, and its related health care operations. The selling price was $24.0 million, plus a working capital adjustment, and yielded a loss of approximately $12.4 million.

Our “Discontinued Operations,” which include the aforementioned divestitures, are identified at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II.

Certain Other Important Developments During 2011

Debt Refinancing

On November 18, 2011, we completed a restructuring of our long-term debt. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II for details of such restructuring and our outstanding long-term debt at December 31, 2011.

Meaningful Use Incentive Program Certification

During July 2011, our Pulse System® was deemed compliant and was certified by the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT®), in accordance with the applicable hospital certification criteria adopted by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Our 2011/2012 criteria support the Stage 1 meaningful use measures required to qualify eligible providers and hospitals for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As a result of our certification and successful compliance with other related criteria, we received approximately $38.3 million of CCHIT® funds during 2011 from Medicare and Medicaid. Moreover, we expect to receive approximately $90 million to $120 million of additional reimbursement during the year ending December 31, 2012.

Market

Our markets are generally non-urban communities with populations of 30,000 to 400,000 people located primarily in the southeastern United States. Typically, the hospitals we operate are, or we believe can become, the sole or preferred provider of health care services in their respective markets.

 

2


Table of Contents

Our target markets generally have the following characteristics:

 

   

A history of being medically underserved. We believe that we can enhance and increase the level and quality of health care services in many underserved markets.

 

   

Favorable demographics, including a growing elderly population. We believe that this growing population uses a higher volume and more acute level of health care services.

 

   

The existence of patient outmigration trends to urban medical centers. We believe that, in many instances, we can recruit primary care and specialty physicians based on community needs and purchase new equipment that is necessary to reverse outmigration trends.

 

   

States in which a certificate of need is required to construct a hospital and add licensed beds to an existing hospital. We believe that states requiring certificates of need have appropriate barriers to prevent others from building a new hospital, adding licensed beds to an existing hospital or providing additional health care services. We further believe that, in many instances, these factors permit us to be the sole or preferred service provider within a geographic area.

Business Strategy

Our business strategy is to deliver high quality health care services and improve patient and physician satisfaction, improve the operations of our hospitals, utilize efficient management and acquire strategic hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses in non-urban communities.

Deliver High Quality Health Care Services and Improve Patient and Physician Satisfaction

All but two of our hospitals (and substantially all of our laboratories and home health agencies) are accredited by The Joint Commission, an independent not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies more than 15,000 health care organizations and programs based on certain performance standards. We seek to continually improve the quality of the health care services we deliver and the satisfaction of our patients and physicians. To help us in this regard, we use a physician and patient satisfaction survey process to gauge their satisfaction with the level and quality of our services. Surveyed physicians and patients are asked to complete a confidential survey that seeks their perception of, among other things, a hospital’s medical treatment, nursing care, attention to physician and patient concerns, communication, admission process, cleanliness and quality of dietary services. The survey results are compared and benchmarked against results from other hospitals across the country. We believe that these surveys provide us with additional data to help improve our hospitals’ quality and satisfaction as they compare to our peers and competitors. Each hospital’s management team receives the detailed results of the surveys and comparative data regarding their ranking against benchmark statistics. To stress the importance of the survey results, part of our hospital management teams’ incentive compensation is based on the levels of quality and satisfaction indicated in those surveys.

As evidence of our commitment to quality, Lake Norman Regional Medical Center, our 123-bed hospital in Mooresville, North Carolina, achieved Magnet Status designation for excellence in nursing services by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Magnet Recognition Program. The Magnet Recognition Program recognizes health care organizations that demonstrate excellence in nursing practice and adherence to national standards for the organization and delivery of nursing services. Additionally, Venice Regional Medical Center, our 312-bed hospital in Venice, Florida, has been ranked among the nation’s Top 100 Acute Care Hospitals and Top 50 Cardiovascular Hospitals according to independent studies by Thomson Reuters. The general acute care hospital study evaluated 3,000 short-term, acute care, non-federal hospitals in nine areas: mortality, medical complications, patient safety, average length of stay, expenses, profitability, cash-to-debt ratio, patient satisfaction and adherence to clinical standards of care. The cardiovascular hospital study examined the performance of 1,022 hospitals by analyzing outcomes for patients with heart failure and heart attacks and those who had coronary bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions such as angioplasties. Venice Regional Medical Center is a five-year recipient of this award. In 2010, Thomson Reuters made the list more exclusive by narrowing it from the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals to the top 50. Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center, our 128-bed hospital in Crystal River, Florida, was identified in 2010 as a recipient of the Patient Safety Excellence Award™ by HealthGrades, Inc. (“HealthGrades”), indicating that its patient safety ratings are in the top 5% of U.S. hospitals. HealthGrades is a leading health care ratings organization, providing ratings and profiles of hospitals, nursing homes and physicians. Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center is one of only 238 hospitals in the country to receive this designation and one of only 15 in Florida. Physicians Regional Health System, our two-hospital system in Naples, Florida, was also recognized by HealthGrades for 2010. Physicians Regional Health System’s spine surgery program is among the top 5% in the nation and top ranked in Florida according to HealthGrades. The HealthGrades’ study annually assesses patient outcomes - mortality and complication rates - at virtually all of the nearly 5,000 non-federal hospitals in the country.

 

3


Table of Contents

During 2011, 35 of our hospitals were named as Top Performers on Key Quality Measures according to a report released by The Joint Commission. From a universe of approximately 2,900 Joint Commission-accredited general acute care and critical access hospitals that report core measure performance data, only 405 hospitals nationwide, or approximately 14% of the evaluated hospitals, earned recognition as top performers. In contrast, our 35 hospitals recognized as top performers represented nearly 60% of the 59 hospitals that we operated at the time of the study. To be recognized as a top performer on key quality measures, an organization must meet two 95% performance thresholds. First, it must achieve a composite performance score of 95% or higher after the results of all the accountability measures reported to The Joint Commission are factored into a single score, including measures that had less than 30 eligible cases or patients. Second, it must meet or exceed a 95% performance target score for every single accountability measure for which it reports data, excluding any measures with less than 30 eligible cases or patients.

Listed below are some of the actions that we have undertaken in our ongoing effort to further improve the quality of our health care services.

 

   

We continue to enhance our medication error prevention program. An important component of the program is a handheld bedside medication administration system, which is continuing to evolve, designed to help eliminate medication errors by using a clinician-designed bar code scanning device to verify medication orders at the point of care.

 

   

We continue to implement a program to enhance and upgrade our emergency room clinical systems to more effectively manage patient flow and outcomes. Thus far, the enhancements have included hardware and software upgrades, as well as the development of uniform clinical guidelines to be implemented company-wide to ensure consistent patient treatment and accurate benchmarking of outcomes. Additionally, our program calls for comprehensive training of all clinical personnel and physicians responsible for emergency room patient care. Our emergency room initiatives are expected to continue for the next couple of years.

 

   

During 2011, we initiated an electronic document management solution with McKesson Corporation’s Horizon Patient Folder™ hospital document management product. Horizon Patient Folder™ is designed to provide our physicians, health information management personnel and other hospital staff the ability, anytime or anywhere, to review, analyze, code and complete electronic charts within our electronic medical records system. We believe that the adoption of this software will improve patient care, enhance staffing and further ensure regulatory compliance.

 

   

We sought to improve our computer-based physician access portal system in 2011. These improvements are designed to allow physicians to access hospital inpatient information using a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet. To that end, we are working with PatientKeeper, Inc. to design a mobile platform for our physicians so that they can monitor updated patient clinical data from anywhere and at any time. The system, known as PatientKeeper Mobile Clinical Results, will improve care for our patients by allowing physicians to make more timely and accurate decisions regarding a patient’s care plan.

Improve the Operations of our Hospitals

We seek to increase revenue at our hospitals by providing quality health care, which we believe will ultimately increase admissions, surgical volume, emergency room visits and outpatient business. Our hospitals are administered and directed on a local level by a chief executive officer. A key element of our strategy is establishing and maintaining cooperative relationships with our physicians. We maintain a physician recruitment and development program designed to attract and retain qualified specialists and primary care physicians, in conjunction with our existing physicians and community needs, to broaden the services offered by our hospitals. To this end, we developed a unique program designed to: (i) create attractive practice opportunities for qualified physicians in the communities that are served by our hospitals in order to build outstanding medical staffs; (ii) improve the satisfaction and retention of physicians in our markets; and (iii) create practice models that are sustainable in a competitive health care environment.

Our hospitals seek to increase their patient volume through local marketing programs. Our overall marketing strategy and the individual programs for each of our hospitals are consolidated under central and divisional leadership. One of the benefits of this approach is a streamlined cost-effective process that utilizes a limited number of marketing firms. Using our consolidated marketing programs, we can devise uniform and consistent themes that only require the change of logo and hospital colors to implement company-wide. Additionally, changes to our marketing strategies can be quickly deployed to all of our hospitals and other health care facilities.

 

4


Table of Contents

We also pursue various clinical means to increase utilization of the services provided by our hospitals, particularly emergency and outpatient services. These include:

 

   

“ER Extra®,” an emergency room operational initiative that is designed to reduce patient wait times, enhance patient satisfaction and improve the quality and scope of patient assessments;

 

   

“Nurse First™,” an emergency room service program that provides for a well-qualified nurse to quickly assess the condition of a patient upon arrival in the emergency room;

 

   

“MedKey™,” a free identification and patient information card that streamlines the registration process; and

 

   

“One Call Scheduling™,” a dedicated phone system that physicians and other medical personnel can use to simultaneously schedule various diagnostic tests and services.

There are numerous opportunities to increase the number of patients who seek treatment at our hospitals and other health care facilities. We believe that improving patient volume rests, in part, on our ability to improve relationships with physicians in the communities where our hospitals operate. In addition to establishing local physician leadership councils where we listen and respond to physician concerns, we routinely evaluate innovative service delivery alternatives that address the ever-changing health care climate. Often times, there already exists a high level of competition for health care services in our markets. We believe that our ultimate success will depend on our ability to improve our quality of care, access to services and patient outcomes, as well as our flexibility, creativity and responsiveness to all involved constituencies.

In our markets, we employ physicians who provide health care services outside of the hospital setting. Our hospitals also assume active roles managing local physician relationships in their markets. As a result of various employed physician initiatives, such as converting physicians to production-based employment arrangements, we have experienced favorable changes in physician referral patterns. We believe that additional opportunities exist to further improve our hospital operations through more efficient management of our employed physicians, which increased in number from approximately 700 at December 31, 2010 to 900 at December 31, 2011.

Utilize Efficient Management

We consider our management structure to be decentralized but with centralized support and control. Our hospitals are run by experienced chief executive officers, chief financial officers and chief nursing officers who have both the authority and responsibility for day-to-day hospital operations. Incentive compensation programs have been implemented to reward our managers for achieving and exceeding pre-established goals. We employ a centralized staff at our home office in Naples, Florida to provide support services such as systems design and development, training, human resource management, reimbursement, accounting support, legal services, marketing, purchasing, risk management and construction management. We maintain centralized financial control through fiscal and accounting policies established by our home office for use at all of our subsidiary hospitals. Financial information is consolidated using our proprietary Pulse System® and is monitored daily by our management team. We also participate in a group purchasing organization with other proprietary hospital systems. We believe that this participation allows us to procure medical equipment and supplies at advantageous pricing by leveraging the buying power of the organization’s members.

During 2011, our operational reporting structure was comprised of five divisions, each with a divisional senior leader who reported directly to our President and Chief Executive Officer. Each of the five divisions had its own president, chief financial officer and physician recruiting manager with aligned individual hospital and divisional objectives. Effective January 1, 2012, our management structure was changed so as to better address the dynamic growth that we have experienced in recent years. We are now organized into three regional groups (Eastern, Florida, and Southern and Western), each with a group leader who is a senior officer of our company that reports directly to our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as a chief financial officer who reports to the group leader. In addition, each of the regional groups has two divisions and each division has its own president, chief financial officer and physician recruiting manager with aligned individual hospital and divisional objectives.

During the past several years, we have also recruited and promoted new leadership for centralized support functions such as clinical affairs, marketing, government relations, strategy and analytics, physician recruitment, contracting, human resources, physician relations, nursing and quality.

Acquire Additional Hospitals and Other Ancillary Health Care Businesses

We believe that the hospitals we acquire are, or can become, the provider of choice for health care services in their respective communities. When we make an initial evaluation of a potential acquisition, we require that a hospital’s market service area have a demonstrated need for the hospital, along with an established physician base

 

5


Table of Contents

that we believe can benefit from our ability to attract additional qualified physicians to the area based on community needs. In addition to whole hospital acquisitions, we also consider (i) partnering with not-for-profit entities in areas and markets that otherwise meet our acquisition criteria and (ii) investing in or acquiring ancillary health care businesses such as physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic imaging and outpatient urgent care.

We believe that many of the hospitals we acquire are underperforming at the time of acquisition. Upon acquiring a hospital, we conduct a thorough review and, where appropriate, retain existing administrative leadership. We also take other steps, including, among other things, employing a well-qualified chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief nursing officer, implementing our proprietary management information system (the Pulse System®) and other technological enhancements, recruiting physicians, establishing supplemental quality assessment and efficiency measures, introducing volume purchasing under company-wide agreements, and spending the necessary capital to renovate facilities and upgrade equipment. Our Pulse System® and the other technological enhancements that we implement are designed to provide each hospital’s management team with the financial and operational information necessary to operate the hospital efficiently and effectively. We can also assist physicians with case management.

Additionally, we expand and improve the services offered at our acquired hospitals. We strive to provide at least 90% of the acute care needs of each community our hospitals serve and reduce the outmigration of patients to hospitals in larger urban areas. Generally, we have been successful in achieving significant improvement in the operating performance of our newly acquired facilities within 24 to 36 months of acquisition. Moreover, we seek to recover our initial cash investment in an acquired health care facility within four to five years. Once a facility has matured, we seek to achieve incremental growth through the investment of capital, recruitment of physicians based on community needs, expansion and enhancement of health care services, renegotiated agreements with commercial health insurance providers and favorable demographic trends.

Selected Operating Statistics

The table below summarizes selected operating statistics, exclusive of our Discontinued Operations, that are typically used by our management, investors and other readers of our consolidated financial statements.

 

     Years Ended December 31,  
       2011          2010          2009    

Licensed beds at the end of the year, excluding inactive facilities (1)

     9,868           8,839           8,220     

Admissions (2)

     338,637           323,917           306,184     

Adjusted admissions (3)

     635,934           586,060           533,101     

Emergency room visits (4)

     1,562,028           1,413,831           1,352,044     

Surgeries (5)

     342,421           314,564           281,285     

Patient days (6)

     1,424,500           1,350,697           1,281,093     

Acute care average length of stay in days (7)

     4.2           4.2           4.2     

Occupancy rates (8)

     42.8%           43.9%           45.3%     

 

  (1)

Licensed beds are beds for which a hospital has obtained approval to operate from the applicable state licensing agency.

  (2)

Admissions are patients admitted to our hospitals for inpatient treatment. This statistic is a measure of inpatient volume.

  (3)

Adjusted admissions are total admissions adjusted for outpatient volume. Adjusted admissions are computed by multiplying admissions (inpatient volume) by the sum of gross inpatient charges and gross outpatient charges and then dividing the resulting amount by gross inpatient charges. This statistic is a measure of total inpatient and outpatient volume.

  (4)

The number of emergency room visits is an operational measure that is used to gauge our patient volume. Much of our inpatient volume is a byproduct of a patient’s initial encounter with one of our hospitals through an emergency room visit.

  (5)

The number of surgeries includes both inpatient and outpatient surgeries. This statistic is indicative of overall patient volume and business trends.

  (6)

Patient days is the total number of days that patients are admitted in our hospitals. This statistic is a measure of inpatient volume.

  (7)

Acute care average length of stay in days represents the average number of days admitted patients stay in our hospitals. This statistic is a measure of our utilization of resources.

  (8)

Occupancy rates are affected by many factors, including the population size and general economic conditions within individual market service areas, the degrees of variation in medical and surgical products, outpatient use of hospital services, quality and treatment availability at competing hospitals and seasonality. This statistic is a measure of inpatient volume.

 

6


Table of Contents

Competition

Existing hospitals

In many of the geographic areas where we operate, there are other hospitals and health care entities that provide services comparable to those offered by our hospitals. Generally, competition is limited to a single or small number of hospital competitors in each hospital’s market service area. With respect to the delivery of general acute care inpatient services, we believe that most of our hospitals face less competition in their immediate market service area than they would likely face in larger, more urban, communities. However, the health care environment has become more competitive in every market as physicians and ancillary service providers introduce outpatient services. Regardless of the level of competition, we strive to distinguish ourselves based on the quality and scope of the medical services we provide.

Certain of our competitors may have greater resources than we do, may be better equipped than we are and may offer a broader range of services than we do. For example, some hospitals that compete with us are owned by government agencies and are supported by tax revenue, and others are owned by not-for-profit entities and may be supported, to a large extent, by endowments and charitable contributions. Such support is not available to our hospitals. Additionally, outpatient treatment and diagnostic imaging facilities, outpatient surgical centers and freestanding ambulatory surgical centers (including many in which physicians have an ownership interest), specialized care providers (e.g., oncology, physical therapy, etc.), and a growing number of health care clinics located in large retail stores also introduce competitors to the health care marketplace.

A majority of our hospitals are located in states that have certificate of need laws. These laws limit competition by placing restrictions on the construction of new hospital and/or other health care facilities, the addition of new licensed beds or the addition of significant new services. We believe that such states have appropriate barriers to entry and, in many instances, permit us to be the sole or preferred service provider in a particular geographic area.

The competitive position of our hospitals is also increasingly affected by our ability to negotiate service contracts with purchasers of group health care services. Such purchasers include employers, preferred provider organizations (“PPOs”) and health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”). PPOs and HMOs attempt to direct and control the use of hospital services by managing care and either receive discounts from a hospital’s established charges or pay based on a fixed per diem or a capitated basis, where a hospital receives fixed periodic payments based on the number of members of the organization regardless of the actual services provided. To date, PPOs and HMOs have not adversely affected the competitive position of our hospitals. Employers and traditional health insurers are also increasingly interested in reducing their costs through negotiations with hospitals for managed care programs and discounts from established charges. In return, hospitals secure commitments for a larger number of potential patients. We believe that we have been proactive in establishing or joining such programs to maintain, and even increase, the hospital services we provide. We do not believe that such programs will have a significant adverse impact on our business or operations.

We are in an industry that has a competitive labor market. As such, we face competition attracting and retaining health care professionals. In recent years, there has been a nationwide shortage of qualified nurses and other medical support personnel. To address this shortage, we have improved hospital working conditions and fostered relationships with local nursing schools.

Another important factor contributing to a hospital’s competitive advantage is the number and quality of physicians on its staff. Physicians make admitting and other decisions regarding the appropriate course of patient treatment which, in turn, affect hospital revenue. Admitting physicians may also be on the medical staffs of hospitals that we do not operate. By offering quality services and facilities, convenient locations and state-of-the-art medical equipment, we attempt to attract our physicians’ patients. Our hospitals try to increase the number, quality and specialties of the physicians in their communities based on local needs. Excluding our 2011 acquisition activity, approximately 650 physicians were recruited or otherwise joined our medical staff during the year ended December 31, 2011. During 2012, we intend to actively recruit a like number of physicians to join our medical staff. When a recruited physician relocates to a community where one of our hospitals is located and agrees to engage in private practice, our subsidiary hospital often advances funds to the physician pursuant to a recruiting agreement to provide financial assistance for the physician to establish a practice. The actual amounts advanced will depend on the financial results of each physician’s private practice during a predetermined period, referred to as the measurement period, which generally approximates one to two years. Amounts advanced under these recruiting agreements are considered to be loans and are generally forgiven on a pro rata basis over a period of 12 to 24 months, contingent on the physician continuing to practice in the community served by our hospital.

 

7


Table of Contents

Acquisitions

We typically face competition for acquisitions from other for-profit health care companies and not-for-profit multi-hospital groups. Some of those competitors may have greater financial and other resources than we do. Historically, we have been able to complete our acquisitions at prices that we believe are reasonable. However, competitive bidding for acquisition targets could adversely impact our ability to acquire hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses in the future on favorable terms.

Sources of Revenue

General

Our revenue from patient charges is dependent on many factors, including surgical volume, inpatient occupancy levels, the level of medical and ancillary services ordered by physicians and provided to patients and the volume of outpatient procedures. We record gross patient service charges on a patient-by-patient basis in the period in which the services are rendered. Patient accounts are billed after the patient is discharged. When a patient’s account is billed, our accounting system calculates the reimbursement that we expect to receive based on the services rendered, the type of payor and the contract terms with such payor. We record the difference between gross patient service charges and expected reimbursement as contractual adjustments.

At the end of each month, we estimate our expected reimbursement for unbilled accounts. Estimated reimbursement amounts are calculated on a payor-specific basis and are recorded based on the best information available to us at the time regarding applicable laws, rules, regulations and contract terms. We continually review our contractual adjustment estimation process to consider the effects of changes in applicable laws, rules and regulations, as well as changes to contract terms with managed care health plans that result from negotiations and renewals.

We receive payment for services rendered primarily from:

 

   

the federal government under the Medicare program;

 

   

the states where we operate under each state’s Medicaid program;

 

   

commercial insurance and other programs; and

 

   

patients, including co-payments and deductibles.

Co-payments and deductibles are the portion of the patient’s bill for medical services that many private and government payors require the patient to pay. Co-payment and deductible amounts vary among payors and are based on the provisions of the health plan in which the patient participates. We estimate that we are currently collecting approximately 50% to 55% of such amounts. In recent years, we have increased our efforts to collect patient co-payments and deductibles at the time services are rendered. Co-payments and deductibles are subject to the same collection practices as other patient accounts receivable.

Our policy is to verify insurance coverage prior to rendering service in order to facilitate timely identification of the payor and the benefits covered. However, under federal law, when the necessity of service and patient condition (e.g., emergency room services, active labor and other similar situations, etc.) are present, those conditions preclude the verification of coverage. We do not track the percent of encounters where coverage is not verified prior to services being rendered.

Virtually all of our billing is processed electronically via our proprietary Pulse System® or a third party billing software program. Charges for services rendered are automatically entered into our billing systems, which edit bills for inconsistencies and improper charges. Inconsistencies are reviewed by billing personnel who resolve such matters before a bill is released. Once a preliminary bill clears the edit process, our systems automatically generate a final bill. Approximately 95% of these bills are sent electronically to third party payors. For the remaining 5% of our bills, paper copies are printed and mailed to third party payors and/or individuals.

Reimbursement rates for routine inpatient services vary significantly depending on the type of service (e.g., acute care, intensive care, etc.) and the geographic location of the hospital where the services are provided. In recent years, outpatient services have steadily increased and presently constitute approximately half of our consolidated net revenue. This increased level of outpatient services is primarily due to advances in medical technology that allow more services to be provided on an outpatient basis, as well as increased pressure from Medicare, Medicaid and commercial insurers to reduce hospital stays and provide services, where possible, on a less expensive outpatient basis. We believe that our outpatient levels are representative of the general trend in the health care industry.

 

8


Table of Contents

The table below sets forth the approximate percent of hospital net revenue, defined as revenue from all sources after deducting contractual allowances and discounts from established billing rates, that we derive from our primary payor sources.

 

     Years Ended December 31,  
             2011                      2010                      2009          

Medicare

     31%           32%           32%       

Medicaid

     9              9              9          

Commercial insurance and other

     50              50              49          

Self-pay

     10              9              10          
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     100%           100%           100%       
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Overview of the Impact of Recent Health Care Reform

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which we refer to together as the Health Care Reform Act, were signed into law by President Obama in March 2010 and will dramatically change how health care services are covered, delivered and reimbursed. The Health Care Reform Act is intended to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce health care costs. Among other things, the Health Care Reform Act provides for expanded Medicaid coverage of uninsured individuals, reduced growth in Medicare spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments and the establishment of programs designed to tie reimbursement to quality (known as value-purchasing programs). The Health Care Reform Act is intended to accomplish its goals and objectives through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms.

Over time, the expansion of private sector and Medicaid coverage under the Health Care Reform Act will likely increase the revenue we receive for services provided to individuals who were previously uninsured. Under the Health Care Reform Act, health insurance coverage is expected to be expanded to cover approximately 32 to 34 million additional people by 2014 through, among other things, the expansion of existing Medicaid programs to cover non-pregnant adults under age 65 with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level (133% of the federal poverty level plus an additional 5% income “disregard” factor). However, reductions in the growth of Medicare payments and decreases in disproportionate share and other hospital reimbursement payments will adversely affect our revenue. To the extent such revenue reductions are not offset by increased revenue from providing care to previously uninsured individuals, the full implementation of the Health Care Reform Act could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

The Health Care Reform Act also contains a number of measures that are intended to further reduce fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, such as increased funding for fraud and abuse investigations and enforcement, and the required use of recovery audit contractors under the individual state Medicaid programs. Additionally, the law contains significant limitations on hospitals that are partially owned by physicians, including restrictions that generally prohibit increases in the percent of physician ownership and the number of licensed beds, procedure rooms and operating rooms at such joint venture hospitals. At December 31, 2011, we had 24 joint venture hospitals with physician owners.

Many of the Health Care Reform Act’s provisions will not take effect until 2014, or later, while others have already become effective or will become effective prior to 2014. The federal government and individual state governments must also interpret and implement the new regulatory requirements, the vast majority of which have yet to be considered. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act remains subject to significant legislative debate, including possible repeal and/or amendment, and there are substantial legal challenges to various aspects of the Health Care Reform Act that have been made on constitutional grounds. On November 14, 2011, the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act (a ruling is expected by July 2012). As a result of these various uncertainties, we are currently unable to predict the overall impact that the full implementation of the Health Care Reform Act will have on us. Other provisions of the Health Care Reform Act that might affect our business and results of operations are discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Item 1A under “Risk Factors.”

 

9


Table of Contents

The Budget Control Act of 2011, or the BCA, was enacted on August 2, 2011. Among other things, the BCA established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Deficit Reduction Committee”), a twelve-member bipartisan joint committee of Congress. The primary goal of the Deficit Reduction Committee was to propose legislation to reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. Pursuant to the BCA, if the legislation proposed by the Deficit Reduction Committee was not approved by Congress by December 23, 2011 and enacted into law by January 15, 2012, then spending cuts aggregating $1.2 trillion over the next ten years (less any amount that resulted from earlier Congressional action) would automatically begin in January 2013. The Deficit Reduction Committee failed to propose legislation by December 23, 2011. Therefore, barring action by Congress to the contrary, the reductions and spending cuts dictated by the BCA, which are required to be split equally between defense and non-defense programs, will take effect beginning in January 2013. Although payments to Medicare providers are included in the automatic spending cuts, the BCA provides that Medicare payments may be reduced by no more than 2%. Moreover, the BCA provides that certain other programs, including Medicaid, are exempt from the automatic spending cuts. Although we are unable to determine how the automatic spending cuts required by the BCA will affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement in the future, significant reimbursement reductions or other program modifications that result from the BCA could harm our business and results of operations.

Medicare and Medicaid

Overview

Medicare is a federal health insurance program, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, that currently provides health care benefits to individuals age 65 and over, certain disabled persons and certain other individuals with qualifying conditions. Medicaid is a joint federal-state health care benefit program, operating pursuant to a plan developed and administered by each participating state, subject to broadly defined federal requirements, that provides health care benefits to uninsured individuals who are otherwise unable to afford such services. Our hospitals and other health care facilities derive a substantial portion of their net revenue from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both such programs are heavily regulated and subject to frequent changes that typically affect reimbursement payments and beneficiary eligibility.

Medicare

This section should be read in conjunction with the section below entitled “Impact of the Health Care Reform Act on Medicare Reimbursement.”

Inpatient Payments. The Medicare program provides payment for inpatient hospital services under a prospective payment system, or PPS. Under the inpatient PPS, hospitals are paid a prospectively determined fixed amount for each hospital discharge. The fixed payment amount per inpatient discharge is established based on each patient’s diagnosis related group, or DRG. Each patient admitted for care is assigned to a DRG based on his or her primary admitting diagnosis. Every DRG is assigned a payment rate based on the estimated intensity of hospital resources necessary to treat the average patient with that particular diagnosis. DRG payment rates are based on national average costs from an historic base period and the actual costs incurred by a hospital to provide care are not considered in setting such rates. Although based on national average costs, the DRG standardized amounts and capital payment rates are adjusted by the wage index and geographic adjustment factor for the geographic region in which a particular hospital is located, or reclassified to, and are weighted based on a statistically normal distribution of severity. DRG rates are usually adjusted by an update factor each federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The index used as the basis to adjust the DRG rates, known as the “market basket update factor,” takes into consideration annual inflation in the purchasing of goods and services experienced by hospitals and other entities. In recent years, the market basket update factor has been lower than the percent increase in costs experienced by hospitals. For federal fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009, the market basket update factors were 2.4%, 2.1% and 3.6%, respectively. For federal fiscal year 2012, the market basket update factor is 1.9%, which reflects a 0.1% reduction required by the Health Care Reform Act. Reimbursement rates were increased by another 1.1% for federal fiscal year 2012 to correct a previous misapplication of an urban-rural wage index adjustment that was required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is referred to as the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, established Medicare Severity DRGs, or MS-DRGs, which refine the DRG weighting system to more fully capture differences in severity of illness among patients. For example, when MS-DRGs became effective in 2007, 538 DRGs were replaced with 745 MS-DRGs. MS-DRGs are designed to reduce incentives for hospitals to treat only the healthiest and most profitable patients by better taking into account severity of illness in Medicare payment rates. MS-DRGs are also intended to encourage hospitals to improve their coding and documentation of patient diagnoses. To ensure that improvements in coding and documentation do not lead to an increase in aggregate payments without corresponding growth in actual patient severity, CMS uses a negative documentation and coding adjustment. On September 29, 2007, the Transitional Medical Assistance, Abstinence Education, and Qualifying Individuals Programs Extension Act of 2007, or the TMA Act, was signed into law, thereby reducing the documentation and coding adjustment for MS-DRGs for

 

10


Table of Contents

federal fiscal year 2008 by 0.6%. For federal fiscal year 2009, the negative documentation and coding adjustment for MS-DRGs was 0.9%, yielding a cumulative reduction of 1.5% for federal fiscal year 2009. The TMA Act did not address the adjustment CMS proposed for federal fiscal year 2010. For federal fiscal year 2011, the negative documentation and coding adjustment for MS-DRGs was 2.9%. The TMA Act required CMS to conduct a retrospective review of claims data from federal fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to determine if changes in documentation and coding practices resulted in case mix changes that differ from the adjustments made by the TMA Act. Based on the results of the retrospective data review, CMS is directed to revise payments over federal fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to restore budget neutrality. CMS determined that a negative 5.8% adjustment is necessary to recoup overpayments. The negative 2.9% adjustment for federal fiscal year 2011 was one-half of the recoupment amount, with the second half to be recovered during federal fiscal year 2012. While CMS is completing the recoupment process by applying the remaining 2.9% adjustment, it is simultaneously restoring the negative 2.9% adjustment from federal fiscal year 2011 by adding 2.9% back to the federal fiscal year 2012 reimbursement rates. These adjustments will effectively offset each other and there will be no year-over-year change in the standardized amount due to this recoupment adjustment. CMS is also adopting a prospective adjustment of negative 2.0% in federal fiscal year 2012. This adjustment is designed to ensure that increases in hospital payments due to documentation and coding are not incorporated into the payments made in federal fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.

The net effect of the update factors and adjustments described in the preceding paragraph is a 1.0% increase for federal fiscal year 2012.

Outpatient Payments. The majority of hospital outpatient services and certain Medicare Part B services that are furnished to hospital inpatients with no Part A coverage are also paid by Medicare on a PPS basis. However, certain outpatient services, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, durable medical equipment, clinical diagnostic laboratory services and services at freestanding surgical centers and diagnostic facilities, are paid based on fee schedules established by Medicare.

Under the Medicare PPS, services that are clinically related and use similar resources are grouped together into ambulatory payment classifications, or APCs. Depending on the service rendered during an encounter, a patient may be assigned to a single APC or multiple APCs. Medicare pays a set price or rate for each APC, regardless of the actual costs incurred to provide care. Medicare sets the payment rate for each APC based on historical median cost data, subject to geographic modification. The APC payment rates are updated each federal fiscal year based on the market basket. For federal fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009, the payment rate update factors were 2.4%, 2.1% and 3.6%, respectively. For federal fiscal year 2012, the payment rate update factor is 1.9%, which reflects a 0.1% reduction required by the Health Care Reform Act.

Outlier Payments. In addition to DRG and capital payments, certain of our hospitals qualify for and receive “outlier” payments from Medicare for certain inpatient hospital services. Outlier payments are estimated by CMS to be approximately 5.1% of total inpatient DRG payments. Outlier payments are made for those inpatient discharges where the total cost of care (as determined by using the gross charges adjusted by the hospital’s cost-to-charge ratio) exceeds the total DRG payment plus a fixed threshold amount. In determining the cost-to-charge ratio, Medicare uses the latest of either a hospital’s most recently submitted or most recently settled cost report. The threshold amounts used in the outlier computation for federal fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $23,075, $23,140 and $20,045, respectively. The amount for federal fiscal year 2012 is $22,385. Excluding our Discontinued Operations, 3.0%, 2.2% and 2.1% of our Medicare inpatient DRG payments were for outlier payments during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Medicare fiscal intermediaries have been given specific criteria for identifying hospitals that may have received inappropriate outlier payments. The intermediaries are authorized to recover overpayments, including interest, if the actual cost of the DRG stay (which was reflected in the settled cost report) was less than claimed, or if there were indications of abuse. To avoid overpayment or underpayment of outlier cases, hospitals may request changes to their cost-to-charge ratios.

Disproportionate Share Payments. An additional reimbursement payment is made to hospitals that serve a significantly disproportionate share of low income Medicare and Medicaid patients. This additional payment is based on a hospital’s DRG payments and is paid according to formulae that take into consideration a hospital’s percent of low income patients, status, geographic designation and number of licensed beds. As of December 31, 2011, 42 of our hospitals were located in Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee, states that have a significantly disproportionate share of low income Medicare and Medicaid patients.

 

11


Table of Contents

Rural Health Clinic Payments. A rural health clinic is an outpatient facility primarily engaged in furnishing physician and other health services in accordance with federal guidelines. To qualify, a clinic must be located in a medically under-served area that is non-urbanized, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Payments to rural health clinics for covered services are made via an all-inclusive per visit rate. As of December 31, 2011, we operated seven rural health clinics in Missouri and two in each of Florida and Tennessee.

Ambulatory Surgical Center Payments. Ambulatory surgical centers are distinct facilities that provide surgical services to patients not requiring hospitalization. Such centers may be licensed by the state in which they operate, depending on individual state requirements. Medicare pays for services provided in ambulatory surgical centers that voluntarily sought and received certification and are approved by CMS. Effective January 1, 2008, CMS instituted a new system for reimbursing ambulatory surgical centers, as was mandated by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the 2003 Act. The new reimbursement system is based on the outpatient PPS system, taking into account the lower relative costs of procedures performed in an ambulatory surgical center as compared to a hospital outpatient department. As of December 31, 2011, we had a controlling ownership interest in ten ambulatory surgical centers.

Physician Fees. The Medicare physician fee schedule for federal fiscal year 2012 contained a 27.4% reduction to the physician fee schedule. However, on February 22, 2012, President Obama signed legislation deferring such reduction to December 31, 2012. Without further legislative action, CMS will be required by Medicare to implement the physician payment reduction on January 1, 2013. As of December 31, 2011, we employed approximately 900 physicians.

Reimbursement for Bad Debts. Medicare reimburses hospitals and other health care providers for certain allowable costs that are attributable to uncollectible Medicare beneficiary deductible and coinsurance amounts. Hospitals generally receive an interim pass-through payment for bad debts in an amount determined by the Medicare fiscal intermediary, based on the prior period’s bad debt amounts as reported in the hospital’s cost report. To be an allowable bad debt, the underlying accounts receivable must be related to a covered service and derived from a deductible and/or coinsurance amount. Additionally, the following conditions must be met: (i) a hospital must be able to establish that reasonable collection efforts were undertaken prior to classification as a bad debt; (ii) the debt was actually uncollectible when classified as worthless; and (iii) sound business judgment established that there was no likelihood of recovery of the debt at any time in the future. In determining reasonable cost subject to reimbursement, the amount of bad debts otherwise treatable as allowable is reduced 30% by Medicare. Amounts received by a hospital as reimbursement for bad debts are subject to audit and recoupment by the fiscal intermediary. Bad debt reimbursement has been a focus of fiscal intermediary audit/recoupment efforts in the past. As part of the payroll tax cut extension that was signed into law on February 22, 2012, allowable bad debt expense will be reduced by 35% for Medicare reimbursement purposes beginning in federal fiscal year 2013.

General Legislative Changes. Prior to the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, legislative changes to the Medicare program were historically focused on limiting growth rates for reimbursement and, in some cases, reducing levels of reimbursement for the types of health care services that we provide. For example, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included significant reductions in spending levels for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 mitigated some of the adverse effects of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 through a “corridor reimbursement approach,” whereby a percent of losses under the Medicare outpatient PPS were reimbursed through 2003. The 2003 Act provided an extension, until January 1, 2006, of certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 for small rural and sole community hospitals. Some of our hospitals qualified for relief under this provision.

The Medicare, Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program Benefits Improvement Act of 2000, or BIPA, made a number of changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs that affected payments to hospitals. All of our hospitals qualify for some relief under BIPA. Some of the changes made by BIPA that affect our hospitals include: (i) lowering the threshold by which hospitals qualify as rural or small urban disproportionate share hospitals; (ii) decreasing reductions in payments to disproportionate share hospitals that had been mandated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and other Congressional enactments; (iii) capping Medicare beneficiary ambulatory service co-payment amounts; and (iv) increasing the categories and items eligible for increased reimbursement to hospitals for certain outpatient services rendered, such as certain cancer therapy drugs, biologicals and other medical devices.

The 2003 Act made a number of significant changes to the Medicare program. In addition to a prescription drug benefit program that was intended to provide direct relief to Medicare beneficiaries, the 2003 Act also provided a number of benefits to hospitals, including, but not limited to:

 

   

a permanent increase in the base payment rate for rural and small urban hospitals of 1.6%, up to the large urban payment rate;

 

12


Table of Contents
   

the cap on disproportionate share payments for rural and small urban hospitals was set at 12.0% of total inpatient payments; and

 

   

establishment of a physician incentive program for primary care and certain specialty physicians who provide services to individuals in areas having the fewest physicians available to serve, among others, Medicare beneficiaries.

Under the 2003 Act, Medicare payment considerations have been tied to hospital performance and hospital reporting of quality data and measures. Beginning with federal fiscal year 2009, hospitals have been required to report on 30 quality indicators to qualify for their full market basket update. Those hospitals that did not provide the required information have had their market basket update reduced by 2.0%. Our hospitals participated in the quality data reporting, which we believe will form the basis for future payments. We anticipate that more quality data reporting will be required in the future as government payors continue their analysis and possible movement toward a “pay for performance” model and/or value-purchasing programs.

Impact of the Health Care Reform Act on Medicare Reimbursement

Inpatient Reimbursement. The Health Care Reform Act provides for annual decreases to the market basket update factors, including a 0.25% reduction for discharges that occurred on or after April 1, 2010. The Health Care Reform Act also provides for reductions to the market basket update factors for federal fiscal years 2011 through 2019 of 0.25% (2011), 0.1% (2012-13), 0.3% (2014), 0.2% (2015-16) and 0.75% (2017-19). For federal fiscal year 2012 and each subsequent federal fiscal year, the Health Care Reform Act provides for the annual market basket update factors to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be based on the projected nationwide productivity gains over the ten years preceding the implementation of the Health Care Reform Act, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (which typically uses data that is a few years old). The federal fiscal year 2012 market basket update factor reduction resulting from this productivity adjustment is 1.0%. CMS estimates that the combined market basket update factor and productivity adjustments will increase payments to general acute care hospitals by approximately $1.13 billion during federal fiscal year 2012, as compared to federal fiscal year 2011, but will also reduce Medicare payments under the inpatient PPS by $112.6 billion for the federal fiscal years from 2010 to 2019. Decreases in reimbursement rates or increases in such rates below our cost increases would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

The Health Care Reform Act 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 period of 30 days from a patient’s discharge due to heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia or other conditions designated by HHS. The reduced payments are applicable to all inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excessive readmission standard. Moreover, each hospital’s performance will be publicly reported by HHS. HHS has the discretion to determine what constitutes “excessive” readmissions, the amount of the payment reduction and other elements of this program.

Under the Health Care Reform Act, reimbursement will also be reduced based on “hospital acquired condition,” or HAC, rates. An HAC is a condition that a patient develops while admitted as an inpatient in a hospital, such as a surgical site infection. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, hospitals that nationally rank in the top 25% of HACs for all hospitals in the previous year will receive a 1% reduction in their total Medicare payments. Moreover, effective July 1, 2011, the Health Care Reform Act prohibited the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical services provided to treat HACs.

Outpatient Reimbursement. The Health Care Reform Act provides for reductions to the market basket update factor for outpatient hospital payments for calendar years 2011 through 2019 of 0.25% (2011), 0.1% (2012-13), 0.3% (2014), 0.2% (2015-16) and 0.75% (2017-19). For calendar year 2012 and each subsequent calendar year, the Health Care Reform Act provides for the annual market basket update factor to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment. The amount of that reduction will be based on the projected nationwide productivity gains over the preceding ten years.

Disproportionate Share Payments. Under the Health Care Reform Act, beginning in federal fiscal year 2014, Medicare disproportionate share payments will be reduced to 25% of the amount they otherwise would have been absent the new law. The remaining 75% of the amount that would otherwise be paid as Medicare disproportionate share payments will be pooled, and this pool will be further reduced each year by a formula that reflects reductions in the level of uninsured individuals who are under 65 years of age. Under this provision, the greater the level of coverage for the uninsured, the more the Medicare disproportionate share payment pool will be reduced. Each eligible hospital will ultimately be paid an allocated amount from the pool based on its level of uncompensated care.

 

13


Table of Contents

Ambulatory Surgical Center Payments. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2011, the Health Care Reform Act reduced reimbursement for ambulatory surgical centers through a productivity adjustment to the market basket update factor similar to the productivity adjustment for inpatient and outpatient hospital services.

Value-Based Purchasing. The Health Care Reform Act establishes a value-based purchasing program to further link reimbursement payments to quality and efficiency. Beginning with federal fiscal year 2013, HHS will implement a value-based purchasing program that will reduce inpatient PPS payment amounts for all discharges by federal fiscal year as follows: 1.0% for 2013; 1.25% for 2014; 1.5% for 2015; 1.75% for 2016; and 2.0% 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 meet certain quality performance standards. HHS will have the authority to determine the quality performance measures, the quality performance standards hospitals must achieve 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 eligible hospital will receive from the pool created by the reductions under the value-based purchasing program.

Bundled Payment Pilot Programs. The Health Care Reform Act requires HHS to establish a five-year, voluntary national bundled payment 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 discretion to determine how the program will function, including a determination of the medical conditions that will be covered by the program and the reimbursement amount for each condition.

Electronic Health Records. The Health Care Reform Act provided for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments beginning in federal fiscal year 2011 for eligible hospitals and calendar year 2011 for eligible professionals that have adopted and meaningfully use certified electronic health record, or 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. Through November 2011, CMS reports that it had paid nearly $2 billion in combined meaningful use incentive payments for Medicare and Medicaid.

Under the Medicare incentive program, general acute care hospitals that demonstrate meaningful use of EHR technology in each year of participation will receive incentive payments for up to four fiscal years. To maximize their incentive payments, hospitals must participate in the incentive program by federal fiscal year 2013. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, 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 of EHR technology in each year of participation 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 to maximize their incentive payments and must participate by calendar year 2014 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.

States may voluntarily implement a Medicaid EHR incentive program. For participating states, the Medicaid EHR incentive program will provide incentive payments to (i) general acute care hospitals and eligible professionals that meet certain volume percentages of Medicaid patients and (ii) children’s hospitals. Eligible professionals can only participate in either the Medicaid EHR incentive program or the Medicare EHR incentive program and can change this election only one time. Hospitals may participate in both the Medicare and Medicaid EHR 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. There is no penalty for hospitals or professionals under Medicaid for failing to meet EHR meaningful use requirements.

Medicaid

This section should be read in conjunction with the section below entitled “Impact of the Health Care Reform Act on Medicaid Reimbursement.”

Each state is responsible for administering its own Medicaid program, payment rates and methodologies, as well as covered services, all of which vary from state to state. Although the actual rates vary by state, between 50% and 73% of Medicaid funding comes from the federal government, with the balance shared by state and local

 

14


Table of Contents

governments. The most common payment methodologies include prospective payment systems and programs that negotiate payment rates with individual hospitals. Generally, Medicaid payments are less than Medicare payments and are often less than a hospital’s patient care costs. Hospitals that have an unusually large number of low-income patients (i.e., those with a Medicaid utilization rate of at least one standard deviation above the mean Medicaid utilization, or have a low income patient utilization rate exceeding 25%) are eligible to receive a disproportionate share adjustment. However, Congress has established a national limit on disproportionate share hospital adjustments.

In light of continued economic uncertainty, projected increases to Medicaid program costs and burgeoning budget deficits, the federal government and many states are currently considering ways to limit increases and/or cut Medicaid funding, which could adversely affect future Medicaid payments that we receive. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or the Economic Stimulus Bill, was signed into law in 2009 and, among other things, allocated supplemental federal funding to each state that could be used to benefit individual state Medicaid programs. Although some states used portions of these funds to support their Medicaid programs in 2011 and 2010, we cannot predict whether Congress will reallocate funds for 2012 and beyond. Additionally, the federal government has taken steps to address some of the insurance coverage challenges facing citizens by enacting the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which expanded and extended the benefits available under BIPA, and extending the period of benefit coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, to unemployed individuals through the Economic Stimulus Bill.

We cannot predict what further action the federal government or the states may take under existing and future legislation to close budget gaps or reduce deficit spending.

Impact of the Health Care Reform Act on Medicaid Reimbursement

Medicaid Coverage. The Health Care Reform Act requires that by 2014 states expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 138% (after giving effect to a 5% “income disregard” provision) of the federal poverty level. The Health Care Reform Act requires states to, at a minimum, maintain Medicaid eligibility standards established prior to the enactment of the Health Care Reform Act for adults until January 1, 2014 and for children until October 1, 2019. However, states with budget deficits may seek exemptions from this requirement to address eligibility standards that apply to adults making more than 133% of the federal poverty level.

Disproportionate Share Payments. The Health Care Reform Act reduces funding for the Medicaid disproportionate share payment program for hospitals in federal fiscal years 2014 through 2020. How such cuts are allocated among the states and how the states allocate these cuts among providers have yet to be determined. Additionally, as part of the payroll tax cut extension that was signed into law on February 22, 2012, Medicaid disproportionate share payments will be reduced beginning in federal fiscal year 2021.

Bundled Payment Pilot Programs. The Health Care Reform Act provides for a five-year bundled payment pilot program for Medicaid services. HHS may select up to eight states to participate based on the potential to lower costs under the Medicaid program while improving care. As of December 31, 2011, two states are participating and at least two more states are pursuing legislation to allow their participation in the pilot program. 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. The bundled payments may implicate existing laws, including the Anti-Kickback Statute, as defined below under “Fraud and Abuse Provisions,” and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, privacy, security and transaction standard requirements. However, the Health Care Reform Act 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.

Medicare and Medicaid Regulatory and Audit Impacts

In addition to legislative changes, such as those brought about by the Health Care Reform Act, Medicare and each of the state Medicaid programs are subject to regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, post-payment audits, requirements for utilization review and new government funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease payments we receive, impact our cost of patient care and affect the timing of payments. The final determination of amounts we receive under the Medicare and Medicaid programs often takes many years to resolve because of audits by the programs’ representatives, providers’ rights of appeal and the application of numerous technical reimbursement provisions. We believe that we have made adequate provisions for such potential adjustments. Nevertheless, until final adjustments are made, certain issues remain unresolved and our established allowances may be higher or lower than what is ultimately required.

 

15


Table of Contents

The Medicare program utilizes a system of contracted carriers and fiscal intermediaries across the country to process claims and conduct post-payment audits. CMS is in the midst of an initiative to reform the carrier and fiscal intermediary functions. As part of such reform, CMS has and will continue to competitively bid the carrier and fiscal intermediary functions to Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs. At the present time, CMS has awarded all fifteen of the planned multi-state jurisdiction MAC contracts. Hospital operators have the option to either (i) have each of their hospitals work with the MAC in the jurisdiction where the individual hospital is located or (ii) use the MAC in the jurisdiction where their home office is located for all of their affiliated hospitals. Every year, each MAC is required to complete an Error Rate Reduction Program that includes initiatives to reduce and recover improper payments and may include more robust pre-payment and post-payment reviews for particular claim types. CMS also uses Zone Program Integrity Contractors to identify potential problem areas in coordination with their internal and external partners. The completed and future changes by CMS could affect claims processing, auditing and cash flow to Medicare providers. We cannot predict what, if any, impact such changes will ultimately have on our business.

The Health Care Reform Act increased federal funding for Medicaid Integrity Contractors, or MICs. MICs are private contractors that perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims to identify overpayments. Through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress expanded the federal government’s involvement in fighting fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid program. MICs are currently assigned to five geographic regions and have commenced audits in several of the states assigned to those regions.

The Health Care Reform Act contains provisions relating to recovery audit contractors, or RACs, which are third party organizations under contract with CMS that identify underpayments and overpayments under the Medicare program and recoup overpayments on behalf of the government. The Health Care Reform Act expanded the RAC program’s scope to include Medicaid claims and required all states to enter into contracts with RACs by December 31, 2010. If a state was unable to implement a RAC program by the implementation date of January 1, 2012, then the state was required to request an exception by submitting to CMS a revised State Plan Amendment, or SPA, through the normal SPA process. States have considerable flexibility regarding the design, procurement and operation of their individual RAC programs. RACs are paid a contingency fee based on the overpayments they identify and collect. We expect that RACs will look very closely at claims submitted by hospital operators in an attempt to identify possible overpayments.

Commercial Insurance and Other

In recent years, a number of commercial insurers have undertaken efforts to limit the costs of hospital services by adopting prospective payment or DRG-based systems. To the extent that such efforts are successful and those insurers fail to reimburse hospitals for the costs of providing services to their beneficiaries, such efforts may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

We also provide services to individuals covered by private health insurance plans. Private insurance carriers typically reimburse a provider after the claim is filed; however, reimbursement can be sent directly to the patient based on the underlying insurance policy’s stipulations. Reimbursement from private insurance carriers is often based on rates such as prospective payment systems, per diems or other discounted fee schedules. Private insurance reimbursement varies among payors and states and is generally based on contracts negotiated between the provider and the payor.

Additionally, we provide health care services to individuals covered under workers’ compensation programs, TRICARE/CHAMPUS (for retired military personnel) and other private and government programs. Those programs pay under prospective payment systems, per-diem systems or other discounted fee systems.

Beginning in 2014, the Health Care Reform Act requires individuals to obtain, and employers to provide, health insurance coverage. Additionally, the law requires states to establish health insurance exchanges. The Health Care Reform Act also establishes a number of health insurance market reforms, including bans on lifetime limits and pre-existing condition exclusions, new benefit mandates and increased dependent coverage. By way of example, group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual coverage:

 

   

may not establish lifetime limits or, beginning in 2014, annual limits on the dollar value of benefits;

 

   

may not rescind coverage of an enrollee, except in instances where the individual has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact;

 

   

must reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to enrollees without prior authorization and without regard to whether a participating provider contract is in place; and

 

   

effective for health plan policy years that began on or after September 23, 2010 (for plans that offer dependent coverage), must continue to make dependent coverage available to unmarried dependents until age 26 (coverage for the dependents of unmarried adult children is not required).

We do not yet know what impact the abovementioned increased obligations on managed care payors and other payors will have on our ability to negotiate contracts with such payors.

 

16


Table of Contents

Self-Pay

We provide services to individuals who have no form of health care insurance. These are the types of individuals for whom the Health Care Reform Act is intended to provide insurance coverage. Presently, these patients are evaluated at the time of service or shortly thereafter for their ability to pay based on federal and state poverty guidelines and/or qualifications for Medicaid or other state assistance programs, as well as our company-wide charity and indigent care policy. Gross charges to uninsured patients for non-elective procedures are discounted by 60% or more. Local hospital personnel and our collection agencies pursue payments on accounts receivable from self-pay patients who do not meet our charity and indigent care criteria.

A significant portion of our self-pay patients are admitted through, or treated in, our hospitals’ emergency departments and often require high-acuity treatment. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires any hospital that participates in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every person who presents to a 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. We believe that self-pay patient volume has been impacted during the last several years by a combination of broad economic factors, including high levels of unemployment and reductions in state Medicaid budgets, an increasing number of individuals and employers that choose not to purchase insurance and an increased co-payment and deductible burden that is borne by patients rather than insurers and/or employers.

The Health Care Reform Act 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. The Health Care Reform Act also contains provisions that seek to decrease the number of uninsured individuals, including requirements that individuals obtain, and employers provide, health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. However, many factors are unknown regarding the impact of the Health Care Reform Act, including, among other things, how many previously uninsured individuals will take the steps necessary to obtain insurance coverage as a result of the new law. It is also unknown what change, if any, we will see in the volume of inpatient and outpatient services that are sought by and provided to previously uninsured individuals once they obtain insurance coverage. Moreover, it is difficult to predict the full impact of the Health Care Reform Act due to the law’s complexity, lack of implementing regulations or interpretive guidance, gradual implementation, possible Congressional repeal or amendment and court challenges.

Certain Other Aspects of the Health Care Reform Act

Whole Hospital Exception. The Health Care Reform Act makes changes to the “whole hospital” exception under Section 1877 of the Social Security Act of 1935 (commonly known as the “Stark law”). Those changes effectively prohibit new physician-owned hospitals under the whole hospital exception and limit capacity expansion and the level of physician ownership at grandfathered physician-owned hospitals. As revised, the Stark law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare patients to a hospital in which they have an ownership or investment interest unless the hospital had physician ownership and a Medicare provider agreement in effect as of March 23, 2010 (or, for those hospitals under development, as of December 31, 2010). A physician-owned hospital that meets these requirements will still be subject to restrictions that limit the hospital’s aggregate physician ownership percentage and, with certain narrow exceptions for high Medicaid utilization hospitals, prohibit expansion of the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms and licensed beds. The Health Care Reform Act also subjects physician-owned hospitals to reporting requirements and extensive disclosure requirements on the hospital’s website and in any public advertisements. At December 31, 2011, we had joint ventures with physicians at 24 of our hospitals under the whole hospital exception of the Stark law and there were Medicare provider agreements in effect at all such hospitals. Those grandfathered joint venture hospitals are now subject to the physician ownership and expansion restrictions contained in the Health Care Reform Act.

Accountable Care Organizations and Pilot Projects. The Health Care Reform Act required HHS to establish a Medicare shared savings program that promotes accountability and coordination of care through the creation of Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs. The shared savings program is intended to allow providers (including hospitals), physicians and other designated health care 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 Medicare program’s cost savings.

 

17


Table of Contents

During October 2011, CMS released its final rules on ACOs, ostensibly making it easier for hospitals and physicians to participate in the program. In response to objections raised by the health care industry after release of proposed rules on March 31, 2011, CMS made several concessions in its final rules, including: (i) providers will be allowed to participate in an ACO and share in the cost savings with Medicare without the risk of losing money; (ii) ACOs will be able to start sharing in any cost savings earlier in the process, rather than having Medicare initially retain all such cost savings; (iii) the number of quality measures that ACOs will have to meet to qualify for performance bonuses was reduced from 65 to 33; (iv) at their formation, ACOs will be notified as to which Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be part of their system (under the proposed rules, ACOs would not know which patients were in the ACO until the end of each contract year); (v) community health centers and rural health clinics will be allowed to lead ACOs; and (vi) the timetable for the formation of an ACO was modified, with groups allowed to apply for start dates of January 1, 2012, April 1, 2012, July 1, 2012 or January 1, 2013. To entice providers to form ACOs, CMS stated that it will give physician-owned and rural providers early access to some of the expected savings, specifically $170 million, so that they can have money available upfront to defray ACO start-up costs, including the development and implementation of electronic health records.

Fraud and Abuse Provisions. Medicare and Medicaid anti-kickback and anti-fraud and abuse laws, referred to as the Anti-Kickback Statute, prohibit certain business practices and relationships that might affect the provision and cost of health care services under the Medicare and Medicaid programs and other government programs, including the payment or receipt of remuneration for the referral of patients whose care will be paid for by such programs. The Health Care Reform Act provides that knowledge of the law or the intent to violate the law is not required and also 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 of 1863. Sanctions for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute include criminal and civil penalties, as well as fines and possible exclusion from government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Miscellaneous. The Health Care Reform Act contains numerous other provisions that could affect our business and results of operations, including provisions relating to:

 

   

the establishment of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS, which will have the authority to develop and test new reimbursement methodologies designed to improve the quality of patient care and lower costs;

 

   

the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory Board that will make recommendations to Congress regarding additional changes to provider reimbursement methodologies and other aspects of the nation’s health care system; and

 

   

new taxes on manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, as well as a requirement that manufacturers file annual reports of payments made to physicians.

Utilization Review

In accordance with the requirements of CMS’ Services Conditions of Participation, hospital services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are evaluated to ensure that the care meets professionally recognized standards of practice and are medically necessary. Our hospitals are required to conduct utilization review activities, including medical necessity reviews (admission, continued stay and retrospective), discharge planning and quality improvement initiatives to address identified trends, extended lengths of stay and high cost cases. Additionally, many managed care organizations require utilization reviews.

Compliance Program

Our company-wide compliance program, which was first adopted in 1997, has been designed, implemented and maintained to deter, detect and prevent fraud, abuse and mistakes. We believe that our compliance program meets the standards of an effective compliance program as set forth in the compliance guidance for hospitals issued by the Office of the Inspector General of HHS, the standards of an effective compliance program as set forth in the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines and the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, commonly referred to as HIPAA. We regularly review our compliance program and make changes from time to time and we continue to do so.

Our compliance program consists of an infrastructure that begins at the Board of Directors and executive management levels and runs through our centralized Compliance Office to all home office, divisional and facility operations. Our compliance program includes written guidance such as a Compliance Manual, a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Compliance Policies and Procedures. Among other things, the Compliance Office has developed processes for: (i) the development and delivery of compliance training; (ii) anonymous and confidential reporting; (iii) investigating reported and suspected wrongdoing; (iv) assisting with the development and implementation of corrective actions; and (v) monitoring and auditing of compliance in high risk areas. When they

 

18


Table of Contents

are initially hired and at least annually thereafter, all of our employees receive compliance training relating to these processes as well as our Compliance Manual, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Compliance Policies and Procedures.

Day-to-day leadership of our compliance program is provided by our Vice President of Compliance who reports to our President and Chief Executive Officer and also reports, at least quarterly, to our Corporate Compliance Committee and our Board of Directors through the Audit Committee. At the operational level, each hospital has a designated and trained hospital compliance officer who reports on compliance matters to a divisional compliance officer, who ultimately reports to our Vice President of Compliance.

Employees and Medical Staff

As of December 31, 2011, we had approximately 40,600 employees, including 8,600 part-time employees. At such date, 1,224 of our employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe that our employee relations are satisfactory.

Physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals are, in most cases, not our employees. Such non-employee physicians may also be staff members of other hospitals. As of December 31, 2011, we employed approximately 900 physicians, about half of whom are primary care physicians at practices we own and operate. Additionally, our hospitals provide emergency room, radiology, pathology and anesthesiology services through service contracts with physician groups that are generally cancelable with 90 days advance notice.

Professional Liability and Other Risks

As is typical in the health care industry, we are subject to claims and legal actions by patients and others in the ordinary course of business. We use our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and our risk retention group subsidiary, which are domiciled in the Cayman Islands and South Carolina, respectively, to self-insure a significant portion of our professional liability risks. Those subsidiaries provide (i) claims-made insurance coverage to all of our hospitals and other health care facilities and (ii) occurrence-basis coverage to most of our employed physicians. The employed physicians not covered by our insurance company subsidiaries generally maintain claims-made policies with unrelated third party insurance companies. To mitigate the exposure of the self-insured program covering the hospitals and other health care facilities, our insurance company subsidiaries buy claims-made reinsurance policies from unrelated third parties for claims above certain self-retention levels.

We also maintain directors’ and officers’, property and other typical insurance policies with commercial carriers, subject to self-insurance retention levels. We believe that our insurance is adequate in amount and coverage. However, in the future, insurance may not be available at reasonable prices or we may have to increase our self-insurance retention levels.

Environmental Regulation

We are subject to compliance with various federal, state and local environmental laws, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the disposal of medical waste generated by our hospitals and other health care facilities. Our environmental compliance costs are not significant and we do not anticipate that they will be significant in the future.

Seasonality

We typically experience higher patient volume and net revenue in the first and fourth quarters of each calendar year because, generally, more people become ill during the winter months, which in turn increases the number of patients that we treat during those months.

Available Information

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Therefore, we file periodic reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Such reports may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information regarding the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at (800) SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that includes our reports, proxy statements and other information.

We maintain a website at www.hma.com where we make available, free of charge, documents that we file with, or furnish to, the SEC, including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and any amendments to those reports. We make this information available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with, or furnish such information to, the SEC. Our SEC reports can be found under “Investor Relations” on our website. The other information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with, or furnish to, the SEC.

 

19


Table of Contents

Item 1A.   Risk Factors.

Our business and operations are subject to numerous risks, many of which are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including those under “Business” in Item 1 and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II. The risks described therein and elsewhere in this report are incorporated into this Item 1A by reference.

If any of the events described below occur, our business and results of operations could be harmed. Additional risks and uncertainties that are not presently known to us, or which we currently deem to be immaterial, could also harm our business and results of operations.

We are subject to extensive government regulation regarding the conduct of our operations. If we fail to comply with any existing or new laws or regulations, we could suffer administrative, civil or criminal penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

Companies such as ours that provide health care services are required to comply with many highly complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels, including, but not limited to, those relating to the adequacy of medical care, billing for services, patient privacy, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures and maintenance of records. Our policy is to comply with all applicable laws and regulations; however, if we fail to comply with any such laws or regulations, we could become subject to civil and criminal penalties, including the loss of licenses to operate our facilities. We could also be excluded from participating in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs that contribute significantly to our revenue.

Many of the laws and regulations that govern our operations are highly complex and, in certain cases, we do not have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. In the future, it is possible that different interpretations or enforcement of such laws and regulations, as well as modifications thereof, could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services or capital expenditure programs. Any such changes could harm our business and results of operations.

We are unable to predict the impact that the Health Care Reform Act, which will significantly change the health care industry, will have on our business and results of operations.

The Health Care Reform Act will dramatically change how health care services are covered, delivered and reimbursed through, among other things: a requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance; expanded Medicaid eligibility and coverage for uninsured individuals; reduced growth in Medicare program spending; reductions in Medicare and Medicaid payments; the establishment of value-based purchasing programs where reimbursement is tied to quality; and the elimination of the ability of health care providers like us to enter into new partnerships with physicians in the ownership of certain health care facilities. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act contains provisions designed to strengthen fraud and abuse enforcement, modifies the health insurance industry and expands existing efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to performance and quality.

We believe that the expansion of health insurance coverage under the Health Care Reform Act could increase the number of patients using our facilities who have either private or public program health care coverage. As a result of the increased income eligibility limits under the law, we believe that a large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage will be in states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements. Three such states are Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee where we operated 42 hospitals as of December 31, 2011. It is difficult to predict the impact of changes resulting from the Health Care Reform Act on us because of numerous issues surrounding the implementation of such law, including, but not limited to, uncertainty regarding:

 

   

the possibility that portions of the Health Care Reform Act, such as those expanding health insurance or Medicaid coverage, will be delayed or blocked due to court challenges, or revised or repealed as a result of legislative action, including an appeal currently pending before the United States Supreme Court that will determine the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act (a ruling is expected by July 2012);

 

   

how many previously uninsured individuals will obtain coverage;

 

   

what percent of newly insured patients will be covered under Medicaid or private health insurance programs;

 

   

the pace at which health care insurance coverage expands;

 

   

the change, if any, in the volume of inpatient and outpatient hospital services that are sought by and provided to previously uninsured individuals;

 

   

changes in rates paid to hospitals by private payors;

 

   

changes in rates paid by state governments under the Medicaid program;

 

   

the ability of states to fund their portion of Medicaid payments;

 

   

the extent to which states will enroll new Medicaid participants in managed care programs;

 

20


Table of Contents
   

how the performance and quality programs mandated by the Health Care Reform Act will be implemented; and

 

   

whether the Health Care Reform Act will ultimately cause health insurers to seek to reduce reimbursement payments.

The Health Care Reform Act also provides for significant reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid payments and the establishment of value-based purchasing programs. It is possible that these changes could more than offset other favorable effects from the Health Care Reform Act. It is difficult to predict the impact of the potentially adverse changes on us because of a number of factors, including, but not limited to, uncertainty regarding:

 

   

whether reductions required by the Health Care Reform Act will be modified prior to becoming effective;

 

   

the revenue we will generate from Medicare and Medicaid business when the various reductions and adjustments planned under the Health Care Reform Act are implemented;

 

   

whether the Health Care Reform Act’s performance and quality initiatives will have a negative impact on our business;

 

   

how successful “Accountable Care Organizations” in which we may participate will be at coordinating care and reducing costs;

 

   

changes to revenue as a result of value-based purchasing;

 

   

changes to revenue as a result of bundled payment programs;

 

   

the scope and nature of potential changes to Medicare reimbursement methods; and

 

   

reductions in payments we might receive from Medicare for “excessive readmissions” or “hospital acquired conditions.”

As summarized above and elsewhere in these risk factors, we cannot predict the full impact of the Health Care Reform Act on our business or results of operations because of, among other things: (i) the law’s complexity; (ii) the lack of implementing regulations and/or interpretive guidance; (iii) the timing of the law’s implementation (and possible delays in such implementation); (iv) pending and future legal challenges that seek to delay or block certain of the law’s provisions; and (v) possible legislative amendment or repeal of the law. Additionally, we cannot predict how individuals and businesses will respond to the new mandates and alternatives established under the Health Care Reform Act.

We are subject to “anti-kickback” and “self-referral” laws and regulations that provide for criminal and civil penalties if they are violated.

The health care industry is subject to many laws and regulations that are designed to deter and prevent practices deemed by the government to be fraudulent, abusive or otherwise contrary to government policies. Unless a safe harbor applies, federal and state anti-kickback laws prohibit giving or receiving any consideration in return for physician referrals. Similarly, unless an exception applies, Section 1877 of the Social Security Act of 1935 (commonly known as the “Stark law”) prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to providers of enumerated “designated health services” with whom the physician or a member of the physician’s immediate family has an ownership interest or compensation arrangement. Such referrals are deemed to be “self-referrals” due to the physician’s financial relationship with the entity providing the designated health services. Moreover, many states have adopted or are considering similar legislative proposals, some of which extend beyond the scope of the Stark law to prohibit the payment or receipt of remuneration for the prohibited referral of patients for designated health care services and physician self-referrals, regardless of the source of payment for the patient’s care. The Health Care Reform Act provides that submission of a claim for services generated or items provided in violation of the Stark law constitutes a false or fraudulent claim that may be subject to additional penalties under the federal False Claims Act of 1863, referred to as the False Claims Act.

The Health Care Reform Act provides greater resources to enforce the Stark law, including supplemental federal funding of $350 million over ten years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse. The Health Care Reform Act also changes the intent requirement for health care fraud such that a person need not have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of the law. This change in the intent requirement will likely make it easier for fraud claims to be brought against a health care provider.

We systematically review our operations on a regular basis to monitor compliance with anti-kickback laws, the Stark law and similar state statutes. When evaluating collaborative relationships with physicians, we consider the scope and effect of these statutes and seek to structure the arrangements in full compliance with their provisions. We also maintain a company-wide compliance program to monitor and promote our continued compliance with these and other statutory prohibitions and requirements. Nevertheless, if it is determined that any of our practices or operations violate the anti-kickback laws, the Stark law or similar state statutes, we could become subject to civil

 

21


Table of Contents

and criminal penalties, including exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs that contribute significantly to our revenue. The imposition of penalties for alleged or actual violations of the anti-kickback laws, the Stark law and/or similar state statutes, our inability to comply with changes in such laws and/or significant compliance costs associated with any modified laws and regulations could each harm our business.

Additionally, the anti-kickback laws, the Stark law and similar state statutes are subject to change and interpretations and we may not be able to comply with the modified laws and regulations. Moreover, our continued compliance with any such modified laws and regulations could require us to devote extensive resources, financial and otherwise, to achieving and maintaining compliance.

Providers in the hospital industry have been the subject of federal and state investigations and we could become subject to such investigations or whistleblower lawsuits in the future.

Historically, significant media and public attention has been focused on the hospital industry due to investigations related to referrals, cost reporting and billing practices, laboratory and home health care services and physician ownership of joint ventures involving hospitals. Federal and state government agencies have heightened and coordinated their civil and criminal enforcement efforts. Additionally, the Office of the Inspector General of HHS (“HHS-OIG”) and the U.S. Department of Justice have, from time to time, established enforcement initiatives that focus on specific areas of suspected fraud and abuse. Recent and recently announced initiatives have focused on hospital billing practices (e.g., kyphoplasty, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or ICDs, etc.), health care provider bad debts, disproportionate share payments, reliability of hospital-reported quality measure data, compliance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, MS-DRG coding and serious medical errors.

In March 2005, CMS began implementing a pilot recovery audit contractor program, known as RAC, which covered health care providers in certain states. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 made the RAC program permanent and expanded it to all fifty states. Among other things, RAC auditors, who are independent contractors, focus on the clinical documentation supporting billings under the Medicare program. If an auditor concludes that such documentation does not support the provider’s Medicare billings, CMS will revise the amount due to the provider, compare such amount to what was previously paid and withhold the difference from a current remittance. The affected facility can appeal the auditor’s findings through an administrative process. During federal fiscal year 2011, approximately $797.4 million in overpayments to Medicare providers was identified and collected and $141.9 million in underpayments was returned to Medicare providers under the RAC program. Effective January 1, 2012, a new three-year Recovery Audit Prepayment Review Demonstration was implemented by CMS, which will allow RAC auditors to conduct prepayment claim reviews. CMS believes such prepayment reviews will both assist in lowering the improper payment rate and identifying potential fraud and abuse, as opposed to the traditional post-payment review mechanisms.

The Health Care Reform Act expanded the RAC program’s scope to all of Medicare, including managed Medicare plans and Medicaid claims, and required all states to enter into contracts with RACs by December 31, 2010. If a state was unable to implement a RAC program by the implementation date of January 1, 2012, then the state was required to request an exception by submitting to CMS a revised State Plan Amendment. The Health Care Reform Act also increased federal funding for Medicaid Integrity Contractors (private contractors that perform post- payment audits of Medicaid claims) for federal fiscal year 2011 and beyond. Additionally, several other contractors, including state Medicaid agencies, have increased their audit and review activities.

The federal government may investigate and bring suit under the False Claims Act. Additionally, the False Claims Act permits private individuals to bring qui tam lawsuits, or “whistleblower” actions, against companies on behalf of the government, alleging that a hospital or health care provider has defrauded a federal or state government program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. As discussed under “Legal Proceedings” in Item 3 and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, we have been named, and may be named, in qui tam actions. Because qui tam lawsuits are filed under seal, we could be named in other such lawsuits of which we are not aware. Additionally, as further discussed under “Legal Proceedings” in Item 3 and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, we are subject to government False Claims Act investigations. If the government intervenes in a qui tam action, or brings its own False Claims Act action after an investigation, and prevails, 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. Typically, each false bill submitted by a health care provider to the government is considered a separate false claim and, therefore, penalties under the False Claims Act can be substantial. If the government does not intervene in an action, the qui tam plaintiff may continue to pursue the action independently and the government may seek leave to intervene in the action later in the proceedings. As part of the resolution of a qui tam case, the party filing the initial complaint may share in a portion of any settlement or judgment.

 

22


Table of Contents

There are many potential bases for liability under the False Claims Act. Liability often arises when an entity “knowingly” submits a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The False Claims Act defines the term “knowingly” broadly. Though simple negligence will not give rise to liability under the False Claims Act, submitting a claim with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity constitutes a “knowing” submission under the False Claims Act and, therefore, will qualify for liability. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 expanded the scope of the False Claims Act 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 Care Reform Act, 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, constitutes a violation of the False Claims Act. Thus, if a provider is aware that it has retained an overpayment that it has an obligation to refund, there may be a basis for a False Claims Act violation even if the provider did not know the claim was “false” when it was submitted. Further, the Health Care Reform Act expands the scope of the False Claims Act to cover payments in connection with the new health insurance exchanges to be created by the law, if those payments include any federal funds.

The Health Care Reform Act also significantly changes the False Claims Act by removing the jurisdictional bar for allegations based on publicly disclosed information and reducing the requirements for a qui tam relator to qualify as an “original source.” These changes may increase the False Claims Act exposure for health care providers by enabling a greater number of whistleblowers to bring claims.

We closely monitor our billing and other health care practices to maintain compliance with prevailing industry interpretations of applicable laws and regulations. As further discussed under “Legal Proceedings” in Item 3 and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, we are investigating our compliance in the areas that we believe are the subject of the government investigations, and have undertaken a review of our compliance program. Moreover, government investigations could be initiated that are inconsistent with industry practices and prevailing interpretations of existing laws and regulations. In public statements, government authorities have from time to time taken positions on issues for which little official interpretation was available. Some of those positions appear to be inconsistent with practices that have been common within our industry and, in some cases, have not been challenged. Additionally, some government investigations that were previously conducted under civil provisions of federal law are now being conducted as criminal investigations under fraud and abuse laws and certain government investigations that were previously handled administratively are now being conducted as either civil or criminal investigations under civil and criminal fraud and abuse laws.

We cannot predict the outcome of existing government investigations and qui tam lawsuits or whether we will be the subject of future government investigations, inquiries or whistleblower lawsuits. Any determination that we have violated applicable laws or regulations or even a public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations could harm our business and results of operations. Government investigations, as well as qui tam lawsuits, may lead to material fines, penalties, damages payments or other sanctions, including exclusion from government health care programs. Settlements of lawsuits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require monetary payments, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

Additionally, HHS-OIG regularly negotiates corporate integrity agreements, or CIAs, with health care providers as part of the settlement of federal health care program investigations arising under the False Claims Act and other laws. HHS-OIG has the power to exclude providers from federal health care programs and often threatens to exercise that power unless a provider agrees to the terms of a CIA. Although each CIA is different, there are some common provisions. For instance, a CIA generally lasts five years, requires the implementation of specified HHS-OIG compliance policies and procedures and mandates the retention of an independent review organization that is authorized to conduct reviews of the provider. If we were to enter into a CIA as part of a settlement with HHS-OIG in connection with any existing or future proceeding, these and other terms of a CIA could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

We could fail to comply with laws and regulations regarding patient privacy and patient information security that could subject us to civil and criminal penalties or harm our results of operations.

There have been numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing patient privacy and security standards related to patient information. In particular, federal regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, contain provisions that required us to implement and, in the future, may require us to implement additional costly electronic media security systems and to adopt new business practices designed to protect the privacy and security of each of our patient’s health and related financial information. Such privacy and security regulations impose extensive administrative, physical and technical requirements on us, restrict our use and disclosure of certain patient health and financial information, provide patients with rights with respect to their health information and require us to enter into contracts extending many of the privacy and security regulatory requirements to third parties that perform duties and services on our behalf. We

 

23


Table of Contents

are also required to make certain expenditures to help ensure our continued compliance with such laws and regulations and, in the future, such expenses could negatively impact our results of operations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, referred to as the Economic Stimulus Act, included provisions for heightened enforcement of HIPAA and stiffer penalties for HIPAA violations. If we violate or fail to comply with any such laws or regulations, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties or it might be necessary for us to increase the personnel, financial and technological resources we devote to our operations to achieve compliance. Moreover, a violation or failure to comply with any such laws or regulations could cause harm to our reputation which, in turn, could result in our patients seeking health care services at facilities that are not operated by us. If any of the foregoing events were to occur, our business and results of operations could be harmed.

If any of our existing health care facilities lose their accreditation or any of our new facilities fail to receive accreditation, such facilities could become ineligible to receive reimbursement under the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health programs, which could harm our business and adversely affect our results of operations.

The construction and operation of health care facilities are subject to extensive federal, state and local regulation relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, fire prevention, rate-setting and compliance with building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, such facilities are subject to periodic inspection by government authorities to assure their continued compliance with the relevant standards.

All of our hospitals (and substantially all of our laboratories, home health agencies and other health care facilities) are accredited, meaning that they are properly licensed under the relevant state laws and regulations and certified under the Medicare program. The effect of maintaining accredited facilities is to allow such facilities to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Should any of our health care facilities lose their accredited status and thereby lose certification under the Medicare or Medicaid programs, such facilities would be unable to receive reimbursement from either of those programs and our business and results of operations could be harmed. Because the requirements for accreditation are subject to modification, it may be necessary for us to affect changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel and services to maintain accreditation. Such changes could be expensive and could adversely affect our results of operations.

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

The construction of new health care facilities, the acquisition of existing health care facilities and the addition of new beds or services at existing health care facilities may be reviewed by state regulatory agencies under certificate of need and similar laws. Except for Arkansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas, all other states where our hospitals operate have certificate of need or similar laws. Such laws generally require state agency determination of public need and local agency approval prior to the construction of a new hospital facility and/or the addition of new beds or significant services to a hospital, or a related capital expenditure. Failure to obtain the necessary approvals in these states could: (i) result in our inability to complete a particular hospital acquisition, expansion or replacement; (ii) make a facility ineligible to receive reimbursement under the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs; (iii) result in the revocation of a facility’s license; or (iv) impose civil and criminal penalties on us, any of which could harm our business and results of operations.

Our operations are subject to occupational health, safety and other similar regulations and failure to comply with such regulations could harm our business and results of operations.

We are subject to a wide variety of federal, state and local occupational health and safety laws and regulations. Regulatory requirements affecting us include, but are not limited to, those covering: (i) air and water quality control; (ii) occupational health and safety (e.g., standards regarding blood-borne pathogens and ergonomics, etc.); (iii) waste management; (iv) the handling of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and radioactive substances; and (v) other hazardous materials. If we fail to comply with those standards, we may be subject to sanctions and penalties that could harm our business and results of operations.

We could fail to comply with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, or EMTALA, which could subject us to civil monetary penalties or cause us to be excluded from participation in the Medicare program.

All of our facilities are subject to EMTALA, which requires every hospital participating in the Medicare program to conduct a medical screening examination of each person presented for treatment at its emergency room. If a patient is in active labor or suffering from an emergency medical condition, the hospital must either stabilize that condition or make an appropriate transfer of the patient to a facility that can handle the condition, regardless of

 

24


Table of Contents

the patient’s ability to pay for care. EMTALA imposes severe penalties if a hospital fails to screen, appropriately stabilize or transfer a patient, or if a hospital delays service while first inquiring about the patient’s ability to pay. Such penalties include, but are not limited to, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in the Medicare program. In addition to civil monetary penalties, an aggrieved patient, a patient’s family or a medical facility that ultimately suffers a financial loss as a direct result of a transferring hospital’s EMTALA violation can commence a civil suit under EMTALA. Although we believe that our facilities comply with EMTALA, there can be no assurances that claims will not be brought against us and, if successfully asserted against one or more of our hospitals, such claims could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Increased state regulation of the rates we charge for our services could adversely affect our results of operations.

We currently operate one hospital in West Virginia, a state that requires us to submit annual requests for increases in our rates. Accordingly, the operating margins for our West Virginia hospital may be adversely affected if we are unable to increase our rates as our expenses increase, or if the rates we charge are decreased as a result of regulatory action. If other states in which we operate enact similar rate-setting laws, those actions could harm our business and results of operations.

Continued weak economic conditions could adversely impact our business and results of operations.

Our future patient volume, the ability to collect our accounts receivable and our overall future results of operations could be materially adversely impacted by a continuation of the current weak economic conditions, especially levels of unemployment that are substantially higher than historical trends. While certain health care spending is considered non-discretionary and may not be significantly impacted by economic downturns, other types of health care spending may be adversely impacted by these conditions. When individuals are experiencing personal financial difficulties or have concerns about general economic conditions, they may choose to defer or forego elective surgeries and other non-emergent procedures, which are generally more profitable lines of business for hospitals. Moreover, a greater number of uninsured patients may seek care in our emergency rooms. We believe that a persistent weak economy could: (i) increase the number of uninsured people, which would likely increase our costs for uncompensated patient care; (ii) reduce our revenue due to decreased funding from Medicaid and other state health care programs that are struggling financially; (iii) reduce the number of elective surgeries and other procedures performed at our hospitals and other health care facilities; and (iv) threaten the solvency of managed care health plans and others that do business with us, each of which could adversely impact our business and results of operations.

Growth in the number of uninsured and underinsured patients or deterioration in the collectability of the accounts of such patients could adversely affect our results of operations.

The principal collection risks for our accounts receivable relate to uninsured patient accounts and patient accounts for which the primary insurance carrier has paid the amounts required by the applicable agreement but patient responsibility amounts (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, other amounts not covered by insurance, etc.) remain outstanding. Our provision for doubtful accounts provides for, among other things, amounts due from such patients. The determination of the amount of our provision for doubtful accounts is based on, among other things, our assessment of historical cash collections and accounts receivable write-offs, expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal, state and private employer health care coverage and other relevant key indicators. If we experience significant increases in uninsured and underinsured patients and/or uncollectible accounts receivable, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

In accordance with our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, as well as the provisions of EMTALA, we provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to one of our hospitals while in active labor and/or seeking medical treatment (whether or not such individual is eligible for insurance benefits and regardless of ability to pay) to determine if such individual has an emergency medical condition. If it is determined that such person has an emergency medical condition, we provide further medical treatment as is required to stabilize the patient’s medical condition, within the facility’s capability, or arrange for the transfer of such patient to another medical facility in accordance with applicable law and the treating hospital’s written procedures. If our volume of indigent and charity care patients with emergency medical conditions increases significantly, our results of operations may be adversely impacted.

The Health Care Reform Act seeks to decrease, over time, the uninsured population. Among other things, the Health Care Reform Act will, effective January 1, 2014, expand Medicaid eligibility and incentivize employers to offer, and require individuals to carry, health insurance or be subject to penalties. Even after full implementation of the Health Care Reform Act, we may continue to experience a high level of uncollectible accounts and provide discounts to, and charity care for, certain individuals who are not enrolled in a health care program under the law.

 

25


Table of Contents

If government programs or managed care companies reduce the payments we receive as reimbursement for the health care services we provide, whether as a result of the implementation of the Health Care Reform Act or otherwise, our revenue could decline and our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We derive a substantial portion of our revenue from federal and state government reimbursement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Such programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations concerning, among other things: (i) patient eligibility requirements and the method of calculating payments or reimbursement; (ii) requirements for utilization review activities; and (iii) federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease the payments to us in the future, as well as affect the timing of such payments.

Previous changes in the Medicare and Medicaid programs have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for health care services. Specifically, the Health Care Reform Act provides for significant reductions in the growth of Medicare program spending, including reductions in market basket update factors and disproportionate share payments. Reductions to our Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement by the Health Care Reform Act could harm our business and adversely impact our results of operations, especially in the short-term before we experience any potential increases in revenue from providing care to previously uninsured individuals.

Pressure on federal and state programs, which has increased as a result of the prolonged economic downturn, may also impact the availability of taxpayer funds for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For example, a number of states are experiencing substantial budget shortfalls and, as a result, have adopted legislation, or are considering legislation, designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures and/or reduce the number of Medicaid enrollees. We are unable to predict the potential effects that future government health care funding policy changes will have on our operations. Moreover, in response to the Health Care Reform Act and state budgetary fiscal pressures, many states are seeking waivers and demonstration program approval from CMS with respect to their Medicaid programs. The proposals are varied and include, among other things, features such as mandatory managed care, capitated managed care and a prioritized list of health care services to define a state program’s benefit package. We cannot predict which, if any, of these or other waivers and demonstrations will be permitted within the states where we operate. If the rates paid by government payors are reduced or if the scope of services covered by government payors is limited, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, third party payors, including managed care health plans, are increasingly demanding discounted fee structures or the assumption by health care providers of all or a portion of the financial risk through, among other means, capitation arrangements under which health care providers are paid a fixed fee per enrolled participant, regardless of the level of services provided to that participant. Efforts by third parties to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and enforce stringent cost controls are expected to continue. In fact, as the Health Care Reform Act is implemented over time, third party payors may increasingly 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 that are favorable to us. It would harm our business if we were unable to enter into arrangements with managed care health plans on economic terms that are acceptable to us. Material reductions in the payments that we receive for our services or difficulties collecting our accounts receivable from managed care health plans could each adversely affect our business and results of operations.

If unfavorable Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement changes result from the Budget Control Act of 2011, our business and results of operations could be harmed.

The Budget Control Act of 2011, or the BCA, was enacted on August 2, 2011. Among other things, the BCA (i) increased the federal debt ceiling by approximately $900 billion and (ii) immediately cut and capped federal discretionary spending, excluding the Medicare and Medicaid programs, thereby saving an estimated $917 billion over the next ten years. The BCA also established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Deficit Reduction Committee”), a twelve-member bipartisan joint committee of Congress. The primary goal of the Deficit Reduction Committee was to propose legislation by November 23, 2011 to further reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. Those deficit reduction measures were expected to be in addition to those already contained in the Health Care Reform Act. Pursuant to the BCA, if the legislation proposed by the Deficit Reduction Committee was not approved by Congress by December 23, 2011 and enacted into law by January 15, 2012 or if the Congressionally approved legislation did not achieve a federal deficit reduction in an amount of at least $1.2 trillion, then spending cuts aggregating $1.2 trillion over the next ten years (less any amount that resulted from earlier Congressional action) would automatically begin in January 2013. The Deficit Reduction Committee failed to propose legislation by December 23, 2011. Therefore, the reductions and spending cuts dictated by the BCA, which are required to be split equally between defense and non-defense programs, are scheduled to take effect beginning in

 

26


Table of Contents

January 2013. Payments to Medicare providers are included in the automatic spending cuts; however, the BCA provides that Medicare payments may be reduced by no more than 2% and certain other programs, including Medicaid, would be exempt from the automatic spending cuts. At this time, we are unable to determine how the automatic Congressional spending cuts will affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement in the future; however, significant reimbursement reductions or other program modifications that result from the BCA could harm our business and results of operations.

Controls designed by third parties to reduce inpatient services may reduce our revenue.

Controls imposed by third party payors that are designed to reduce admissions and average length of hospital stays, commonly referred to as “utilization reviews,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our operations. Utilization reviews entail an evaluation of a patient’s admission and course of treatment by managed care health plans. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively impacted by payor-required pre-admission authorization, utilization reviews and payor pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose stringent cost controls are expected to continue. For example, the Health Care Reform Act expands the use of prepayment and postpayment reviews by Medicare and Medicaid contractors. Although we cannot predict the effect that these changes will have on our operations, limitations on the scope of services for which we are reimbursed and/or downward pressure on reimbursement rates and fees as a result of utilization reviews could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our substantial borrowings have, and will continue to have, a significant effect on our business and may affect our ability to secure additional financing when needed.

As of December 31, 2011, we had approximately $3.6 billion of long-term debt and capital lease obligations, as well as availability of $400.3 million under a long-term revolving credit facility. Our ability to service, repay or refinance our indebtedness or secure additional capital resources to fund our operational, acquisition and other growth strategies will depend on, among other things, our future operating performance. Those operating results may be affected by general economic, competitive, regulatory, business and other factors beyond our control. We believe that our future cash flow from operating activities, together with currently available and potentially new financing arrangements, will be sufficient to fund our operating, strategic growth, capital expenditure and debt service requirements. However, if we fail to meet our financial obligations or if supplemental financing is not available to us on satisfactory terms when needed, our business could be harmed.

Our substantial leverage, debt service requirements and covenant restrictions/limitations could have other important consequences to us, including, but not limited to, the following:

 

   

Our senior secured credit facilities, which are described at Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, and the indentures governing our senior notes and our convertible senior subordinated notes contain, and any future debt obligations that we incur will likely contain, covenants and restrictions that, among other things, require us to maintain compliance with certain financial ratios. If we do not comply with these or other financial covenants in those arrangements, an event of default may result, which, if not cured or waived, could require us to immediately repay or refinance our indebtedness. Additionally, an event of default under our senior secured credit facilities would permit the lenders to terminate all commitments to extend further credit to us under such facility. Furthermore, if we become unable to repay the amounts due and payable under our senior secured credit facilities, the lenders could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure that indebtedness. In the event that our lenders accelerate the repayment of our borrowings, we may not have sufficient assets to repay that indebtedness. Moreover, covenant violations could also subject us to higher interest and financing costs on our debt obligations and our credit ratings could be adversely affected.

 

   

In the event of a default under one or more of our debt arrangements, we may be forced to pursue alternative strategies, such as restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness, selling core assets, reducing or delaying capital expenditures or seeking additional equity capital. There can be no assurances that any of these strategies could be effectuated on satisfactory terms, if at all, or that sufficient funds could be obtained to make required debt service payments. Additionally, a debt restructuring could subject us to higher interest and financing costs and our credit ratings could be adversely affected.

 

   

In the event of higher interest rates in the marketplace or if we fail to timely register certain of our debt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as described at Note 2(b) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, we could be exposed to higher interest and financing costs on our variable rate long-term borrowings.

 

27


Table of Contents
   

We are required to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness, which may reduce the amount of discretionary funds available for our other operational needs and growth objectives.

 

   

Because of the need for increased cash flow to service our debt arrangements, we may be more vulnerable to a decline in our business, changes in the health care industry or prolonged weak economic conditions.

 

   

Our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the health care industry may be limited.

 

   

We may be at a disadvantage in the markets where our hospitals and other health care facilities operate when compared to our competitors and peers that have less debt or less restrictive covenants.

 

   

We may be limited in our ability to obtain financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes on acceptable terms on a timely basis, or at all.

The terms of our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our senior notes and our convertible senior subordinated notes restrict our current and future operations, particularly our ability to take certain actions, which could harm our business.

Our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our senior notes and our convertible senior subordinated notes contain a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operational and financial restrictions on us and may limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interest. Among other things, those covenants impose restrictions on our ability to:

 

   

incur additional indebtedness;

 

   

pay dividends or make other distributions or repurchase or redeem capital stock;

 

   

prepay, redeem or repurchase certain debt;

 

   

make loans and investments;

 

   

consolidate, merge or sell all or substantially all of our assets;

 

   

incur liens;

 

   

grant additional security interests and provide new guarantees;

 

   

enter into transactions with affiliates;

 

   

enter into sale-leaseback transactions;

 

   

invest in joint ventures and make capital expenditures; and

 

   

alter the businesses we conduct.

As a result of these restrictions, we may be: (i) limited in how we conduct our business; (ii) unable to raise additional debt or equity financing when necessary or desirable; or (iii) unable to compete effectively or take advantage of new business opportunities. These restrictions could materially affect our ability to grow our business in accordance with our strategic operational and growth initiatives, which would harm our business.

If credit markets become unstable and we are not able to access them to obtain financing on commercially reasonable terms when needed or desirable, our business could be materially harmed and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our ability to secure additional capital resources to fund our operational and growth strategies may depend on our ability to access the credit markets. During the past few years, credit markets have experienced unstable conditions and, for a period of time, they were essentially unavailable due to a severe banking crisis. We cannot predict whether we will be able to access the credit markets when necessary or desirable. If we are not able to access credit markets and obtain financing on commercially reasonable terms when needed, our business could be materially harmed and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

We are presently the subject of legal proceedings that, if resolved unfavorably, could have an adverse effect on us.

We are a party to various ongoing government investigations, legal proceedings and other related matters, which are described under “Legal Proceedings” in Item 3 and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II. Those proceedings include, among other things, government investigations. Should an unfavorable outcome occur in some or all of our current legal proceedings, or if successful claims and other actions are brought against us in the future, there could be a materially adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

 

28


Table of Contents

As described above in further detail, government investigations, as well as qui tam lawsuits, may lead to material fines, penalties, damages payments or other sanctions, including exclusion from government health care programs. Settlements of lawsuits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments and corporate integrity agreements, each of which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

We may incur liabilities not covered by our insurance or which exceed our insurance limits, or a party to our insurance program could become insolvent or otherwise not meet its contractual obligations.

In the ordinary course of business, our subsidiary hospitals and other health care facilities and our employed physicians are subject to medical malpractice lawsuits, product liability lawsuits and other legal actions. Some of these actions may involve large claims, as well as significant defense costs. We self-insure a substantial portion of our professional liability risks. Based on our past experience and current actuarial estimates, we believe that our insurance coverage and our self-insurance reserves are sufficient to cover claims arising from the operations of our subsidiary hospitals and other health care facilities and our physician practices. However, if payments for indemnity claims and related expenses exceed our estimates or if payments are required to be made by us that are not covered by insurance, our business could be harmed and our results of operations could be adversely impacted. Also, one or more of the unrelated insurance and reinsurance companies that provide us coverage could become insolvent or otherwise be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations to us, each of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our facilities are heavily concentrated in Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee, which makes us sensitive to regulatory, economic and competitive changes in those states, as well as the harmful effects of hurricanes and other severe weather activity in regions in and around the Gulf of Mexico.

As of December 31, 2011, we operated 66 hospitals, including 42 in Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee. Our home office is also located in Florida. Such geographic concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive conditions in those states. Any material changes in those factors in Florida, Mississippi or Tennessee could have a disproportionate effect on our business and results of operations.

Moreover, regions in and around the Gulf of Mexico commonly experience hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions. As a result, certain of our health care facilities, especially those in Florida and Mississippi, and our home office are susceptible to physical damage and business interruption from an active hurricane season or a single severe storm. Moreover, global climate change could increase the intensity of individual hurricanes or the number of hurricanes that occur each year. Even if our facilities are not directly damaged, we may experience considerable disruptions in our operations due to property damage experienced in storm-affected areas by our patients, physicians, payors, vendors and others. Additionally, long-term adverse weather conditions, whether caused by global climate change or otherwise, could cause an outmigration of people from the communities where our hospitals are located. If any of the circumstances described above occurred, there could be a harmful effect on our business and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

The failure of certain employers or the closure of certain facilities could have a disproportionate impact on our hospitals and harm our business.

The economies in the non-urban communities where our hospitals operate are often dependant on a small number of large employers. Those employers often provide income and health insurance for a disproportionately large number of community residents who may depend on our hospitals and other health care facilities for their care. The failure of one or more large employer or the closure or substantial reduction in the number of individuals employed at facilities located in or near the communities where our hospitals operate, could cause affected employees to move elsewhere to seek employment or lose insurance coverage that was otherwise available to them. The occurrence of these events could adversely affect our revenue and results of operations, thereby harming our business.

Our growth strategy depends, in part, on acquisitions. However, we may not be able to continue to acquire hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses that meet our target criteria. We may also have difficulty acquiring hospitals from not-for-profit entities due to regulatory scrutiny and other restrictions.

Acquisitions of general acute care hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses in non-urban markets are part of our overall growth strategy. We face competition for potential acquisition targets primarily from other for-profit health care companies. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we do. Additionally, many states have enacted, or from time to time consider enacting, laws that affect the conversion or sale of not-for-profit hospitals to for-profit entities. These laws generally require prior approval from state attorneys general, advance notification and community involvement. Moreover, attorneys general in states without specific conversion

 

29


Table of Contents

legislation may exercise broad discretionary authority over such transactions. Although the level of government involvement varies from state to state, the trend is to provide increased regulatory review and, in some cases, approval of a transaction where a not-for-profit entity sells a health care facility to a for-profit entity. The adoption of new or expanded conversion legislation, increased review of not-for-profit hospital conversions or our inability to effectively compete against other potential buyers could make it more difficult for us to acquire hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses, increase our acquisition costs and/or make it difficult for us to complete acquisitions that otherwise meet our target criteria, any of which could adversely affect our growth strategy and results of operations.

The Health Care Reform Act restricts our ability to enter into new joint ventures with physicians and subjects our existing joint ventures to substantial limitations. Because these joint ventures were an important part of our growth strategy prior to the enactment of the Health Care Form Act, the new restrictions may have an adverse effect on our business.

At a number of our hospitals, we have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of the facility. Such arrangements were entered into under a provision of the Stark law that allowed physicians to invest in an entire hospital, such provision is commonly referred to as the “whole hospital” exception. The Health Care Reform Act changed the whole hospital exception such that existing physician investments in a whole hospital are only permitted to continue under a grandfather clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements. However, physicians are now prohibited from increasing their aggregate ownership percentage in any grandfathered joint venture hospital and/or entering into new hospital joint ventures. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act restricts the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms and licensed beds that they operate. Prior to the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, joint ventures with physician partners had been an important component of our growth strategy. Our inability to enter into future hospital joint ventures with physicians may slow our strategic growth plans. Moreover, we may be unable to expand the services at our affected hospitals and/or effectively compete in certain markets if the Health Care Reform Act or other laws and regulations materially restrict our grandfathered joint venture hospitals from increasing their operating rooms, procedure rooms and licensed beds, each of which could adversely affect our results of operations and harm our business.

We may fail to improve or integrate the operations of the hospitals we acquire, which could harm our results of operations.

Prior to their acquisition, most of the hospitals we acquire were experiencing operating losses or had significantly lower operating margins than the hospitals we operate. We may be unable to timely and effectively integrate the hospitals that we acquire with our ongoing operations or we may experience delays implementing operating procedures and systems at those hospitals. Integrating a new hospital can be expensive and time consuming and could disrupt our ongoing business, negatively affect our cash flow and distract management and other key personnel. Acquired hospitals require transitions from, and the integration of, operations, personnel and information systems. If we are unable to improve the operating margins of the hospitals we acquire, operate such hospitals profitably or effectively and timely integrate their operations, our results of operations could be harmed.

The availability of approved Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers may be delayed following our acquisition of a hospital.

Following an acquisition, we generally seek approval to use the predecessor hospital’s provider numbers for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. If we are unable to obtain the necessary approvals to use such provider numbers on a timely basis, our receipt of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement could be delayed. Such delays could temporarily harm our cash flows.

If we acquire hospitals or other ancillary health care businesses with unknown or contingent liabilities, we could become liable for material obligations.

Hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses that we acquire may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including, but not limited to, liabilities for failure to comply with health care laws and regulations, medical and general professional liabilities, workers’ compensation liabilities, tax liabilities and liabilities for unacceptable business practices. Although we typically exclude significant liabilities from our acquisition transactions and seek indemnification from the sellers for these matters, we could experience difficulty enforcing those obligations or we could incur material liabilities for the pre-acquisition activities of the hospitals and other ancillary health care facilities that we acquire. Such liabilities and related legal or other costs could harm our business and results of operations.

 

30


Table of Contents

Other hospitals and freestanding outpatient facilities provide services similar to ours, which may raise the level of competition we face and adversely affect our results of operations.

The health care industry is highly competitive and competition among hospitals and other health care providers has intensified in recent years. In some of the geographic areas where we operate, there are other hospitals that provide services comparable to those offered by our hospitals and other health care facilities. Some of those competitor hospitals are owned by government agencies and supported by tax revenue and others are owned by not-for-profit corporations and may be supported, in part, by endowments and charitable contributions. Such support is not available to our hospitals. In some cases, our competitors may be a significant distance away from our facilities; however, patients in our markets may migrate, may be referred by local physicians or may be required by their health plan to travel to these hospitals for care. Furthermore, some of our competitors may be better equipped than us and can offer a broader range of services than we do. Additionally, outpatient treatment and diagnostic imaging facilities, outpatient surgical centers, specialized care providers (e.g., oncology, physical therapy, etc.) and freestanding ambulatory surgical centers (each of which may have physician ownership interests) have increased in number and accessibility in recent years. This broader selection of health care facilities in the communities that we serve has challenged our market share. If our hospitals and other health care facilities are not able to effectively attract patients, our business and results of operations could be harmed.

If we are not able to provide high quality medical care at a reasonable price, patients may choose to receive their health care from our competitors.

In recent years, the number of quality measures that hospitals are required to report publicly has increased. CMS publishes performance data related to quality measures and data on patient satisfaction surveys that hospitals submit in connection with the Medicare program. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act requires all hospitals to annually establish, update and make public a list of their standard charges for products and services. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results on their quality measures or patient satisfaction surveys (or results that are lower than our competitors) or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, our patient volume could decline because patients may elect to use competing hospitals or other health care providers that have better metrics and pricing. This circumstance could harm our business and results of operations.

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

Physicians make admitting and other decisions regarding the appropriate course of patient treatment, which, in turn, affect hospital revenue. Therefore, the success of our hospitals depends, in part, on the number and quality of the physicians on their medical staffs, the admitting practices of those physicians and continued good relations with such physicians. Many of the physicians working at our hospitals are not our employees and, in a number of the markets that we serve, they have admitting privileges at hospitals other than our own. If we are unable to provide adequate support personnel or technologically advanced equipment and facilities that meet physicians’ needs, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Additionally, we could find it difficult to attract an adequate number of physicians to practice in certain of the non-urban communities where our hospitals are located. An inability to recruit physicians to those communities or the loss of physicians in those communities could make it difficult to attract patients to our hospitals and thereby harm our business and results of operations. On a national level, a shortage of physicians is a possible unintended consequence of the Health Care Reform Act. The millions of uninsured individuals who will obtain insurance under the new law will eventually be in need of primary care and other physicians, whose numbers may not increase proportionately. In the future, this shortage may require us to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain qualified physicians or require us to hire expensive temporary and per diem personnel.

If we do not continually enhance our hospitals with the most recent technological advances in diagnostic and surgical equipment, our ability to maintain and expand our markets will be adversely affected.

The technology used in medical equipment and related devices is constantly evolving and, as a result, manufacturers and distributors continue to offer new and upgraded products to health care providers. To compete effectively, we must continually assess our equipment needs and upgrade when significant technological advances occur. If our hospitals do not stay current with technological advances in the health care industry, patients may seek treatment from other providers and/or physicians may refer their patients to alternate sources, which could adversely affect our results of operations and harm our business.

 

31


Table of Contents

Our hospitals face competition for medical support staff, including nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians and other personnel, which may increase our labor costs and adversely affect our business.

We are highly dependent on our experienced medical support personnel, including nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians, seasoned local hospital management and other medical personnel. We compete with other health care providers to recruit and retain these health care professionals. On a national level, a shortage of nurses and certain other medical support personnel has been a significant operating issue for a number of health care providers. In the future, this shortage may require us to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain such personnel or require us to hire expensive temporary and per diem personnel. Additionally, to the extent that a significant portion of our employee base unionizes, or attempts to unionize, our labor costs could increase. Certain proposed changes in federal labor laws, such as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009, could increase the likelihood of unionization at our facilities. If our wages and related expenses rise, we may not be able to correspondingly increase our reimbursement rates. Our inability to recruit and retain qualified hospital management, nurses and other medical support personnel or our inability to modulate labor costs could adversely affect our results of operations and harm our business.

We depend heavily on key management personnel and the loss of the services of one or more of our key executives or a significant portion of our local hospital management personnel could harm our business.

Our success depends, in large part, on the skills, experience and efforts of our senior management team and the efforts, ability and experience of key members of our local hospital management teams. We do not maintain employment agreements with our management personnel. The loss of the services of one or more members of our senior management team or a significant portion of our local hospital management teams could significantly weaken our ability to efficiently deliver health care services, which could harm our business.

Our business could be harmed by a failure of our proprietary information technology system.

The performance of our proprietary management information system, known as the Pulse System®, is critical to our business operations. Any failure that causes a material interruption in the availability of the Pulse System® could adversely affect our operations or delay our cash collections. Although we have implemented antivirus, network security and disaster recovery measures, our servers could become vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins, disruptions from unauthorized tampering, hurricane-related failures and other extreme weather conditions. Any of these circumstances could result in interruptions, delays, the loss or corruption of data, or a general lack of availability of the Pulse System®, each of which could harm our business and results of operations. Moreover, in the event of a failure of the Pulse System®, we may be required to devote substantial personnel, financial and technological resources to correct any then existing deficiencies and/or enhance the system design to prevent such a failure from occurring again in the future, which could also harm our business and results of operations.

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

As required by the portion of the Economic Stimulus Act commonly referred to as “HITECH,” CMS has developed and is implementing an incentive payment program for eligible hospitals and health care professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record technology. HHS is using the Provider Enrollment, Chain and Ownership System, or PECOS, to verify Medicare enrollment prior to making electronic health record incentive program payments. If our hospitals or physicians 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 an electronic health record system. Further, beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, eligible hospitals and professionals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology will be subject to reduced payments from Medicare. Any failure by us to effectively implement an electronic health record system in a timely manner, or maintain currently compliant systems, could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

HITECH provides that patients have the right to receive information regarding their treatment and the payments made for their health care services during the three years prior to their request. HHS released a proposed rule on May 31, 2011 that would require hospitals and health care professionals to keep records about not only disclosures of, but also internal access to, certain patient health records. If implemented, such proposed rule would mean, among other things, that patients would have a right to request the names of every person who viewed their records. If implemented in its current form, the proposed rule could require us to devote significant resources to further enhance our recordkeeping systems.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

 

32


Table of Contents

Item 2.   Properties.

The table below presents certain information with respect to our hospitals as of December 31, 2011. For more information regarding the utilization of our facilities, see “Business - Selected Operating Statistics” in Item 1.

 

  Hospital    City    Licensed
Beds
   Operational
Status
   Date Acquired    
  Alabama            
  Riverview Regional Medical Center (1)    Gadsden    281    Owned    July 1991
  Stringfellow Memorial Hospital (1)    Anniston    125    Leased    January 1997
  Arkansas            
  Summit Medical Center (1)    Van Buren    103    Leased    May 1987
  Sparks Health System    Fort Smith    492    Owned    December 2009
  Florida            
  Highlands Regional Medical Center    Sebring    126    Leased    August 1985
  Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center (1)    Greater Haines City    194    Owned    August 1993
  Sebastian River Medical Center    Sebastian    154    Owned    September 1993
  Charlotte Regional Medical Center    Punta Gorda    208    Owned    December 1994
  Brooksville Regional Hospital (1)    Brooksville    120    Leased    June 1998
  Spring Hill Regional Hospital (1)    Spring Hill    124    Leased    June 1998
  Lower Keys Medical Center    Key West    167    Leased    May 1999
  Pasco Regional Medical Center (1)    Dade City    120    Owned    September 2000
  Lehigh Regional Medical Center    Lehigh Acres    88    Owned    December 2001
  Santa Rosa Medical Center    Milton    129    Leased    January 2002
  Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center    Crystal River    128    Owned    November 2003
  Peace River Regional Medical Center    Port Charlotte    219    Owned    February 2005
  Venice Regional Medical Center    Venice    312    Owned    February 2005
  Bartow Regional Medical Center    Bartow    72    Owned    April 2005
  St. Cloud Regional Medical Center (1)    St. Cloud    84    Owned    February 2006
  Physicians Regional Medical Center-Pine Ridge    Naples    101    Owned    May 2006
  Physicians Regional Medical Center-Collier Boulevard    Naples    100    Owned    Not applicable (2)    
  Shands Lake Shore Regional Medical Center (1)    Lake City    99    Leased    July 2010
  Shands Live Oak Regional Medical Center (1)    Live Oak    15    Owned    July 2010
  Shands Starke Regional Medical Center (1)    Starke    25    Owned    July 2010
  Wuesthoff Medical Center - Rockledge    Rockledge    298    Owned    October 2010
  Wuesthoff Medical Center - Melbourne    Melbourne    115    Owned    October 2010
  Georgia            
  East Georgia Regional Medical Center (1)    Statesboro    150    Owned    October 1995
  Walton Regional Medical Center (3)    Monroe    77    Owned    September 2003
  Barrow Regional Medical Center    Winder    56    Owned    January 2006
  Kentucky            
  Paul B. Hall Regional Medical Center (1)    Paintsville    72    Owned    January 1979
  Mississippi            
  Biloxi Regional Medical Center    Biloxi    198    Leased    September 1986
  Natchez Community Hospital (1)    Natchez    101    Owned    September 1993
  Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center    Clarksdale    195    Leased    January 1996
  Crossgates River Oaks Hospital    Brandon    149    Leased    January 1997
  River Oaks Hospital    Flowood    160    Owned    January 1998
  Woman’s Hospital at River Oaks    Flowood    109    Owned    January 1998
  Central Mississippi Medical Center    Jackson    429    Leased    April 1999
  Madison River Oaks Medical Center (4)    Canton    67    Owned    January 2003
  Gilmore Memorial Regional Medical Center    Amory    95    Owned    December 2005
  Gulf Coast Medical Center (5)    Biloxi    144    Inactive    Not applicable
  Tri-Lakes Medical Center (1)    Batesville    112    Owned    May 2011
  Missouri            
  Twin Rivers Regional Medical Center    Kennett    116    Owned    November 2003
  Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center (1) (6)    Poplar Bluff    423    Owned    November 2003

 

33


Table of Contents
  Hospital    City    Licensed
Beds
   Operational
Status
   Date Acquired    

  North Carolina

           

  Lake Norman Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Mooresville

   123    Owned   

January 1986

  Sandhills Regional Medical Center

  

Hamlet

   64    Owned   

August 1987

  Davis Regional Medical Center

  

Statesville

   143    Owned   

October 2000

  Oklahoma

           

  Medical Center of Southeastern Oklahoma (1)

  

Durant

   148    Owned   

May 1987

  Midwest Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Midwest City

   255    Leased   

June 1996

  Pennsylvania

           

  Heart of Lancaster Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Lititz

   148    Owned   

July 1999

  Lancaster Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Lancaster

   214    Owned   

July 2000

  Carlisle Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Carlisle

   165    Owned   

June 2001

  South Carolina

           

  Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Hartsville

   116    Owned   

September 1995

  Chester Regional Medical Center

  

Chester

   82    Leased   

October 2004

  Tennessee

           

  Jamestown Regional Medical Center

  

Jamestown

   85    Owned   

January 2002

  University Medical Center (1)

  

Lebanon

   245    Owned   

November 2003

  Harton Regional Medical Center (1)

  

Tullahoma

   135    Owned   

November 2003

  Physicians Regional Medical Center (7)

  

Knoxville

   419    Owned   

September 2011

  Turkey Creek Medical Center

  

Knoxville

   101    Owned   

September 2011

  Jefferson Memorial Hospital

  

Jefferson City

   58    Leased   

September 2011

  Newport Medical Center (7)

  

Newport

   130    Owned   

September 2011

  LaFollette Medical Center

  

LaFollette

   66    Leased   

September 2011

  North Knoxville Medical Center

  

Powell

   108    Owned   

September 2011

  St. Mary’s Medical Center of Scott County (8)

  

Oneida

   25    Leased   

September 2011

  Riverside hospital campus

  

Knoxville

   293    Owned/Inactive   

September 2011

  Texas

           

  Dallas Regional Medical Center at Galloway

  

Mesquite

   202    Owned   

January 2002

  Washington

           

  Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center (1)

  

Yakima

   214    Owned   

August 2003

  Toppenish Community Hospital (1)

  

Toppenish

   63    Owned   

August 2003

  West Virginia

           

  Williamson Memorial Hospital (1)

  

Williamson

   76    Owned   

June 1979

     

 

     
Total licensed beds at December 31, 2011        10,330          
     

 

     

 

  (1)

As of December 31, 2011, this hospital is partially owned by local physicians and/or other health care entities; however, we continue to own the majority equity interest in such hospital and manage its day-to-day operations. Subsequent to December 31, 2011, we repurchased all of the minority equity interests in respect of Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center.

  (2)

De novo hospital that we opened on February 5, 2007.

  (3)

We are contractually obligated to build a replacement hospital at this location no later than December 31, 2012. Construction is underway and the new hospital is expected to open during the quarter ending June 30, 2012.

  (4)

Madison River Oaks Medical Center is a newly constructed hospital that we opened in May 2011 to replace our predecessor hospital in Canton, Mississippi.

  (5)

We have applied to the Mississippi State Department of Health for a certificate of need that would allow us to transfer these licensed beds to a hospital that we would build in the Biloxi, Mississippi marketplace.

  (6)

Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center consists of a north campus (a 213-bed building that we lease) and a south campus (a 210-bed building that we own). We are currently building a new general acute care hospital in Poplar Bluff, Missouri that will ultimately replace our south campus facility. We expect that the new 250-bed hospital will open during the quarter ending March 31, 2013.

  (7)

The number of licensed beds includes ancillary facilities.

  (8)

The lease agreement at this hospital expires in May 2012 and will not be renewed or otherwise modified.

 

34


Table of Contents

As indicated in the above table, we currently lease certain facilities pursuant to long-term leases that provide us with the exclusive right to use and control each hospital’s operations. The facilities we lease and the corresponding year of lease expiration are as follows: Highlands Regional Medical Center (2025), Biloxi Regional Medical Center (2040), Summit Medical Center (2028), Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (2035), Midwest Regional Medical Center (2035), Crossgates River Oaks Hospital (2026), Brooksville Regional Hospital/Spring Hill Regional Hospital (2043), Central Mississippi Medical Center (2040), Lower Keys Medical Center (2029), Chester Regional Medical Center (2034), Santa Rosa Medical Center (2045), Stringfellow Memorial Hospital (2048), Shands Lake Shore Regional Medical Center (2040), Jefferson Memorial Hospital (2021), LaFollette Medical Center (2015) and the north campus at Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center (2014).

Our home office is in an office building complex in Naples, Florida that we own. We use approximately 36% of the complex and lease the remaining space. We have engaged an outside property management company to manage the office complex on our behalf.

As discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, we (i) closed the Woman’s Center at Dallas Regional Medical Center in Mesquite, Texas on June 1, 2008 and (ii) acquired the Riverside hospital campus, which is a shuttered facility in Knoxville, Tennessee, as part of a transaction with Mercy Health Partners, Inc. that we completed on September 30, 2011. We are currently evaluating various disposal alternatives for these idle facilities; however, the timing of such divestitures has not yet been determined. Additionally, we lease a building in Canton, Mississippi where our hospital was previously located and we are currently considering several alternatives for this lease arrangement that expires in 2042.

As discussed at Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Part II, our senior secured credit facilities with a syndicate of banks, 6.125% Senior Notes due 2016 and a $10.0 million secured demand promissory note with a bank are all secured by a significant portion of our real property.

We believe that our facilities are suitable and adequate for our needs.

Item 3.   Legal Proceedings.

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, we have been, and expect to continue to be, subject to various claims, lawsuits, government investigations and regulatory proceedings. The ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. We are currently a party to a number of legal and regulatory proceedings, including those described below.

Ascension Health Lawsuit.   On February 14, 2006, Health Management Associates, Inc. (referred to as “Health Management” for the remainder of this Item 3) announced the termination of non-binding negotiations with Ascension Health (“Ascension”) and the withdrawal of a non-binding offer to acquire Ascension’s St. Joseph Hospital, a general acute care hospital in Augusta, Georgia. On June 8, 2007, certain Ascension subsidiaries filed a lawsuit against Health Management, entitled St. Joseph Hospital, Augusta, Georgia, Inc. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., in Georgia Superior/State Court of Richmond County claiming that Health Management (i) breached an agreement to purchase St. Joseph Hospital and (ii) violated a confidentiality agreement. The plaintiffs claim at least $40 million in damages. Health Management removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division (No. 1:07-CV-00104). On July 13, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and Health Management filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 30, 2011, Health Management’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for the breach of confidentiality claim, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied. On June 15, 2011, the case was stayed pending resolution of the appellate process. On July 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case Number: 11-13069). Oral argument is scheduled for the week of April 30, 2012.

We do not believe there was a binding acquisition contract with Ascension or any of its subsidiaries and we do not believe Health Management breached a confidentiality agreement. Accordingly, we will continue to vigorously defend Health Management against the allegations, including the pending appeal. We do not believe that the final outcome of this matter will be material.

Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits.    On January 11, 2010, Health Management and one of its subsidiaries were named in a qui tam lawsuit entitled United States of America ex rel. J. Michael Mastej v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that, among other things, the defendants erroneously submitted claims to Medicare and that those claims were falsely certified to be in compliance with Section 1877 of the Social Security Act of 1935 (commonly known as the “Stark law”) and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The plaintiff’s complaint further alleged that the defendants’ conduct violated the federal False Claims Act of 1863 (the “False Claims Act”). The plaintiff seeks recovery of all Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that the defendants received as a result of the alleged false

 

35


Table of Contents

certifications and treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as a civil penalty for each Medicare and Medicaid claim supported by such alleged false certifications. On August 18, 2010, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that was similar to the original complaint. On September 27, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of those federal rules. On November 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2011, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division (No. 2:11-cv-00089-JES-DNF). On May 5, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which was similar to the first amended complaint. On May 17, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on the same bases set forth in their earlier motion to dismiss. On February 16, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The court’s order permits the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days. If the plaintiff amends the complaint, we will vigorously defend Health Management and its subsidiary against the allegations. We do not believe that the final outcome of this matter will be material.

On December 13, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that a qui tam lawsuit entitled United States ex rel. Kevin Dennis, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Case No. 3:09-cv-00484) be partially unsealed and served on the defendants and that certain other contents of the court’s file remain under seal. To date, we have not been served with the complaint. The complaint was filed under seal on or about May 27, 2009 and alleges that, among other things, the defendants erroneously submitted claims to Medicare and other health care programs funded by the federal government and the State of Tennessee and that those claims were falsely certified to be in compliance with the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the analogous laws of the State of Tennessee. The plaintiffs’ complaint further alleges that the defendants’ conduct violated the False Claims Act and the Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act. The plaintiff seeks recovery in the amount of triple the amount of the actual damages that the United States and the State of Tennessee have sustained as a result of the defendants’ alleged fraudulent and illegal recruitment and billing practices, a civil penalty for each alleged false claim that the defendants presented or caused to be presented to the United States or the State of Tennessee, and a civil penalty for each of the defendants’ acts that allegedly violated the Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. On December 7, 2011, the State of Tennessee notified the court of its decision not to intervene in the action and, on December 8, 2011, the United States notified the court that it was also declining to intervene. We intend to vigorously defend Health Management and its subsidiary against the allegations in this matter. We do not believe that the final outcome of this matter will be material.

Governmental Matters.   Several Health Management hospitals received letters during the second half of 2009 requesting information in connection with a U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation relating to kyphoplasty procedures. Kyphoplasty is a minimally invasive spinal procedure used to treat vertebral compression fractures. The DOJ is currently investigating hospitals and hospital operators in multiple states to determine whether certain Medicare claims for kyphoplasty were incorrect when billed as an inpatient service rather than as an outpatient service. We believe that the DOJ’s investigation originated with a False Claims Act lawsuit against Kyphon, Inc., the company that developed the kyphoplasty procedure. The requested information has been provided to the DOJ and we are cooperating with the investigation. To date, the DOJ has not asserted any monetary or other claims against the Health Management hospitals in this matter. Based on the aggregate billings for inpatient kyphoplasty procedures during the period under review that were performed at the Health Management hospitals subject to the DOJ’s inquiry, we do not believe that the final outcome of this matter will be material.

During September 2010, Health Management received a letter from the DOJ indicating that an investigation was being conducted to determine whether certain Health Management hospitals improperly submitted claims for the implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (“ICDs”). The DOJ’s investigation covers the period commencing with Medicare’s expansion of coverage for ICDs in 2003 to the present. The letter from the DOJ further indicates that the claims submitted by Health Management’s hospitals for ICDs and related services need to be reviewed to determine if Medicare coverage and payment was appropriate. During 2010, the DOJ sent similar letters and other requests to a large number of unrelated hospitals and hospital operators across the country as part of a nation-wide review of ICD billing under the Medicare program. We have, and will continue to, cooperate with the DOJ in its ongoing investigation, which could potentially give rise to claims against Health Management and/or certain of its subsidiary hospitals under the False Claims Act or other statutes, regulations or laws. Additionally, we recently commenced an internal review of hospital medical records related to ICDs that are the subject of the DOJ investigation. To date, the DOJ has not asserted any monetary or other claims against Health Management or its hospitals in this matter and, at this time, we are unable to determine the potential impact, if any, that will result from the final resolution of the investigation.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”) and the DOJ, including the Civil Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the Middle District of Tennessee, the Western District of North

 

36


Table of Contents

Carolina, the District of South Carolina and the Middle District of Georgia, are currently investigating Health Management and certain of its subsidiaries (HHS-OIG and the DOJ are collectively referred to as “Government Representatives”). We believe that such investigations relate to the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark law and the False Claims Act and are focused on: (i) physician referrals, including financial arrangements with our whole-hospital physician joint ventures; (ii) the medical necessity of emergency room tests and patient admissions, including whether Pro-Med software has led to any medically unnecessary tests or admissions; and (iii) the medical necessity of certain surgical procedures. We further believe that the investigations may have originated as a result of qui tam lawsuits filed on behalf of the United States. In connection with the investigations, HHS-OIG served subpoenas on Health Management on May 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011 requesting records. Additionally, Government Representatives have interviewed both our current and former employees. We are conducting internal investigations and have met with Government Representatives on numerous occasions to respond to their inquiries. We believe that the HHS-OIG subpoenas, which apply system-wide, may have been served pursuant to the authority of HHS-OIG to investigate health care fraud.

On February 22, 2012 and February 24, 2012, HHS-OIG served subpoenas on certain Health Management hospitals relating to those hospitals’ relationships with Allegiance Health Management, Inc. (“Allegiance”). Allegiance, which is unrelated to Health Management, is a post acute health care management company that provides intensive outpatient psychiatric (“IOP”) services to patients. The Health Management hospitals that were served subpoenas were: (i) Central Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi; (ii) Crossgates River Oaks Hospital in Brandon, Mississippi; (iii) Davis Regional Medical Center in Statesville, North Carolina; (iv) Lake Norman Regional Medical Center in Mooresville, North Carolina; (v) the Medical Center of Southeastern Oklahoma in Durant, Oklahoma; and (vi) Natchez Community Hospital in Natchez, Mississippi. Each of those hospitals has or had a contract with Allegiance. Among other things, the subpoenas seek: (i) documents related to the hospitals’ financial relationships with Allegiance; (ii) documents related to patients who received IOP services from Allegiance at the Health Management hospitals, including their patient medical records; (iii) documents relating to complaints or concerns regarding Allegiance’s IOP services at the Health Management hospitals; (iv) documents relating to employees, physicians and therapists who were involved in the provision of IOP services provided by Allegiance at the Health Management hospitals; and (v) other documents related to Allegiance including leases, contracts, policies and procedures, training documents, budgets and financial analyses. The period of time covered by the subpoenas is January 1, 2008 through the date of subpoena compliance. We believe that HHS-OIG has served similar subpoenas on other non-Health Management hospitals that had contracts with Allegiance. We intend to comply with the investigations. At this time, we are unable to determine the potential impact, if any, that will result from the final resolution of these investigations.

In addition to the abovementioned subpoenas and investigations, certain of our hospitals have received other requests for information from state and federal agencies. We are cooperating with all of the ongoing investigations by collecting and producing the requested materials. Because a large portion of our government investigations are in their early stages, we are unable to evaluate the outcome of such matters or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from their final resolution.

Class Action Lawsuits.    On or about January 25, 2012, Health Management, certain of its executive officers and one of its directors were named as defendants in an action entitled Miklen Sapssov v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., which was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 2:12-CV-00046). This action purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock during the period July 27, 2009 through January 9, 2012. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Health Management and the other defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding our business and financial results. The plaintiff alleges that our financial performance was based, in part, on improper billing practices. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. A substantially similar purported class action lawsuit, entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al., was filed against the same defendants on or about February 2, 2012 in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:12-CV-00228). We intend to vigorously defend Health Management against the allegations in these matters. Because the abovementioned lawsuits are in their early stages, we are unable to evaluate their outcome or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from their final resolution.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit.    On or about October 19, 2011, a wrongful termination action was commenced against us by Paul Meyer, our former Director of Compliance. That litigation, entitled Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc., was commenced in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (Case No. 11-25334(09)). The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. On November 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division (Case No. 0:11-cv-62479-RNS). On January 20, 2012, the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Mr. Meyer was terminated after insubordinately refusing to cooperate with our efforts to comply with our obligations under a government subpoena by refusing to return documents belonging to us that were in his possession. Moreover, Mr.

 

37


Table of Contents

Meyer’s failure to cooperate with us in response to a subpoena was contrary to both the intent and purpose of our compliance department and our company-wide compliance program. We have filed a counterclaim against Mr. Meyer for breach of contract, conversion and breach of duty of loyalty. We intend to vigorously defend against the wrongful termination allegations made by Mr. Meyer and we do not believe that the final outcome of this matter will be material.

Other.   We are also a party to various other legal actions arising out of the normal course of our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and dispute resolution, we are unable to estimate the ultimate losses, if any, relating to each of our outstanding legal actions and other loss contingencies.

Also see “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates – Professional Liability Risks” in Item 7 of Part II and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item  8 of Part II.

Item 4.   Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.   Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of

Equity Securities.

The common stock of Health Management Associates, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries hereinafter referred to as “we,” “our” or “us”) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “HMA.” As of February 17, 2012, there were 254,435,258 shares of our common stock held by approximately 900 record holders. The table below sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for each of the quarters during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010.

 

             High                      Low          

Year ended December 31, 2011:

     

First quarter

     $ 11.07              $ 8.86        

Second quarter

     11.74              9.82        

Third quarter

     11.26              6.43        

Fourth quarter

     9.26              6.06        

Year ended December 31, 2010:

     

First quarter

     $ 9.12              $ 6.49        

Second quarter

     9.81              7.72        

Third quarter

     7.93              6.13        

Fourth quarter

     9.88              7.19        

The debt agreements that we entered into as part of a long-term debt restructuring that was completed on November 18, 2011 (the “2011 Debt Restructuring”) and the indentures for certain of our other debt agreements restrict our ability to pay cash dividends. Further discussion of the 2011 Debt Restructuring and our long-term debt arrangements can be found at Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

At December 31, 2011, we had reserved a sufficient number of shares to satisfy the potential conversion of our convertible senior subordinated notes, which are discussed at Note 2(c) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

The table below summarizes the number of shares of our common stock that were withheld to satisfy the tax withholding obligations for our stock-based compensation awards that vested during the three months ended December 31, 2011.

 

Month Ended                            

   Total Number of
    Shares Purchased    
         Average Price    
    Per  Share    
 

October 31, 2011

     -             $ -     

November 30, 2011

     -           -     

December 31, 2011

     18,969           8.27     
  

 

 

    

Total

     18,969        
  

 

 

    

Item 6.   Selected Financial Data.

The table on the following page summarizes certain of our selected financial data and should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes in Item 8. Certain amounts in the table have been reclassified in the prior years to conform to the current year presentation. Such reclassifications related to discontinued operations, which are discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

38


Table of Contents

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

FIVE YEAR SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2011     2010     2009     2008     2007  

Net revenue (1)

    $           5,804,451           $       5,092,166           $       4,536,106           $       4,278,604           $       4,103,404     

Income from continuing operations (1) (2) (3)

    206,334           185,774           161,303           210,515           117,438     

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes (3) (4)

    (2,409)         (13,526)         2,638           (26,358)         396     

Net income attributable to Health Management Associates, Inc. (2) (4)

    178,710           150,069           138,182           168,149           117,508     

Income from continuing operations attributable to Health Management Associates, Inc. common stockholders (per share-diluted)

    $ 0.71           $ 0.65           $ 0.55           $ 0.80           $ 0.48     

Weighted average number of shares outstanding - diluted

    255,037           251,106           246,965           244,671           245,119     

Cash dividends per common share (5)

    $ -           $ -           $ -           $ -           $ 10.00     

 

    December 31,  
    2011     2010     2009     2008     2007  

Total assets

    $           6,004,189           $       4,910,085           $       4,604,099           $       4,554,232           $       4,633,512     

Long-term debt and capital lease obligations (5)

    3,574,998           3,018,464           3,040,661           3,206,834           3,770,057     

Redeemable equity securities

    200,643           201,487           182,473           48,868           19,306     

Stockholders’ equity, including noncontrolling interests (5)

    785,116           533,486           361,620           285,811           71,836     

 

(1)

Amounts exclude our discontinued operations, which are identified at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

 

(2)

In connection with the 2011 Debt Restructuring, income from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 included (i) approximately $24.6 million of write-offs of deferred debt issuance costs and related other and (ii) $16.4 million of amortization and net fair value adjustment expense that is attributable to our interest rate swap contract. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding the 2011 Debt Restructuring and our long-term debt arrangements. Also included in income from continuing operations during 2011 were: (i) a $40.0 million first time benefit from the meaningful use measurement standard under various Medicare and Medicaid Healthcare Information Technology (“HCIT”) incentive programs; (ii) $12.9 million of expenses attributable to restructuring activities at Tennova Healthcare; and (iii) $9.5 million of costs for acquisitions and government investigations. See Notes 4 and 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for more information about certain of these matters. Income from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2008 included a gain of $161.4 million from the sale of a noncontrolling interest in our joint venture with Novant Health, Inc. and one or more of its affiliates (collectively, “Novant”). Additionally, income from continuing operations for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 included net gains on the early extinguishment of debt of $16.2 million and $15.2 million, respectively.

 

(3)

Income from continuing operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 included amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests of approximately $25.2 million, $22.2 million $25.0 million, $16.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively. The corresponding amounts for discontinued operations were not material to the years presented.

 

(4)

The loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 included a goodwill impairment charge of approximately $3.6 million from the termination of a lease agreement in respect of our hospital in Marathon, Florida. The loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 included (i) a loss of $12.1 million from the sale of our general acute care hospital in Meridian, Mississippi and its related health care operations and (ii) a long-lived asset impairment charge of $8.4 million. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2009 included (i) a gain of $10.4 million from the restructuring of our joint venture with Novant and (ii) long-lived asset impairment charges of $4.6 million. See Notes 4 and 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding Novant and our discontinued operations, respectively. The loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2008 included: (i) long-lived asset and goodwill impairment charges of $38.0 million; (ii) a gain of $42.0 million from the sale of a noncontrolling interest in our joint venture with Novant; and (iii) a charge of $7.9 million for the estimated cost of partially subsidizing certain third party physician practice losses. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2007 included a gain of $21.8 million from the sale of two Virginia-based general acute care hospitals and certain affiliated health care entities.

 

(5)

The 2011 Debt Restructuring, which is discussed at Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, was completed on November 18, 2011. In connection with a recapitalization of our balance sheet, a special cash dividend of $10.00 per common share was paid during the year ended December 31, 2007. The special cash dividend, which aggregated approximately $2.43 billion, was financed through borrowings under our former credit facilities.

 

39


Table of Contents

Item 7.   Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including, without limitation, statements containing the words “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “may,” “could,” “plan,” “continue,” “should,” “project,” “estimate” and words of similar import, constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements may include projections of revenue, provisions for doubtful accounts, income or loss, capital expenditures, debt structure, principal payments on debt, capital structure, the amount and timing of funds under the meaningful use measurement standard of various Healthcare Information Technology (“HCIT”) incentive programs, other financial items and operating statistics, statements regarding our plans and objectives for future operations, acquisitions, acquisition financing, divestitures and other transactions, statements of future economic performance, statements regarding our legal proceedings and other loss contingencies, statements regarding market risk exposures, statements regarding the effects and/or interpretations of recently enacted or future health care laws and regulations, statements of the assumptions underlying or relating to any of the foregoing statements, and statements that are other than statements of historical fact.

Forward-looking statements are based on our current plans and expectations and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance, achievements or industry results to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among other things, the risks and uncertainties identified by us under the heading “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I. Furthermore, we operate in a continually changing business and regulatory environment and new risk factors emerge from time to time. We cannot predict what these new risk factors may be, nor can we assess the impact, if any, of such new risk factors on our business or results of operations or the extent to which any factor or combination of factors may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by any of our forward-looking statements.

Undue reliance should not be placed on our forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we disclaim any obligation to update our risk factors or to publicly announce updates to the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to reflect new information, future events or other developments.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We consider the following critical accounting policies to be those that require us to make significant judgments and estimates when we prepare our consolidated financial statements.

Net Revenue

We derive a significant portion of our net revenue from Medicare, Medicaid and managed care health plans. Payments for services rendered to patients covered by these programs are generally less than billed charges. For Medicare and Medicaid, provisions for contractual adjustments are made to reduce patient charges to the estimated cash receipts based on each program’s principles of payment/reimbursement (i.e., either prospectively determined or retrospectively determined costs). Final settlements under these programs are subject to administrative review and audit and, accordingly, we periodically provide reserves for the adjustments that may ultimately result therefrom. Estimates for contractual allowances under managed care health plans are primarily based on the payment terms of contractual arrangements, such as predetermined rates per diagnosis, per diem rates or discounted fee for service rates. We closely monitor our historical collection rates, as well as changes in applicable laws, rules and regulations and contract terms, to ensure that provisions are made using the most accurate information available. However, due to the complexities involved in these estimations, actual payments from payors may be different from the amounts we estimate and record. If the actual contractual reimbursement percentage under government programs and managed care contracts differed by 1% from our estimated percentage, we project that our net accounts receivable and consolidated net income as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 would have changed by approximately $28.4 million and $17.4 million, respectively.

In the ordinary course of business, we provide services to patients who are financially unable to pay for their care. Accounts characterized as charity and indigent care are not recognized in net revenue. We maintain a uniform policy whereby patient account balances are characterized as charity and indigent care only if the patient meets certain percentages of the federal poverty level guidelines. Local hospital personnel and our collection agencies pursue payments on accounts receivable from patients who do not meet such criteria. We monitor the levels of charity and indigent care provided by our hospitals and other health care facilities and the procedures employed to identify and account for those patients.

 

40


Table of Contents

Provision for Doubtful Accounts

Our hospitals and other health care facilities provide services to patients with health care coverage, as well as to those without health care coverage. Those patients with health care coverage are often responsible for a portion of their bill referred to as the co-payment or deductible. This portion of the bill is determined by the patient’s individual health care or insurance plan. Patients without health care coverage are evaluated at the time of service, or shortly thereafter, for their ability to pay based on federal and state poverty guidelines, qualification for Medicaid or other state assistance programs, as well as our policies for indigent and charity care. After payment, if any, is received from a third party, statements are sent to patients indicating the outstanding balances on their accounts. If an account is still outstanding after a period of time, it is referred to a primary collection agency for assistance in collecting the amount due. The primary collection agency begins the process of debt collection by contacting the patient via mail and phone. The accounts that are sent to these agencies are often difficult to collect and require more focused, dedicated attention than might be available in one of our business offices. We believe that the primary collection agencies have been very successful in collecting the accounts that we send to them. A secondary collection agency is used when accounts are returned from the primary collection agency as uncollectible. These accounts are written off as uncollectible shortly after they are returned to us from the primary collection agency. In certain circumstances, we may sell a portfolio of outstanding accounts receivable to an unrelated third party.

An account is typically sent to the primary collection agency automatically via electronic transfer of data at the end of the statement cycle although, if deemed necessary or appropriate, the account can be sent to the primary collection agency at any time. Accounts that are identified as self-pay accounts with balances less than $9.99 are automatically written off on the 20th day of each month. All accounts that have been placed with a primary collection agency that are less than $25.00 are also written off.

When considering the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts, accounts receivable balances are routinely reviewed in conjunction with health care industry trends/indicators, historical collection rates by payor, aging reports and other business and economic conditions that might reasonably be expected to affect the collectibility of patient accounts. We believe that our principal risk of collection continues to be uninsured patient accounts and patient accounts for which the primary insurance payor has paid but patient responsibility amounts (generally deductibles and co-payments) remain outstanding. If our actual collection rate changed by 1% from the estimated percentage that we used, we project that our allowance for doubtful accounts and consolidated net income as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 would have changed by approximately $5.8 million and $3.5 million, respectively.

Although we believe that our existing allowance for doubtful accounts reserve policies for all payor classes are appropriate and responsive to both the current health care environment and the overall economic climate, we will continue to monitor cash collections, accounts receivable agings and related industry trends. Changes in payor mix, general economic conditions or federal and state government health care coverage, including the effects of the Health Care Reform Act, could each have a material adverse effect on our accounts receivable collections, cash flows and results of operations and could result in accounting policy modifications in the future.

Of the accounts receivable identified as due from third party payors at the time of billing, a small percentage may convert to self-pay upon denials from third party payors. Those accounts are closely monitored on a routine basis for potential denial and are reclassified as appropriate. Third party payor and self-pay balances, as a percent of total gross billed accounts receivable, are summarized in the tables below.

 

    December 31, 2011  
        0-180 days            181-240 days           241-300 days            301 days    
and over
 

Medicare

    16%              -%              -%              -%         

Medicaid

    13                 1                 1                 -            

Commercial insurance and others

    41                 2                 1                 1            

Self-pay

    13                 4                 4                 3            
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Totals

    83%              7%              6%              4%         
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

    December 31, 2010  
        0-180 days                181-240 days               241-300 days                301 days    
and over
 

Medicare

    17%                -%                -%                -%         

Medicaid

    12                   1                   -                   -            

Commercial insurance and others

    38                   2                   1                   1            

Self-pay

    15                   5                   5                   3            
 

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

Totals

    82%                8%                6%                4%         
 

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

41


Table of Contents

Accounts receivable are reserved at increasing percentages as they age. All accounts are reserved 100% when they age 300 days from the date of discharge. In addition to days sales outstanding, which is discussed below under “Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Expenditures,” we use other factors to analyze the collectibility of our accounts receivable. In that regard, we compare subsequent cash collections to net accounts receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet. We also review the provision for doubtful accounts as a percent of net revenue and the allowance for doubtful accounts as a percent of gross accounts receivable. These and other factors are reviewed monthly and are closely monitored for emerging trends in our accounts receivable portfolio.

Impairments of Long-Lived Assets and Goodwill

Long-lived assets.      We review our long-lived assets, including amortizable intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of those assets may not be fully recoverable (e.g., advances in technology, deteriorating operating results, excess capacity, obsolescence, etc.). The determination of possible impairment of assets to be held and used is predicated on our estimate of the asset’s undiscounted future cash flows. If the estimated future cash flows are less than the carrying value of the asset, an impairment charge is recognized for the difference between the asset’s estimated fair value and its carrying value. Long-lived assets to be disposed of, including discontinued operations, are reported at the lower of their carrying amount or estimated fair value, less costs to sell. Estimates of fair value are based on recent sales of similar assets, market analyses, pending disposition transactions and market responses based on discussions with, and offers received from, potential buyers. There were no long-lived asset impairment charges that were material to our continuing operations during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; however, as discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, we recognized long-lived asset charges of approximately $8.4 million and $4.6 million in discontinued operations during 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Goodwill.   Goodwill is reviewed for impairment on an annual basis (i.e., each October 1) and whenever circumstances indicate that a possible impairment might exist. Our judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on, among other things, market conditions and operational performance. When performing goodwill impairment tests prior to 2011, we initially compared the estimated fair values of each reporting unit’s net assets, including allocated home office net assets, to the corresponding carrying amounts on our consolidated balance sheet. The estimated fair values of our reporting units were determined using a market approach methodology based on net revenue multiples. We also considered a valuation methodology using discounted cash flows and a market approach valuation methodology based on comparable transactions. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit’s net assets was less than the balance sheet carrying amount, we determined the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill, compared such fair value to the corresponding carrying amount and, if necessary, recorded a goodwill impairment charge.

During September 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board amended the accounting standards in GAAP as they relate to the annual test for goodwill impairment (the “Goodwill Update”). The Goodwill Update allows, but does not require, an initial assessment of qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount for the purpose of determining if detailed quantitative goodwill impairment testing is necessary. We elected to early adopt the Goodwill Update in connection with our annual goodwill impairment testing on October 1, 2011. Our adoption of the Goodwill Update did not have a material impact on our annual goodwill impairment testing or the results therefrom. Specifically, the qualitative factors reviewed by us did not reveal any circumstances whereby detailed quantitative goodwill impairment testing was necessary at the reporting unit level. There were no goodwill impairment charges in continuing operations during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; however, as discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge of approximately $3.6 million in discontinued operations during 2011. We do not believe that any of our reporting units are currently at risk of incurring a goodwill impairment charge.

Qualitative assessments of our reporting units are based on estimates and assumptions that we believe to be reasonable but are ultimately unpredictable and inherently uncertain. Additionally, we make certain judgments and assumptions when allocating home office assets and liabilities to determine the carrying values of our reporting units. Changes in the estimates, assumptions and other qualitative factors used to conduct goodwill impairment tests, including revenue and profitability projections and market values, could indicate that our goodwill is impaired in future periods and result in a write-off of some or all of our goodwill at that time. Reporting units are one level below the operating segment level (see Note 1(m) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8). However, after consideration of the relevant GAAP aggregation rules, we determined that our goodwill impairment testing should be performed at the divisional operating level. Goodwill is discretely allocated to our reporting units (i.e., each hospital’s goodwill is included as a component of the aggregate reporting unit goodwill being evaluated during the impairment analysis).

 

42


Table of Contents

Income Taxes

We make estimates to record the provision for income taxes, including conclusions regarding deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, as well as valuation allowances that might be required to offset deferred tax assets. We estimate valuation allowances to reduce deferred tax assets to the amounts that we believe are more likely than not to be realized in future periods. When establishing valuation allowances, we consider all relevant information, including ongoing tax planning strategies. We believe that, other than certain state net operating loss carryforwards, reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, future taxable income and carrybacks will enable us to realize our deferred tax assets and, therefore, we have not recorded any material valuation allowances against our deferred tax assets.

We operate in multiple states with varying tax laws. We are subject to both federal and state audits of our tax filings. Our federal income tax returns have been examined by the Internal Revenue Service through the period ended December 31, 2009. We participate in the Internal Revenue Service’s Compliance Assurance Program whereby our federal income tax returns will be audited on a concurrent basis. The Internal Revenue Service is currently auditing our income tax return for the year ended December 31, 2010. We make estimates to record tax reserves that we believe adequately provide for audit adjustments, if any.

Professional Liability Risks

As with most other health care providers, we are subject to claims and legal actions by patients and others in the ordinary course of business. We use our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and our risk retention group subsidiary, which are domiciled in the Cayman Islands and South Carolina, respectively, to self-insure a significant portion of our professional liability risks. Those subsidiaries, which are collectively referred to as the “Insurance Subsidiaries,” provide (i) claims-made coverage to all of our hospitals and other health care facilities and (ii) occurrence-basis coverage to most of our employed physicians. To mitigate the exposure of the self-insured program covering the hospitals and other health care facilities, the Insurance Subsidiaries buy claims-made reinsurance policies from unrelated third parties for claims above self-retention levels of $10.0 million or $15.0 million, depending on the policy year. The limits of liability provided by the Insurance Subsidiaries for each employed physician located outside of Florida is generally $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate, and the corresponding limits for physicians located in Florida are $250,000 and $750,000, respectively. Our employed physicians not covered by the Insurance Subsidiaries generally maintain claims-made policies with unrelated third party insurance companies.

Our self-insured professional liability reserves reflect estimates of all known indemnity losses, incurred but not reported indemnity losses and related incurred/future loss expenses. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, such discounted reserves, net of amounts estimated to be recoverable under reinsurance policies, were approximately $215.6 million and $180.9 million, respectively. Included in those amounts were $53.7 million and $61.3 million, respectively, of case reserves on reported claims. Historically, the average lag time between settlement of a claim and payment to the claimant is generally less than one month. Therefore, our total unpaid settled claim amount at the end of any reporting period is not significant. Our expense for professional liability risks includes: (i) an estimate of discounted losses and loss expenses for the current year, including claims incurred but not reported; (ii) changes in estimates for losses and loss expenses from prior years based on actual claim development experience; (iii) interest accretion on discounted reserves; and (iv) cumulative adjustments for changes in the discount rate, if any, during the year. Such expense was $66.3 million, $68.6 million and $60.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, including $66.4 million, $52.2 million and $49.9 million, respectively, relating to current year claim activity. The year-over-year increases in our expense for current year claim activity reflect, among other things, organic and acquisition-related growth in our business.

Our reserves for self-insured professional liability risks are determined using actuarially-based techniques and methodologies. The data used to develop such reserves is based, in part, on asserted and unasserted claim information that has been accumulated by our incident reporting system. In the consolidated financial statements, these long-term liabilities are recorded at their estimated present values using a discount rate of 1.00% at both December 31, 2011 and 2010. We select a discount rate that represents a risk-free interest rate correlating to the period when the claims are projected to be paid (i.e., a weighted average payment duration of approximately three years). However, the facts and circumstances of each individual claim can result in an occurrence-to-settlement interval that varies from our payment duration estimate. As of December 31, 2011, a 25 basis point increase or decrease in the discount rate would have changed our professional liability reserve requirements by approximately $1.4 million.

 

43


Table of Contents

For purposes of estimating case reserves, we use individual claim information, including the nature of the claim, the expected claim amount, payments made on the claim to date, the year in which the claim occurred and the laws of the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. Once case reserves for known claims are determined, the data is stratified by loss layers and retention levels, accident years, reported years, geography and other key attributes. Several actuarial methods are applied to the data by us and our external actuaries on a semi-annual basis to produce estimates of the ultimate indemnity losses and related loss expenses for both known and incurred but not reported claims. Such actuarial methods include: (i) paid and incurred extrapolation methods; (ii) frequency and severity methods to estimate the ultimate average frequency (number of claims) and the ultimate average severity (cost per claim); and (iii) Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods that add expected development to actual paid or incurred experience. Each of these actuarial methods uses our company-specific data, including: historical paid indemnity losses and loss expenses that have been accumulated over a period of fifteen years; current and historical case reserves; actual and projected census data; employed physician information; our professional liability retention levels by policy year; geographic information; trends of loss development factors; trends in the frequency and severity of claims; coverage limits of unrelated third party insurance policies; and other relevant inputs. We also consider pertinent industry data and changes in laws and regulations (e.g., tort reform, settlement caps, etc.) in the jurisdictions where our hospitals and other health care facilities operate. We believe that using the aforementioned company-specific data and other information enables us and our external actuaries to reasonably estimate (i) our ultimate indemnity losses and related loss expenses and (ii) the projected timing of the corresponding payments. Therefore, we further believe that discounting our self-insured professional liability reserves is appropriate.

Given the number of factors used to establish our reserves for self-insured professional liability risks, we believe that there is limited benefit to isolating any individual assumption or parameter from the detail computational process and calculating the impact of changing that single item. Instead, we believe that the sensitivity of the estimates of such reserves is best reflected in the selected actuarial confidence level used in the computations. In our actuarial modeling, we consistently used the central estimate, which generally approximates a confidence level at the 50th percentile. Utilizing a confidence level higher than the central estimate, while not representative of our best estimate, would reflect a reasonably likely outcome for the ultimate resolution of our known and incurred but not reported indemnity claims and related expenses. For example, using a statistical confidence level at the 70th percentile in our actuarial model would increase our discounted net reserves by approximately $23.0 million, or 10.7%.

Our reserves for self-insured professional liability risks are periodically reviewed and adjustments thereto are recorded as more information about claim trends becomes known to us. Although the ultimate settlement of these liabilities may vary from our estimates due to, among other things, their inherently complex, long-term and subjective nature, we believe that the amounts included in the consolidated financial statements are adequate and reasonable. However, if actual losses and loss expenses exceed our projections of claim activity and/or the projected claim payment duration differs from our estimates, our reserves could be materially impacted.

Other Self-Insured Programs

We provide (i) income continuance to, and reimburse certain health care costs of, our disabled employees (collectively, “workers’ compensation”) and (ii) health and welfare benefits to our employees, their spouses and certain beneficiaries. Such employee benefit programs are primarily self-insured; however, we purchase stop-loss insurance policies from unrelated third parties to mitigate our exposure to catastrophic events and individual years with high levels of benefit claim activity. We record estimated liabilities for both reported and incurred but not reported workers’ compensation and health and welfare claims based on historical loss experience and other information provided by our third party administrators. The long-term liabilities for workers’ compensation are determined using actuarially-based techniques and methodologies and are discounted to their estimated present values. We select a discount rate that represents a risk-free interest rate correlating to the period when such benefits are projected to be paid. As of December 31, 2011, a 25 basis point increase or decrease in the discount rate would have changed our net workers’ compensation liability by approximately $0.5 million (our net liability considers discounted receivables for amounts that are estimated to be recoverable under stop loss insurance policies). Although there can be no assurances, we believe that the net liabilities included in the consolidated financial statements for these self-insured programs are adequate and reasonable. If the actual costs of these programs exceed our projections and/or the projected period over which workers’ compensation benefits will be paid differs from our estimates, the net liabilities could be materially adversely affected.

 

44


Table of Contents

Loss Contingencies

We regularly review the status of our legal and regulatory matters and assess the potential financial exposure thereof. If the potential loss from any claim, lawsuit or regulatory proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we record a reserve. Attorneys’ fees and other costs of defending our company in respect of claims, lawsuits and regulatory proceedings are expensed in the period such fees and costs are incurred, except for those amounts relating to our professional liability risks, which are discussed at Note 1(h) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. Significant judgment is required when determining probability and whether an exposure is reasonably estimable. Predicting the final resolution of claims, lawsuits and regulatory matters and estimating financial exposure requires consideration of substantial uncertainties and, therefore, the actual costs thereof may vary significantly from our estimates. When making determinations of likely outcomes of legal and regulatory matters and the related financial exposure, we consider many factors, including, but not limited to, the nature of the claim (including unasserted claims), the availability of insurance, our experience with similar types of claims, the jurisdiction where the matter is being adjudicated, input from in-house and external legal counsel, the likelihood of resolution through alternative dispute resolution or other means and the current status of the matter. As additional information becomes available, we reassess our potential liability and we may revise and adjust our estimates at that time. Adjustments to reserves reflect the status of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. Changes in our estimates of financial exposure for legal matters and other loss contingencies could have a material impact on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. See Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our material legal matters and other loss contingencies.

Recent Accounting Standards Updates

See Note 1(e) and Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for a discussion of recent accounting standards updates that we adopted during the year ended December 31, 2011 or that we will adopt during the quarter ending March 31, 2012. We do not believe that such new accounting guidance had or will have a material impact on us.

Results of Operations

2011 Overview

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying notes in Item 8.

As of December 31, 2011, we operated 66 hospitals by and through our subsidiaries with a total of 10,330 licensed beds in non-urban communities in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information about one of our Tennessee-based hospitals with a lease agreement that will expire in May 2012 and will not be renewed. Also, see Note 15 for information about our pending acquisition of an 80% equity interest in each of five Oklahoma-based general acute care hospitals and their related health care operations, which we plan to complete during the quarter ending June 30, 2012. The operating results of hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses that we acquire are included in our consolidated financial statements subsequent to the date of acquisition.

Unless specifically indicated otherwise, the following discussion excludes our discontinued operations, which are identified at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. Such discontinued operations were not material to our consolidated results of operations during the years presented herein, other than the following items: (i) a 2010 loss of approximately $12.1 million from the sale of Riley Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi and its related health care operations; (ii) 2011, 2010 and 2009 long-lived asset and goodwill impairment charges of $3.6 million, $8.4 million and $4.6 million, respectively; and (iii) a 2009 gain of $10.4 million from the sale of equity interests in a limited liability company that owned and operated two of our general acute care hospitals.

During March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Health Care Reform Act”) were signed into law by President Obama. The primary goals of the Health Care Reform Act are to: (i) provide coverage by January 1, 2014 to an estimated 32 to 34 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance; (ii) reform the health care delivery system to improve quality; and (iii) lower the overall costs of providing health care. To accomplish the goal of expanding coverage, the new legislation mandates that all Americans maintain a minimum level of health care coverage. To that end, the Health Care Reform Act expands Medicaid coverage, provides federal subsidies to assist low-income

 

45


Table of Contents

individuals when they obtain health insurance and establishes insurance exchanges through which individuals and small employers can purchase health insurance. Health care cost savings under the Health Care Reform Act are expected to come from: (i) reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement payments to health care providers, including hospital operators; (ii) initiatives to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in government reimbursement programs; and (iii) other reforms to federal and state reimbursement systems. Although certain aspects of the Health Care Reform Act have already become effective, it will be several years before most of the far-reaching and innovative provisions of the new legislation are fully implemented. While we continue to evaluate the provisions of the Health Care Reform Act, its overall effect on our business cannot be reasonably determined at the present time because, among other things, the new legislation is very broad in scope and there exist uncertainties regarding the interpretation and future implementation of many of the regulations mandated under the Health Care Reform Act. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act remains subject to significant legislative debate, including possible repeal and/or amendment, and there are substantial legal challenges to various aspects of the law that have been made on constitutional grounds, including an appeal currently pending before the United States Supreme Court (a ruling is expected by July 2012). For further discussion of the Health Care Reform Act and its possible impact on our business and results of operations, see “Business – Sources of Revenue” in Item 1 of Part I and “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, which we refer to as the 2011 Calendar Year, we experienced net revenue growth over the year ended December 31, 2010, which we refer to as the 2010 Calendar Year, of approximately 14.0%. Such growth principally resulted from: (i) our acquisition of a 60% equity interest in each of three Florida-based general acute care hospitals with a total of 139 licensed beds and certain related health care operations (collectively, “Shands”) in July 2010; (ii) our acquisition of two Florida-based general acute care hospitals with a total of 413 licensed beds and certain related health care operations (collectively, “Wuesthoff”) in October 2010; (iii) our acquisition of a 95% equity interest in a Mississippi-based general acute care hospital with a total of 112 licensed beds and certain related health care operations (collectively, “Tri-Lakes”) in May 2011; (iv) our acquisition of six Tennessee-based general acute care hospitals and other ancillary health care operations with a total of 882 licensed beds (collectively, the “Mercy Hospitals”) on September 30, 2011; (v) increased surgical volume attributable to physician recruitment and market service development (e.g., ambulatory surgical centers, robotic surgical systems, etc.) at certain of our hospitals and other health care facilities; (vi) more emergency room visits, which we believe were attributable, in part, to our dedicated focus on emergency room operations; and (vii) improvements in reimbursement rates that resulted primarily from renegotiated agreements with certain commercial health insurance providers. During the 2011 Calendar Year, we recorded a first time benefit of approximately $40.0 million from the meaningful use measurement standard under various Medicare and Medicaid Healthcare Information Technology incentive programs (collectively, the “HCIT Programs”). Items that adversely affected our profitability during the 2011 Calendar Year included: (i) increases in interest expense and costs for government investigations; (ii) $24.6 million of write-offs of deferred debt issuance costs and related other attributable to a debt restructuring that we completed on November 18, 2011 (the “2011 Debt Restructuring”); and (iii) expenses attributable to our acquisition of the Mercy Hospitals and related restructuring activities. Overall, our income from continuing operations increased during the 2011 Calendar Year by $20.6 million, or 11.1%.

Our strategic operational objectives include increasing patient volume and operating margins, while decreasing uninsured/underinsured patient levels and the provision for doubtful accounts. Our specific plans include, among other things, utilizing experienced local and regional management teams, modifying physician employment agreements, renegotiating payor and vendor contracts and developing action plans responsive to feedback from patient, physician and employee satisfaction surveys. Based on the needs of the communities that we serve, we also seek opportunities for market service development, including establishing ambulatory surgical centers, urgent care centers, cardiac cath labs, angiography suites and orthopedic, cardiology and neurology/neurosurgery centers of excellence. Furthermore, we are investing significant resources in physician recruitment and retention (primary care physicians and specialists), emergency room operations, advanced robotic surgical systems, replacement hospital construction and other capital projects. For example, we continue to implement ER Extra®, which is our signature patient-centered emergency room program that is designed to reduce patient wait times, enhance patient satisfaction and improve the quality and scope of patient assessments. During 2011, we also opened a hospital that we built to replace Madison County Medical Center in Canton, Mississippi and deployed new MAKOplasty® and da Vinci® robotic surgical systems at many of our hospitals. We believe that our strategic initiatives, coupled with appropriate executive management oversight, centralized support and innovative marketing campaigns, will enhance patient, physician and employee satisfaction, improve clinical outcomes and ultimately yield increased surgical volume, emergency room visits and admissions. Additionally, as we consider potential acquisitions, joint ventures and partnerships in 2012 and beyond, we believe that continually improving our existing operations provides us with a fundamentally sound infrastructure upon which we can add hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses.

 

46


Table of Contents

We have also taken steps that we believe are necessary to achieve industry leadership in clinical quality. Our vision is to be the highest rated health care provider of any hospital system in the country, as measured by Medicare. With our knowledgeable and experienced clinical affairs leadership supporting this critical quality initiative, we measure key performance objectives, maintain accountability for achieving those objectives and recognize the leaders whose quality indicators and clinical outcomes demonstrate improvement. As most recently reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, all four of our core measure care areas have dramatically improved since the commencement of our clinical quality initiatives and we now rank second in core measures amongst for-profit hospital systems. Additionally, The Joint Commission, a leading independent not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies health care organizations in the United States, recently named nearly 60% of our hospitals as Top Performers on Key Quality Measures, which compares to a nationwide achievement rate of approximately 14%. The Joint Commission aggregated certain evidence-based accountability data from 2010, including core measurement performance data, to determine the top performers.

Outpatient services continue to play an important role in the delivery of health care in our markets, with approximately half of our net revenue generated on an outpatient basis. Recognizing the importance of these services, we have improved many of our health care facilities to accommodate the outpatient needs of the communities that they serve. We have also invested substantial capital in many of our hospitals and physician practices during the past several years, resulting in improvements and enhancements to our diagnostic imaging and ambulatory surgical services.

During the past several years, various economic and other factors have resulted in a large number of uninsured and underinsured patients seeking health care in the United States. Self-pay admissions as a percent of total admissions at our hospitals were approximately 6.7% and 7.1% during the 2011 Calendar Year and the 2010 Calendar Year, respectively. We continue to take various measures to address the impact of uninsured and underinsured patients on our business. Additionally, one of the primary goals of the Health Care Reform Act is to provide health insurance coverage to more Americans. Nevertheless, there can be no assurances that our self-pay admissions will not grow in future periods, especially in light of the prolonged downturn in the economy and correspondingly higher levels of unemployment in many of the markets served by our hospitals. Therefore, we regularly evaluate our self-pay policies and programs and consider changes or modifications as circumstances warrant.

2011 Calendar Year Compared to the 2010 Calendar Year

The tables below summarize our operating results for the 2011 Calendar Year and the 2010 Calendar Year. Hospitals that were owned/leased and operated by us for one year or more as of December 31, 2011 are referred to as same 2011 hospitals. For all year-over-year comparative discussions herein, the operating results of our same 2011 hospitals are only considered to the extent that there was a similar period of operation in both years.

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2011     2010  
          Percent           Percent  
          of Net           of Net  
    Amount             Revenue             Amount       Revenue    
        (in thousands)                 (in thousands)          

Net revenue

    $ 5,804,451          100.0       $ 5,092,166          100.0  

Salaries and benefits

    2,302,844          39.7          2,016,967          39.6     

Supplies

    776,598          13.4          703,426          13.8     

Provision for doubtful accounts

    716,856          12.4          624,753          12.3     

Rent expense

    154,279          2.6          122,983          2.4     

Other operating expenses

    1,067,980          18.4          892,465          17.5     

Medicare and Medicaid HCIT incentive payments

    (39,982)         (0.7)         -          -     

Depreciation and amortization

    267,900          4.6          241,873          4.8     

Interest expense

    222,747          3.8          211,673          4.2     

Write-offs of deferred debt issuance costs and related other

    24,595          0.4          -          -     

Other

    (1,771)         -          (8,797)         (0.2)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
    5,492,046          94.6          4,805,343          94.4     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations before income taxes

    312,405          5.4          286,823          5.6     

Provision for income taxes

            (106,071)         (1.8)         (101,049)         (2.0)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

    $ 206,334          3.6       $ 185,774          3.6  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

47


Table of Contents

2011 Calendar Year Compared to the 2010 Calendar Year (continued)

 

             Years Ended December 31,                     Percent  
     2011      2010              Change               Change    

Same 2011 Hospitals*

          

Occupancy

     42.1%         43.9%         (180 )   bps**      n/a   

Patient days

     1,300,722          1,350,697          (49,975     (3.7 ) % 

Admissions

     311,053          323,917          (12,864     (4.0 ) % 

Adjusted admissions †

     581,056          586,060          (5,004     (0.9 ) % 

Emergency room visits

     1,430,193          1,413,831          16,362        1.2   % 

Surgeries

     316,298          314,564          1,734        0.6   % 

Outpatient revenue percent

     51.6%         50.0%         160     bps      n/a   

Inpatient revenue percent

     48.4%         50.0%         (160 )   bps      n/a   

Total Hospitals

          

Occupancy

     42.8%         43.9%         (110 )   bps      n/a   

Patient days

     1,424,500          1,350,697          73,803        5.5   % 

Admissions

     338,637          323,917          14,720        4.5   % 

Adjusted admissions †

     635,934          586,060          49,874        8.5   % 

Emergency room visits

     1,562,028          1,413,831          148,197        10.5   % 

Surgeries

     342,421          314,564          27,857        8.9   % 

Outpatient revenue percent

     51.9%         50.0%         190     bps      n/a   

Inpatient revenue percent

     48.1%         50.0%         (190 )   bps      n/a   

    * Includes acquired hospitals to the extent we operated them for comparable periods

  ** basis points

    † Admissions adjusted for outpatient volume

Net revenue during the 2011 Calendar Year was approximately $5,804.5 million as compared to $5,092.2 million during the 2010 Calendar Year. This change represented an increase of $712.3 million, or 14.0%. Our same 2011 hospitals provided $243.3 million, or 34.2%, of the increase in net revenue as a result of: (i) increased outpatient and surgical volume from, among other things, market service development activities; (ii) an increase in emergency room visits; and (iii) improvements in reimbursement rates. These items were partially offset by a decrease in hospital admissions, which was primarily due to a reduction in admissions of uninsured patients and certain weather-related disruptions. The remaining 2011 net revenue increase of $469.0 million was due to our acquisitions of: (i) Shands in July 2010; (ii) Wuesthoff in October 2010; (iii) Tri-Lakes in May 2011; and (iv) the Mercy Hospitals in September 2011.

Net revenue per adjusted admission increased approximately 5.0% during the 2011 Calendar Year as compared to the 2010 Calendar Year. The factors contributing to such change included higher patient acuity, increased surgical volume and the favorable effects of renegotiated agreements with certain commercial health insurance providers.

Our provision for doubtful accounts during the 2011 Calendar Year increased 10 basis points to 12.4% of net revenue as compared to 12.3% of net revenue during the 2010 Calendar Year. This change was primarily due to amounts considered to be patient responsibility (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, other amounts not covered by insurance, etc.).

Our consistently applied accounting policy is that accounts written off as charity and indigent care are not recognized in net revenue and, accordingly, such amounts have no impact on our provision for doubtful accounts. However, as a measure of our fiscal performance, we routinely aggregate amounts pertaining to our (i) provision for doubtful accounts, (ii) uninsured self-pay patient discounts and (iii) foregone/unrecognized revenue for charity and indigent care and divide the resulting total by the sum of our (i) net revenue, (ii) uninsured self-pay patient discounts and (iii) foregone/unrecognized revenue for charity and indigent care. We believe that this fiscal measure, which we refer to as our Uncompensated Patient Care Percentage, provides us with key information regarding the aggregate level of patient care for which we do not receive remuneration. During the 2011 Calendar Year and the 2010 Calendar Year, our Uncompensated Patient Care Percentage was 25.6% and 25.2%, respectively. This 40 basis point increase during the 2011 Calendar Year primarily reflects greater uninsured self-pay patient revenue discounts, partially offset by a decline in self-pay patients in the mix of patients that we serve.

 

48


Table of Contents

Salaries and benefits as a percent of net revenue increased to 39.7% during the 2011 Calendar Year from 39.6% during the 2010 Calendar Year. During the 2011 Calendar Year, increased costs for routine salary and wage increases and disproportionately higher salaries and benefits at our recent acquisitions (including restructuring activities at the Mercy Hospitals) were mostly offset by cost containment measures such as flexible staffing and new hire limitations.

Supplies as a percent of net revenue decreased from 13.8% during the 2010 Calendar Year to 13.4% during the 2011 Calendar Year. This decrease was primarily due to improved pricing and greater discounts from our group purchasing agreement and a favorable change in our surgical volume mix during the 2011 Calendar Year.

Rent expense as a percent of net revenue increased during the 2011 Calendar Year as compared to the 2010 Calendar Year while depreciation and amortization expense as a percent of net revenue declined. In recent years, we have entered into more operating lease arrangements. As our use of operating leases has increased, depreciation and amortization expense has declined and rent expense has increased. Additionally, certain of our hospital buildings reached the end of their depreciable lives during 2010, which further reduced depreciation and amortization expense in 2011.

Other operating expenses as a percent of net revenue increased from 17.5% during the 2010 Calendar Year to 18.4% during the 2011 Calendar Year. This increase was primarily due to the costs associated with: (i) the acquisition of the Mercy Hospitals; (ii) restructuring activities at the Mercy Hospitals; and (iii) certain government investigations. See Notes 4 and 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our recent acquisitions and our ongoing government investigations, respectively. Also contributing to the 2011 increase in other operating expenses were: (i) higher state-mandated provider taxes and increased repairs and maintenance costs during the 2011 Calendar Year; (ii) certain services at our hospitals that have been recently outsourced and/or contracted to third parties; and (iii) disproportionately higher costs at our recent acquisitions.

During the 2011 Calendar Year, we recognized a first time benefit of approximately $40.0 million under the meaningful use measurement standard of the HCIT Programs.

Interest expense increased from approximately $211.7 million during the 2010 Calendar Year to $222.7 million during the 2011 Calendar Year. Such increase was primarily due to non-cash interest expense of $16.4 million attributable to our interest rate swap contract (i.e., accumulated other comprehensive loss amortization and net fair value adjustment expense) that was recognized after the 2011 Debt Restructuring on November 18, 2011. This increase was partially offset by a lower overall effective interest rate on our former $2.75 billion seven-year term loan because less of the outstanding balance thereunder was covered by our interest rate swap contract. We also maintained a lower average outstanding principal balance on such term loan during the 2011 Calendar Year as compared to the 2010 Calendar Year and recorded a greater amount of capitalized interest during the 2011 Calendar Year. See “Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Expenditures” below and Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our long-term debt arrangements and interest rate swap contract.

As a result of the 2011 Debt Restructuring, we wrote-off approximately $24.0 million of deferred debt issuance costs and incurred $0.6 million of related costs. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our long-term debt and the 2011 Debt Restructuring.

Our effective income tax rates were approximately 34.0% and 35.2% during the 2011 Calendar Year and the 2010 Calendar Year, respectively. Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, which is not tax-effected in our consolidated financial statements, reduced our effective income tax rates by approximately 290 basis points and 230 basis points during the 2011 Calendar Year and the 2010 Calendar Year, respectively. Also, see Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for further information regarding our effective income tax rates.

 

49


Table of Contents

2010 Calendar Year Compared to the 2009 Calendar Year

The tables below summarize our operating results for the 2010 Calendar Year and the year ended December 31, 2009, which we refer to as the 2009 Calendar Year. Hospitals that were owned/leased and operated by us for one year or more as of December 31, 2010 are referred to as same 2010 hospitals. For all year-over-year comparative discussions herein, the operating results of our same 2010 hospitals are only considered to the extent that there was a similar period of operation in both years.

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009  
    Amount     Percent
of Net
       Revenue      
    Amount     Percent
of Net
       Revenue      
 
      (in thousands)               (in thousands)          

Net revenue

    $ 5,092,166          100.0        $ 4,536,106         100.0   

Salaries and benefits

    2,016,967          39.6           1,779,440         39.2      

Supplies

    703,426          13.8           637,663         14.1      

Provision for doubtful accounts

    624,753          12.3           553,639         12.2      

Rent expense

    122,983          2.4           100,990         2.2      

Other operating expenses

    892,465          17.5           788,051         17.4      

Depreciation and amortization

    241,873          4.8           234,883         5.2      

Interest expense

    211,673          4.2           217,938         4.8      

Gains on early extinguishment of debt, net

    -          -           (16,202)        (0.4)     

Write-offs of deferred debt issuance costs

    -          -           444         -      

Other

    (8,797)         (0.2)          (4,980)        (0.1)     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
    4,805,343          94.4           4,291,866         94.6      
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations before income taxes

    286,823          5.6           244,240         5.4      

Provision for income taxes

    (101,049)         (2.0)          (82,937)        (1.8)     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

    $ 185,774          3.6        $ 161,303         3.6   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

     Years Ended December 31,            Percent  
               2010                               2009                     Change             Change      

Same 2010 Hospitals*

          

Occupancy

     43.6%          45.3%          (170)   bps**      n/a     

Patient days

     1,243,275           1,281,093           (37,818)          (3.0) 

Admissions

     301,127           306,184           (5,057)          (1.7) 

Adjusted admissions †

     542,628           533,101           9,527           1.8  

Emergency room visits

     1,312,705           1,352,044           (39,339)          (2.9) 

Surgeries

     294,999           281,285           13,714           4.9  

Outpatient revenue percent

     50.1%           48.5%          160    bps      n/a     

Inpatient revenue percent

     49.9%           51.5%          (160)   bps      n/a     

Total Hospitals

          

Occupancy

     43.9%          45.3%          (140)   bps      n/a     

Patient days

     1,350,697           1,281,093           69,604           5.4 

Admissions

     323,917           306,184           17,733           5.8 

Adjusted admissions †

     586,060           533,101           52,959           9.9 

Emergency room visits

     1,413,831           1,352,044           61,787           4.6 

Surgeries

     314,564           281,285           33,279           11.8 

Outpatient revenue percent

     50.0%          48.5%          150    bps      n/a     

Inpatient revenue percent

     50.0%          51.5%          (150)   bps      n/a     

    * Includes acquired hospitals to the extent we operated them for comparable periods

  ** basis points

    † Admissions adjusted for outpatient volume

 

50


Table of Contents

Net revenue during the 2010 Calendar Year was approximately $5,092.2 million as compared to $4,536.1 million during the 2009 Calendar Year. This change represented an increase of $556.1 million, or 12.3%. Our same 2010 hospitals provided $182.7 million, or 32.9%, of the increase in net revenue as a result of increased surgical volume attributable to physician recruitment and market service development, as well as improvements in reimbursement rates. These items were partially offset by decreases in hospital admissions and emergency room visits, as well as unfavorable movement in our payor mix. Among other things, hospital admissions and emergency room visits declined in 2010 due to (i) fewer births at our hospitals and (ii) a less severe 2010 flu season as compared to 2009 when there was an outbreak of H1N1 influenza (“swine flu”) in the United States. The remaining 2010 net revenue increase of $373.4 million was due to our acquisitions of: (i) the 492-bed Sparks Health System (“Sparks”) in Fort Smith, Arkansas in December 2009; (ii) Shands in July 2010; and (iii) Wuesthoff in October 2010.

Net revenue per adjusted admission increased approximately 2.1% during the 2010 Calendar Year as compared to the 2009 Calendar Year. The factors contributing to such change included increased patient acuity and the favorable effects of renegotiated agreements with certain commercial health insurance providers, partially offset by the unfavorable movement in our payor mix during the 2010 Calendar Year.

Our provision for doubtful accounts during the 2010 Calendar Year increased 10 basis points to 12.3% of net revenue as compared to 12.2% of net revenue during the 2009 Calendar Year. This change was primarily due to an increase in uninsured patients in the mix of patients that we serve (approximately 7.1% and 7.0% of total hospital admissions during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year, respectively), which can be attributed, in part, to the prolonged downturn in the economy and correspondingly higher levels of unemployment. During the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year, our Uncompensated Patient Care Percentage, which is described above under the heading “2011 Calendar Year Compared to the 2010 Calendar Year,” was 25.2% and 24.3%, respectively. This 90 basis point increase during the 2010 Calendar Year primarily reflects greater uninsured self-pay patient revenue discounts and unfavorable movement in our payor mix.

Salaries and benefits as a percent of net revenue increased to 39.6% during the 2010 Calendar Year from 39.2% during the 2009 Calendar Year. This increase was primarily due to disproportionately higher salaries and benefits at our 2010 and 2009 acquisitions.

Supplies as a percent of net revenue decreased from 14.1% during the 2009 Calendar Year to 13.8% during the 2010 Calendar Year. This decrease was primarily due to improved pricing and greater discounts from our group purchasing agreement and a favorable change in our surgical volume mix during the 2010 Calendar Year.

Rent expense as a percent of net revenue increased during the 2010 Calendar Year as compared to the 2009 Calendar Year while depreciation and amortization expense as a percent of net revenue declined. See above under the heading “2011 Calendar Year Compared to the 2010 Calendar Year” for the factors contributing to these changes.

Other operating expenses as a percent of net revenue increased from 17.4% during the 2009 Calendar Year to 17.5% during the 2010 Calendar Year. This change was primarily due to an increase in attorneys’ fees and disproportionately higher operating expenses at our recent acquisitions.

Interest expense decreased from approximately $217.9 million during the 2009 Calendar Year to $211.7 million during the 2010 Calendar Year. Such decrease was primarily due to a lower overall effective interest rate on our former $2.75 billion seven-year term loan because less of the outstanding balance thereunder was covered by our interest rate swap contract. We also maintained lower average outstanding principal balances on such term loan and our convertible debt securities during the 2010 Calendar Year as compared to the 2009 Calendar Year. These reductions in interest expense were partially offset by a lesser amount of capitalized interest during the 2010 Calendar Year. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our long-term debt arrangements.

During the 2009 Calendar Year, we repurchased certain of our convertible debt securities, which yielded a net gain on the early extinguishment of debt of approximately $16.2 million. See Note 2(c) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our convertible debt repurchases.

Our effective income tax rates were approximately 35.2% and 34.0% during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year, respectively. Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, which is not tax-effected in our consolidated financial statements, reduced our effective income tax rates by approximately 230 basis points and 380 basis points during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year, respectively. Also, see Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for further information regarding our effective income tax rates.

 

51


Table of Contents

Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Expenditures

Liquidity

Our cash flows from continuing operating activities provide the primary source of cash for our ongoing business needs. Additionally, at December 31, 2011 approximately $81.7 million of our available-for-sale securities and $400.3 million of borrowing capacity under our new $500.0 million long-term revolving credit facility were available for, among other things, general business purposes and acquisitions. As discussed at Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, we plan to fund the pending acquisition of an 80% equity interest in each of five Oklahoma-based general acute care hospitals and certain related health care operations with available cash balances and proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities. We believe that our various sources of cash are adequate to meet our foreseeable operating, capital expenditure, business acquisition and debt service needs.

Below is a summary of our recent cash flow activity (in thousands).

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2011     2010     2009  

Sources (uses) of cash and cash equivalents:

     

Operating activities

    $ 544,022          $ 434,691          $ 434,576     

Investing activities

            (976,011)                 (393,653)                 (357,253)    

Financing activities

    401,223          (49,483)         (127,451)    

Discontinued operations

    (6,903)         4,239          12,532     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

    $ (37,669)         $ (4,206)         $ (37,596)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

2011 Calendar Year Cash Flows Compared to the 2010 Calendar Year Cash Flows

Operating Activities

Our cash flows from continuing operating activities increased approximately $109.3 million, or 25.2%, during the 2011 Calendar Year as compared to the 2010 Calendar Year. This increase primarily related to: (i) improved profitability, including our receipt of $38.3 million under the meaningful use measurement standard of the HCIT Programs; (ii) reductions in both our interest payments and our net federal and state income tax payments during the 2011 Calendar Year when compared to the 2010 Calendar Year; and (iii) increases in our accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities, which were primarily due to our recent acquisitions. Partially offsetting the abovementioned favorable developments during the 2011 Calendar Year was an increase in accounts receivable at the Mercy Hospitals, which we acquired on September 30, 2011.

Prospectively, we believe that our cash flows from continuing operating activities will be adversely impacted through the middle of 2012 by delayed cash collections on accounts receivable at the Mercy Hospitals; however, our new $500.0 million long-term revolving credit facility, which is described under “Capital Resources” below and Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, is available to provide post-acquisition working capital, if necessary, while we await approvals to bill and collect under the Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers that we assumed (see further discussion below under “Days Sales Outstanding”). We also believe that the professional and other costs of our ongoing government investigations, while difficult to predict, will continue and will vary throughout the duration of such investigations. Those costs will be paid with our cash flows from continuing operating activities. See Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding such government investigations. Although subject to change due to a variety of factors beyond our control, we project that during the year ending December 31, 2012 (i) we will pay $87.0 million to the counterparties of our interest rate swap contract, which is discussed at Note 2(a) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, and (ii) we will receive additional reimbursement under the meaningful use measurement standard of the HCIT Programs ranging from $90 million to $120 million.

Investing Activities

Cash used in investing activities during the 2011 Calendar Year included: (i) approximately $302.0 million of additions to property, plant and equipment, consisting primarily of new medical equipment (including $20.7 million to purchase da Vinci® robotic surgical systems), information technology hardware and software upgrades, renovation and expansion projects at certain of our facilities and replacement hospital construction (including a hospital that opened in May 2011 to replace Madison County Medical Center in Canton, Mississippi and a new 250-bed

 

52


Table of Contents

hospital that is currently under construction and will ultimately replace our south campus facility at Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff, Missouri); (ii) $520.0 million to acquire the six Mercy Hospitals; (iii) $38.8 million to acquire a 95% equity interest in a Mississippi-based hospital (Tri-Lakes); (iv) $23.3 million to acquire ten ancillary health care businesses; and (v) a $35.3 million increase in our restricted funds. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our recent acquisitions. Excluding the available-for-sale securities in restricted funds, we had a net cash outlay of $64.2 million from buying and selling such securities during the 2011 Calendar Year. These 2011 cash outlays were partially offset by (i) $4.9 million of proceeds from the sales of the remaining real property at Gulf Coast Medical Center, our closed hospital facility in Biloxi, Mississippi, and certain assets at Fishermen’s Hospital in Marathon, Florida and (ii) $2.8 million of proceeds from sales of assets and insurance recoveries.

Cash used in investing activities during the 2010 Calendar Year included: (i) approximately $209.1 million of additions to property, plant and equipment, consisting primarily of new medical equipment, information technology hardware and software upgrades, renovation and expansion projects at certain of our facilities and construction of a hospital to replace Madison County Medical Center; (ii) $152.0 million for the acquisition of two Florida-based hospitals (Wuesthoff); (iii) $21.5 million to acquire a 60% equity interest in each of three Florida-based hospitals (Shands); (iv) $18.0 million to acquire six ancillary health care businesses; and (v) a $5.8 million increase in our restricted funds. Excluding the available-for-sale securities in restricted funds, we had a net cash outlay of $16.8 million from buying and selling such securities during the 2010 Calendar Year. These 2010 cash outlays were partially offset by (i) $26.4 million of proceeds from the sale of Riley Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, which is discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, and (ii) $3.2 million of proceeds from sales of assets and insurance recoveries.

Financing Activities

During the 2011 Calendar Year, we received approximately $389.2 million of cash proceeds from a syndicate of banks, including $29.2 million under a then existing revolving credit facility to: (i) finance the acquisition of seven Tennessee-based general acute care hospitals and other ancillary health care operations from Catholic Health Partners and its subsidiary Mercy Health Partners, Inc.; (ii) pay certain closing costs of a credit agreement, which is described at Note 2(d) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8; and (iii) provide start-up working capital to certain of our subsidiaries that are affiliated with the newly acquired hospitals. In connection with the 2011 Debt Restructuring, we received $2,967.8 million of proceeds from new debt arrangements, which was primarily used to repay all of the principal and accrued interest outstanding under certain of our then existing debt agreements. As a result of the 2011 Debt Restructuring and normal recurring activity, our aggregate principal payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations were $2,869.4 million during the 2011 Calendar Year. We also paid $75.1 million for debt issuance costs related to our new credit agreements and $28.3 million to noncontrolling shareholders primarily for recurring distributions. During the 2011 Calendar Year our cash provided by continuing financing activities also included (i) $14.1 million of cash proceeds from exercises of stock options and (ii) $3.0 million of excess income tax benefits from our stock-based compensation arrangements. See Notes 2 and 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our long-term debt arrangements and capital lease obligations, respectively.

During the 2010 Calendar Year, we made principal payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations of approximately $40.1 million. We also paid $20.6 million to noncontrolling shareholders primarily for recurring distributions. Partially offsetting these cash outlays were (i) $7.5 million of cash proceeds from exercises of stock options and (ii) $2.5 million that we received from noncontrolling shareholders to acquire minority equity interests in one of our joint ventures.

Discontinued Operations

Cash used by our discontinued operations during the 2011 Calendar Year was approximately $6.9 million, including $12.4 million of purchase price allocated from the abovementioned Mercy Health Partners, Inc. acquisition. The cash provided by our discontinued operations during the 2010 Calendar Year was $4.2 million. We do not believe that the exclusion of such amounts from our consolidated cash flows in future periods will have a material effect on our liquidity or financial position. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our discontinued operations.

 

53


Table of Contents

2010 Calendar Year Cash Flows Compared to the 2009 Calendar Year Cash Flows

Operating Activities

Our cash flows from continuing operating activities were approximately the same amount during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year. However, we experienced increased cash flows during the 2010 Calendar Year from (i) improved operating profitability and (ii) increases in our liabilities during the 2010 Calendar Year that were primarily due to the timing of vendor payments. Offsetting these items were (i) income taxes (i.e., net federal and state income tax payments of $56.7 million and $1.7 million during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year, respectively) and (ii) an increase in accounts receivable from the hospital acquisitions that we completed during 2010.

Investing Activities

Cash used in investing activities during the 2010 Calendar Year included: (i) approximately $209.1 million of additions to property, plant and equipment, consisting primarily of new medical equipment, information technology hardware and software upgrades, renovation and expansion projects at certain of our facilities and construction of a hospital to replace Madison County Medical Center in Canton, Mississippi; (ii) $152.0 million for the acquisition of two Florida-based hospitals (Wuesthoff); (iii) $21.5 million to acquire a 60% equity interest in each of three Florida-based hospitals (Shands); (iv) $18.0 million to acquire six ancillary health care businesses; and (v) a $5.8 million increase in our restricted funds. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our recent acquisitions. Excluding the available-for-sale securities in restricted funds, we had a net cash outlay of $16.8 million from buying and selling such securities during the 2010 Calendar Year. These 2010 cash outlays were partially offset by (i) $26.4 million of proceeds from the sale of Riley Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, which is discussed at Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, and (ii) $3.2 million of proceeds from sales of assets and insurance recoveries.

Cash used in investing activities during the 2009 Calendar Year included (i) approximately $198.9 million of additions to property, plant and equipment, consisting primarily of renovation and expansion projects at certain of our facilities, and (ii) $138.2 million for the acquisition of a health system in Fort Smith, Arkansas (Sparks). Excluding the available-for-sale securities in restricted funds, we had a net cash outlay of $36.5 million from buying and selling such securities during the 2009 Calendar Year. These 2009 cash outlays were partially offset by a decrease in restricted funds of $11.6 million and $5.4 million of proceeds from sales of assets.

Financing Activities

During the 2010 Calendar Year, we made principal payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations of approximately $40.1 million. We also paid $20.6 million to noncontrolling shareholders primarily for recurring distributions. Partially offsetting these cash outlays were (i) $7.5 million of cash proceeds from exercises of stock options and (ii) $2.5 million that we received from noncontrolling shareholders to acquire minority equity interests in one of our joint ventures. See Notes 2 and 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our long-term debt arrangements and capital lease obligations, respectively.

During the 2009 Calendar Year, we borrowed and repaid $38.0 million under our then existing revolving credit facility to fund the acquisition of Sparks. Furthermore, we made principal payments on our other long-term debt and capital lease obligations of approximately $89.1 million, including mandatory and other prepayments of $43.4 million on certain then existing bank term loan indebtedness. During the 2009 Calendar Year, we also paid (i) $67.7 million to repurchase certain of our 3.75% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2028 in the open market and (ii) $35.4 million to noncontrolling shareholders, including distributions of $19.6 million from our joint venture in North Carolina and South Carolina and $6.2 million in connection with the restructuring of such joint venture. These 2009 cash outlays were partially offset by $54.8 million that we received from noncontrolling shareholders to acquire minority equity interests in our joint ventures and cash proceeds from exercises of stock options of $9.7 million. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our joint venture activity.

Discontinued Operations

Cash provided by our discontinued operations during the 2010 Calendar Year and the 2009 Calendar Year was approximately $4.2 million and $12.5 million, respectively. We do not believe that the exclusion of such amounts from our consolidated cash flows in future periods will have a material effect on our liquidity or financial position. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our discontinued operations.

 

54


Table of Contents

Days Sales Outstanding

To calculate days sales outstanding, or DSO, we initially divide quarterly net revenue by the number of days in the quarter. The result is divided into the net patient accounts receivable balance at the end of the quarter to obtain our DSO. We believe that this statistic is an important measure of collections on our accounts receivable, as well as our liquidity. Our DSO was 51 days at December 31, 2011, which compares to 52 days at September 30, 2011 and 49 days at December 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2011, we were in the process of obtaining the necessary approvals for our Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers for the Mercy Hospitals and their related ancillary health care operations, which we acquired on September 30, 2011. While the necessary approvals are pending, we are unable to bill for the services that we provided at those facilities, which caused our accounts receivable to grow and correspondingly increased our DSO by approximately two days at December 31, 2011. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding our acquisition of the Mercy Hospitals. Our DSO at December 31, 2011 was also adversely impacted by certain ongoing system and billing conversions that affect our accounts receivable software applications.

Income Taxes

Other than certain state net operating loss carryforwards, we believe that it is more likely than not that reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, future taxable income and carrybacks will allow us to realize the deferred tax assets that are recognized in our consolidated balance sheets.

Effect of Legislative and Regulatory Action on Liquidity

The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs are subject to change as a result of legislative and regulatory actions. Within the statutory framework of those programs, numerous areas are subject to administrative rulings, interpretations and discretion that could affect payments made to us. In the future, federal and/or state governments might (i) reduce the funds available under those programs to close budget gaps or reduce deficit spending or (ii) require more stringent utilization and quality reviews of hospital facilities, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our future revenue and liquidity. Additionally, the implementation of the Health Care Reform Act, which dramatically affects the financing and delivery of health care services in the United States, and/or the continued prevalence of managed care health plans could have an adverse effect on our future revenue and liquidity. For further discussion of the Health Care Reform Act and its possible impact on our business and results of operations, see “Business – Sources of Revenue” in Item 1 of Part I and “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I.

Capital Resources

Senior Secured Credit Facilities.    As more fully described at Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, we completed the 2011 Debt Restructuring on November 18, 2011, which included, among other things, new variable rate senior secured credit facilities with a syndicate of banks (the “New Credit Facilities”). The New Credit Facilities consist of: (i) a $500.0 million five-year revolving credit facility (the “New Revolving Credit Agreement”); (ii) a $725.0 million five-year term loan (the “New Term Loan A”); and (iii) a $1.4 billion seven-year term loan (the “New Term Loan B”). We used the net proceeds from the term loans under the New Credit Facilities, together with the net proceeds from the sale of our 7.375% Senior Notes due 2020, to repay all of the principal and accrued interest outstanding under certain of our then existing debt agreements.

We can elect whether interest on borrowings under the New Credit Facilities is calculated using LIBOR or the Prime Rate (as defined in the loan agreement) as its base rate; however, the base rate for the New Term Loan B is subject to a floor of 1.0% when the LIBOR option is selected. The effective interest rate, which fluctuates with changes in the underlying base rates, includes a spread above the base rate that we select. The amount of the interest rate spread is predicated on, among other things, our Consolidated Leverage Ratio (as defined in the loan agreement). We can elect differing interest rates for each of the debt instruments that comprise the New Credit Facilities. Interest is payable in arrears at the end of a calendar quarter or on the date that the selected interest duration period ends.

Beginning on March 31, 2012, the New Term Loan A will be repaid in equal quarterly installments in an aggregate annual amount equal to 7.5% of the principal amount thereof in each of the first two years of such facility, 10.0% in the third year, 15.0% in the fourth year and 60.0% in the fifth year. The New Term Loan B requires quarterly principal payments of $3.5 million, beginning on March 31, 2012, and a balloon payment for the remaining outstanding balance at the end of the facility’s seventh year. We have the right to prepay amounts outstanding under the New Credit Facilities at any time without penalty, other than a prepayment of the New Term Loan B, which is subject to a prepayment premium during the first year of the loan agreement. At December 31, 2011, the effective interest rates on the New Term Loan A and the New Term Loan B were 3.2% and 4.5%, respectively. Those rates remained unchanged as of February 17, 2012.

 

55


Table of Contents

Throughout the New Revolving Credit Agreement’s five-year term, we are obligated to pay commitment fees based on the amounts available for borrowing. The New Revolving Credit Agreement provides that we can borrow, on a revolving basis, up to an aggregate of $500.0 million, as adjusted for outstanding standby letters of credit of up to $75.0 million. We did not borrow under the New Revolving Credit Agreement during the period from November 18, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Although there were no amounts outstanding under the New Revolving Credit Agreement on February 17, 2012, standby letters of credit in favor of third parties of approximately $51.9 million reduced the amount available for borrowing thereunder to $448.1 million on such date. Our effective interest rate on the variable rate New Revolving Credit Agreement was approximately 3.2% on February 17, 2012.

The New Credit Facilities are generally subject to mandatory prepayment in amounts equal to: (i) 100% of the net cash proceeds received from certain asset sales, including insurance recoveries and condemnation events, subject to reinvestment provisions and the ratable offer requirements of other pari passu secured debt; (ii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from our issuance of certain new debt; and (iii) 50% of our Excess Cash Flow (as defined in the loan agreement) with step-downs of such percentage based on our Consolidated Leverage Ratio.

We intend to fund the required principal payments under the term loans of the New Credit Facilities and the related interest with available cash balances, cash provided by operating activities, proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities and, if necessary, borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Agreement.

Demand Promissory Note.    We maintain a $10.0 million secured demand promissory note in favor of a bank for use as a working capital line of credit in conjunction with our cash management program. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the demand promissory note, we may borrow, on a revolving basis, up to the principal face amount of the note. All principal and accrued interest under the demand promissory note will be immediately due and payable upon the bank’s written demand. We did not borrow under this credit facility during the 2011 Calendar Year. The demand promissory note’s effective interest rate on February 17, 2012 was approximately 2.5%; however, there were no amounts outstanding thereunder on such date.

7.375% Senior Notes due 2020.    As more fully described at Note 2(b) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, on November 18, 2011 we completed a private placement of $875.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.375% Senior Notes due 2020 (the “2020 Senior Notes”). We used the net proceeds from this debt offering, together with the net proceeds from the term loans under the New Credit Facilities, to repay all of the principal and accrued interest outstanding under certain of our then existing debt agreements. The 2020 Senior Notes are senior unsecured debt obligations that bear interest at the rate of 7.375% per annum, payable semi-annually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year, beginning on July 15, 2012. The 2020 Senior Notes mature on January 15, 2020 at which time the entire $875.0 million of principal is due and payable. At any time on or after January 15, 2016, the 2020 Senior Notes are redeemable at our option, in whole or in part, at the redemption prices set forth in the related indenture, plus accrued and unpaid interest. Prior to January 15, 2016, we may redeem the 2020 Senior Notes, in whole or in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes being redeemed, plus a “make-whole” premium and accrued and unpaid interest. Prior to January 15, 2015, we may also redeem up to 35% of the original principal amount of the 2020 Senior Notes with the proceeds from certain equity offerings at a redemption price of 107.375% of the principal amount of the notes being redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

We intend to fund the required semi-annual interest payments under the 2020 Senior Notes with available cash balances, cash provided by operating activities, proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities and, if necessary, borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Agreement.

Debt Covenants

The New Credit Facilities and the indentures governing our convertible debt securities, the 2020 Senior Notes and our 6.125% Senior Notes due 2016 contain covenants that, among other things, require us to maintain compliance with certain financial ratios. At December 31, 2011, we were in compliance with all of the covenants contained in those debt agreements. Although there can be no assurances, we believe that we will continue to be in compliance with all of our debt covenants. Should we fail to comply with one or more of our debt covenants in the future and are unable to remedy the matter, an event of default may result. In that circumstance, we would seek a waiver from our lenders or renegotiate the related debt agreement; however, such renegotiations could, among other things, subject us to higher interest and financing costs on our debt obligations and our credit ratings could be adversely affected.

 

56


Table of Contents

Dividends

The New Credit Facilities and the indentures for certain of our other debt agreements restrict our ability to pay cash dividends.

Standby Letters of Credit

As of February 17, 2012, we maintained approximately $54.1 million of standby letters of credit in favor of third parties with various expiration dates through February 21, 2013. Should any or all of these letters of credit be drawn upon, we intend to satisfy such obligations with available cash balances, cash provided by operating activities, proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities and, if necessary, borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Agreement.

Interest Rate Swap Contract

As required by a former credit facility, we entered into a seven-year receive variable/pay fixed interest rate swap contract during February 2007. As part of the 2011 Debt Restructuring, such credit facility was terminated but the interest rate swap contract was not. Although we are exposed to financial risk in the event of nonperformance by one or more of the counterparties to the contract, we do not anticipate nonperformance because our interest rate swap contract is in a liability position and would require us to make settlement payments to the counterparties in the event of a contract termination. The interest rate swap contract provides for us to pay interest at a fixed rate of 6.7445% on the contract’s notional amount, which was originally expected to reasonably approximate the declining principal balance of a term loan under the former credit facility. At December 31, 2011, the notional amount of the interest rate swap contract was approximately $2,027.4 million. The estimated fair value of our liability for the interest rate swap contract on such date was $162.3 million and we project that $87.0 million will be payable to the counterparties during the year ending December 31, 2012. However, our aggregate payments through the contract’s expiration in February 2014, as well as the specific timing thereof, are subject to change based on, among other things, future LIBOR rates. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding the estimated fair value of our interest rate swap contract.

Net interest payable or receivable is settled between us and the counterparties at the end of each calendar quarter. We intend to fund any net interest payable to the counterparties with available cash balances, cash provided by operating activities, proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities and, if necessary, borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Agreement.

Capital Expenditures and Other

We believe that capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment will range from 4.5% to 5.5% of our net revenue (before the provision for doubtful accounts) for the year ending December 31, 2012, which is within the capital expenditure limitations of the New Credit Facilities. As of December 31, 2011, we had started: (i) construction of a 250-bed general acute care hospital to ultimately replace the south campus facility at Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff, Missouri; (ii) several hospital renovation and expansion projects; and (iii) various information technology hardware and software upgrades. Additionally, we estimate that the remaining cost to build and equip a replacement hospital for Walton Regional Medical Center in Monroe, Georgia will range from $20 million to $25 million. We are currently obligated to complete construction of this replacement hospital no later than December 31, 2012. We do not believe that any of our construction, renovation and/or expansion projects are individually significant or that they represent, in the aggregate, a material commitment of our resources.

Part of our strategic business plan calls for us to acquire hospitals and other ancillary health care businesses in non-urban communities that are aligned with our business model, available at a reasonable price and otherwise meet our strict acquisition criteria. We fund acquisitions, replacement hospital construction and other recurring capital expenditures with available cash balances, cash provided by operating activities, proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities, amounts available under revolving credit agreements and proceeds from long-term debt issuances, or a combination thereof. Specifically, we plan to fund the acquisition of an 80% equity interest in each of five Oklahoma-based general acute care hospitals and certain related health care operations with available cash balances and proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities. This pending acquisition, which we expect to close during the quarter ending June 30, 2012, is discussed at Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

 

57


Table of Contents

Divestitures of Idle Property and Other

We intend to sell (i) the Woman’s Center at Dallas Regional Medical Center, which was a specialty women’s hospital in Mesquite, Texas that we closed on June 1, 2008, and (ii) the former Riverside hospital campus that we acquired from Mercy Health Partners, Inc. on September 30, 2011. We are also exploring various alternatives for St. Mary’s Medical Center of Scott County wherein the hospital’s lease agreement expires in May 2012 and will not be renewed. However, the timing of such divestitures has not yet been determined. We intend to use the proceeds from any transactions involving the abovementioned facilities for general business purposes. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information about the three facilities that we intend to divest.

Contractual Obligations and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Except as set forth in the table below, we do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

As of December 31, 2011, we had recorded approximately (i) $200.6 million for redeemable equity securities and (ii) $39.1 million as a liability for unrecognized income tax benefits and related interest and penalties. We excluded these amounts from the table below due to the uncertainty of the amounts to be paid, if any, as well as the timing of such payments. We also excluded $215.6 million of net professional liability risk reserves (including $40.4 million in current liabilities) from the table below because we do not characterize such reserves as contractual obligations and the unpaid settled claim amount at December 31, 2011 was not significant.

As of December 31, 2011, contractual obligations for each of the next five years ending December 31 and thereafter (including principal and interest) and other commitments are summarized in the table below. Interest rates at December 31, 2011 were used in the table to estimate interest payments on variable rate debt.

 

$0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000
    Payments Due by Year Ending December 31,  

Contractual Obligations

  2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     Thereafter  
    (in thousands)  

Long-term debt (a)

    $ 249,435          $ 246,752          $ 350,391          $ 290,579          $ 991,054          $ 2,520,413     

Capital leases

    22,722          17,468          15,934          15,678          12,013          95,417     

Operating leases (b)

    125,645          103,195          76,639          59,859          39,470          111,650     

Interest rate swap contract

    86,975          64,501          10,831          -          -          -     

Physician commitments (c)

    19,260          10,945          -          -          -          -     

Other

    200          200          200          200          200          600     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total contractual obligations

    $     504,237          $     443,061          $     453,995          $     366,316          $     1,042,737          $     2,728,080     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

$0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000 $0,000,000
Other Commitments Not Recorded   Commitment Expiration by Year Ending December 31,  

on our Consolidated Balance Sheet

  2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     Thereafter  
    (in thousands)  

Letters of credit (d)

    $ 104,401          $ -          $ -          $ -          $ -          $ -     

Physician commitments (c)

    26,394          16,357          -          -          -          -     

Other (e)

    161,191          34,830          2,000          -          -          -     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total commitments

    $     291,986          $       51,187          $         2,000          $                  -          $                   -          $                   -     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

(a)

For purposes of the above table, we assumed that we would repurchase our 3.75% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2028 on May 1, 2014 because the noteholders can unilaterally exercise their contractual right to require us to repurchase some or all of their notes on such date.

 

(b)

Amounts relate to obligations under operating leases for real property, real property master leases and equipment. The real property master leases are leases for buildings near our hospitals for which we guarantee a certain level of rental income to the owners of the property. We sublease space in these buildings to unrelated third parties. Future operating lease obligations are not recorded in our consolidated balance sheets.

 

(c)

See Note 1(e) and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding physician and physician group guarantees and commitments.

 

(d)

Amount relates to outstanding letters of credit that principally serve as security for our workers’ compensation self-insurance program and deposits for certain utility companies.

 

(e)

Other includes: (i) construction costs to build replacement hospitals for both Walton Regional Medical Center in Monroe, Georgia and the south campus facility at Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff, Missouri; (ii) purchase commitments for supplies; and (iii) other miscellaneous commitments.

 

58


Table of Contents

Impact of Inflation

The health care industry is labor intensive and subject to wage and related employee benefit expense increases, especially during periods of inflation and when there exists a shortage of skilled labor. A skilled nursing staff shortage throughout the health care industry has existed for the past several years and has caused nursing salaries to increase. We have addressed our nursing staff needs by increasing wages, improving hospital working conditions and fostering relationships with local nursing schools. We do not believe that the inflationary trend in nursing salaries or the nursing shortage will have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Suppliers, utility companies and other vendors pass their cost increases to us in the form of higher prices. We believe that we have been able to partially offset increases in our operating costs by increasing prices, achieving quantity discounts for purchases through our group purchasing agreement and efficiently utilizing our resources. Although we have implemented cost control measures to curb increases in operating costs, we cannot predict our ability to recover or offset future cost increases from our many vendors.

Item 7A.   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

We are subject to market risk due to changes in interest rates. To mitigate our exposure to interest rate volatility, a portion of our long-term debt is fixed rate and, if appropriate, we will consider entering into an interest rate swap contract. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for a discussion of our long-term debt. We do not believe that our overall market risk exposures will materially change during 2012.

As of December 31, 2011, the estimated fair value and carrying amount of our fixed rate debt, including capital lease obligations, were approximately $1,529.1 million and $1,463.7 million, respectively. The estimated fair value and carrying amount of our variable rate debt on such date were $2,101.7 million and $2,111.3 million, respectively. A hypothetical 1% increase in interest rates from those that were in effect at December 31, 2011 would impact our annualized interest expense by approximately $14.1 million. Moreover, increases in interest rates would correspondingly increase our interest expense associated with any future borrowings. The table below summarizes principal cash flows and weighted average interest rates by expected maturity dates for our long-term debt and capital lease obligations that were outstanding at December 31, 2011.

 

    Years Ending December 31,  
    2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     Thereafter     Totals  
    (in thousands, except interest rates)  

Fixed rate long-term debt, including capital leases

    $ 17,134        $ 12,618        $ 10,843        $ 11,320        $ 408,376        $ 923,385        $ 1,383,676   

Weighted average interest rates

    6.9%        6.8%        7.0%        7.0%        6.1%        7.4%        7.0%   

Fixed rate convertible long-term debt

    -        -        $ 91,450   (a)      -        -        -        $ 91,450   

Weighted average interest rates

    -        -        3.8%        -        -        -        3.8%   

Variable rate long-term debt

    $      68,375        $      68,375        $     86,500        $       122,750        $     449,000        $   1,330,000        $   2,125,000   

Weighted average interest rates (b)

    3.5%        3.5%        3.4%        3.4%        3.3%        4.5%        4.1%   

 

(a)

For purposes of the above table, we assumed that we would repurchase our 3.75% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2028 on May 1, 2014 because the noteholders can unilaterally exercise their contractual right to require us to repurchase some or all of their notes on such date.

(b)

For purposes of the above table, we assumed that the interest rates on each of our variable rate long-term debt instruments at December 31, 2011 would remain in effect for the full term of such instruments.

We do not execute transactions or hold derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. However, pursuant to the requirements of the agreements underlying our former credit facilities, we entered into a receive variable/pay fixed interest rate swap contract in February 2007 that provides for us to pay a fixed interest rate of 6.7445% on the notional amount of such contract for its seven-year term. At December 31, 2011, the estimated fair value of the liability for our interest rate swap contract, which is discussed at Note 2(a) to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, was approximately $162.3 million. A hypothetical 1% change in the LIBOR rate used in the valuation of our interest rate swap contract liability would have changed its estimated fair value by $39.3 million.

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in the values of our available-for-sale securities, including those that are held by our insurance company subsidiaries. As more fully described at Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, those investments have an estimated fair value and cost basis at December 31, 2011 of approximately $246.8 million and $245.5 million, respectively. We are also exposed to risk related to market illiquidity. For example, if one of our insurance subsidiaries requires cash beyond its usual requirements and we are unable to readily access the customary capital markets, we may have difficulty selling our investments in a timely manner or be forced to sell them at prices that are less than what we might have been able to obtain in an active market.

 

59


Table of Contents

Item 8.   Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

     Page  

Health Management Associates, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements:

  

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

     61   

Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended
December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     62   

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years ended
December  31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     63   

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011 and 2010

     64   

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the
years ended December  31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     65   

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years
ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     66   

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

     68   

 

60


Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Health Management Associates, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Health Management Associates, Inc. as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Health Management Associates, Inc. at December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Health Management Associates, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated February 27, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Certified Public Accountants

Miami, Florida

February 27, 2012

 

61


Table of Contents

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2011     2010     2009  

Net revenue

    $       5,804,451          $       5,092,166          $       4,536,106     

Salaries and benefits

    2,302,844          2,016,967          1,779,440     

Supplies

    776,598          703,426          637,663     

Provision for doubtful accounts

    716,856          624,753          553,639     

Rent expense

    154,279          122,983          100,990     

Other operating expenses

    1,067,980          892,465          788,051     

Medicare and Medicaid HCIT incentive payments

    (39,982)         -          -     

Depreciation and amortization

    267,900          241,873          234,883     

Interest expense

    222,747          211,673          217,938     

Gains on early extinguishment of debt, net

    -          -          (16,202)    

Write-offs of deferred debt issuance costs and related other

    24,595          -          444     

Other

    (1,771)         (8,797)         (4,980)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
    5,492,046          4,805,343          4,291,866     

Income from continuing operations before income taxes

    312,405          286,823          244,240     

Provision for income taxes

    (106,071)         (101,049)         (82,937)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

    206,334          185,774          161,303     

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, including gains/losses on disposals, net of income taxes (see Notes 4 and 10)

    (2,409)         (13,526)         2,638     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Consolidated net income

    203,925          172,248          163,941     

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

    (25,215)         (22,179)         (25,759)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income attributable to Health Management Associates, Inc.

    $ 178,710          $ 150,069          $ 138,182     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Earnings (loss) per share attributable to Health Management Associates, Inc. common stockholders:

     

Basic

     

Continuing operations

    $ 0.72          $ 0.66          $ 0.55     

Discontinued operations

    (0.01)         (0.05)         0.01     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income

    $ 0.71          $ 0.61          $ 0.56     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Diluted

     

Continuing operations

    $ 0.71          $ 0.65          $ 0.55     

Discontinued operations

    (0.01)         (0.05)         0.01     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income

    $ 0.70          $ 0.60          $ 0.56     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average number of shares outstanding:

     

Basic

    251,541          248,272          245,381     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Diluted

    255,037          251,106          246,965     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

62


Table of Contents

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(in thousands)

 

    Years Ended December 31,  
    2011     2010     2009  

Consolidated net income

    $       203,925          $       172,248          $       163,941     

Components of other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes attributable to:

     

Interest rate swap contract

     

Changes in fair value

    47,735          (17,646)         85,923     

Reclassification adjustments for amortization of expense into net income

    10,384          -          -     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net activity attributable to the interest rate swap contract

    58,119          (17,646)         85,923     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Available-for-sale securities

     

Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities, net

    (117)         2,473          2,086     

Adjustments for net (gains) losses reclassified into net income

    (1,020)         (2,143)         -     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net activity attributable to available-for-sale securities

    (1,137)         330          2,086     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other comprehensive income (loss) before income taxes

    56,982          (17,316)         88,009     

Income tax (expense) benefit related to items of other comprehensive income (loss)

    (21,298)         6,434          (38,337)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other comprehensive income (loss), net

    35,684          (10,882)         49,672     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total consolidated comprehensive income

    239,609          161,366          213,613     

Total comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests

    (25,215)         (22,179)         (25,759)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total comprehensive income attributable to Health Management Associates, Inc. common stockholders

    $ 214,394          $ 139,187          $ 187,854     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

63


Table of Contents

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

 

    December 31,  
    2011     2010  
ASSETS    

Current assets:

   

Cash and cash equivalents

    $ 64,143          $ 101,812     

Available-for-sale securities

    122,277          57,327     

Accounts receivable, less allowances for doubtful accounts of $578,972 and $495,486 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively

    903,517          759,131     

Supplies, at cost (first-in, first-out method)

    156,529          137,214     

Prepaid expenses

    59,066          46,867     

Prepaid and recoverable income taxes

    61,756          44,961     

Restricted funds

    28,289          39,684     

Assets of discontinued operations

    14,561          11,384     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current assets

    1,410,138          1,198,380     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Property, plant and equipment:

   

Land and improvements

    249,842          201,278     

Buildings and improvements

    2,848,185          2,431,910     

Leasehold improvements

    259,048          200,538     

Equipment

    1,565,236          1,332,064     

Construction in progress

    164,185          99,645     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 
    5,086,496          4,265,435     

Accumulated depreciation and amortization

    (1,823,324)         (1,602,488)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net property, plant and equipment

    3,263,172          2,662,947     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Restricted funds

    96,244          51,067     

Goodwill

    999,380          909,470     

Deferred charges and other assets

    235,255          88,221     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

    $ 6,004,189          $ 4,910,085     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY    

Current liabilities:

   

Accounts payable

    $ 198,120          $ 172,501     

Accrued payroll and related taxes

    80,281          83,286     

Accrued expenses and other liabilities

    368,790          226,125     

Due to third party payors

    20,658          11,921     

Deferred income taxes

    50,466          27,052     

Current maturities of long-term debt and capital lease obligations

    85,509          34,745     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

    803,824          555,630     

Deferred income taxes

    234,080          157,177     

Long-term debt and capital lease obligations, less current maturities

    3,489,489          2,983,719     

Other long-term liabilities

    491,037          478,586     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities

    5,018,430          4,175,112     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Redeemable equity securities

    200,643          201,487     

Stockholders’ equity:

   

Health Management Associates, Inc. equity:

   

Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 5,000 shares authorized, none issued

    -          -     

Common stock, Class A, $0.01 par value, 750,000 shares authorized, 254,156 shares and 250,880 shares issued at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively

    2,542          2,509     

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes

    (95,440)         (131,124)    

Additional paid-in capital

    156,859          123,040     

Retained earnings

    705,180          526,470     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Health Management Associates, Inc. stockholders’ equity

    769,141          520,895     

Noncontrolling interests

    15,975          12,591     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity

    785,116          533,486     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

    $       6,004,189          $       4,910,085     
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

64


Table of Contents

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

(in thousands)

 

    Health Management Associates, Inc.              
   

 

Common Stock

    Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive

Income (Loss), Net
    Additional
Paid-in

Capital
    Retained
Earnings
    Noncontrolling
Interests
    Total
Stockholders’

Equity
 
    Shares     Par Value            

Balances at January 1, 2009

    244,221          $ 2,442          $ (169,914)         $     108,374          $     238,219          $ 106,690          $ 285,811     

Net income

    -          -          -          -          138,182          25,759          163,941     

Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and reclassifications into net income, net

    -          -          1,351          -          -          -          1,351     

Change in fair value of interest rate swap contract and amortization of expense into net income, net

    -          -          48,321          -          -          -          48,321     

Exercises of stock options and related tax matters

    1,632          16          -          10,734          -          -          10,750     

Issuances of deferred stock and restricted stock and related tax matters

    2,664          27          -          (1,376)         -          -          (1,349)    

Stock-based compensation expense

    -          -          -          10,867          -          -          10,867     

Distributions to noncontrolling shareholders

    -          -          -          -          -          (29,227)         (29,227)    

Incremental costs of certain transactions with noncontrolling shareholders

    -          -          -          (1,054)         -          -          (1,054)    

Restructuring of a joint venture with Novant Health, Inc., net (see Note 4)

    -          -          -          (31,014)         -          (28,206)         (59,220)    

Reclassification to redeemable equity securities

    -          -          -          -          -          (68,571)         (68,571)    
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balances at December 31, 2009

    248,517          2,485          (120,242)         96,531          376,401          6,445          361,620     

Net income

    -          -          -          -          150,069          22,179          172,248     

Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and reclassifications into net income, net

    -          -          221          -          -          -          221     

Change in fair value of interest rate swap contract and amortization of expense into net income, net

    -          -          (11,103)         -          -          -          (11,103)    

Exercises of stock options and related tax matters

    1,094          11          -          11,328          -          -          11,339     

Issuances of deferred stock and restricted stock and related tax matters

    1,269          13          -          (3,185)         -          -          (3,172)    

Stock-based compensation expense

    -          -          -          18,366          -          -          18,366     

Distributions to noncontrolling shareholders

    -          -          -          -          -          (19,598)         (19,598)    

Noncontrolling shareholder interests in an acquired business

    -          -          -          -          -          3,565          3,565     
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balances at December 31, 2010

    250,880          2,509          (131,124)         123,040          526,470          12,591          533,486     

Net income

    -          -          -          -          178,710          25,215          203,925     

Unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and reclassifications into net income, net

    -          -          (741)         -          -          -          (741)    

Change in fair value of interest rate swap contract and amortization of expense into net income, net

    -          -          36,425          -          -          -          36,425     

Exercises of stock options and related tax matters

    1,563          16          -          16,237          -          -          16,253     

Issuances of deferred stock and restricted stock and related tax matters

    1,713          17          -          (7,587)         -          -          (7,570)    

Stock-based compensation expense

    -          -          -          25,169          -