COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission file number 001-15925

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(615) 465-7000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.  YES ¨    NO þ

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

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 þ    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 the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment to the Form 10-K.  þ

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. (Check one):

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $7,438,008,592. Market value is determined by reference to the closing price on June 30, 2015 of the Registrant’s Common Stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange. The Registrant does not (and did not at June 30, 2015) have any non-voting common stock outstanding. As of February 10, 2016, there were 112,762,293 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information required for Part III of this annual report is incorporated by reference to portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2016 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

Year ended December 31, 2015

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business of Community Health Systems, Inc.

Overview of Our Company

We are one of the largest publicly-traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals in communities across the country. We were originally founded in 1986 and were reincorporated in 1996 as a Delaware corporation. We provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. As of December 31, 2015, we owned or leased 194 hospitals included in continuing operations, comprised of 190 general acute care hospitals and four stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals are geographically diversified across 28 states, with an aggregate of 29,853 licensed beds. We generate revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital healthcare services and other outpatient services to patients in the communities in which we are located. Services provided through our hospitals and affiliated businesses include general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. We also provide additional outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, ambulatory surgery centers and home health and hospice agencies. An integral part of providing these services is our relationship and network of affiliated physicians at our hospitals and affiliated businesses. As of December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 3,400 physicians and an additional 1,000 licensed healthcare practitioners. Through our management and operation of these businesses, we provide standardization and centralization of operations across key business areas; strategic assistance to expand and improve services and facilities; implementation of patient safety and quality of care improvement programs and assistance in the recruitment of additional physicians and licensed healthcare practitioners to the markets in which our hospitals are located. In a number of our markets, we have partnered with local physicians or not-for-profit providers, or both, in the ownership of our facilities. In addition to our hospitals and related businesses, we also owned and operated 79 licensed home care agencies and 22 licensed hospice agencies as of December 31, 2015, located primarily in markets where we also operate a hospital. Also, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Quorum Health Resources, LLC, or QHR, we provide management and consulting services to non-affiliated general acute care hospitals located throughout the United States. For the services we provide through hospitals and home care agencies that we own and operate, we are paid by governmental agencies, private insurers and directly by the patients we serve. For our management and consulting services, we are paid by the non-affiliated hospitals utilizing our services. The financial information for our reportable operating segments is presented in Note 15 of the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Form 10-K.

Our strategy includes growth by acquisition. We generally target hospitals in growing, non-urban and selected urban healthcare markets for acquisition because of their favorable demographic and economic trends and competitive conditions. Because non-urban and suburban service areas have smaller populations, there are generally fewer hospitals and other healthcare service providers in these communities and generally a lower level of managed care presence in these markets. We believe that communities with smaller populations generally view the local hospital as an integral part of the community and support less direct competition for hospital-based services. We believe opportunities exist for skilled, disciplined operators in selected urban markets to create networks between urban hospitals and non-urban hospitals while improving physician alignment in both those markets and making it more attractive to managed care. In recent years, our acquisition strategy has also included acquiring selected physician practices and physician-owned ancillary service providers. Such acquisitions are executed in markets where we already have a hospital presence and provide an opportunity to increase the number of affiliated physicians or expand the range of specialized healthcare services provided by our hospitals.

On January 27, 2014, we completed the acquisition of Health Management Associates, Inc., or HMA, for approximately $7.3 billion, including the assumption of approximately $3.8 billion of indebtedness, which is

1

Table of Contents

referred to in this report as the HMA merger. Additional details regarding the HMA merger are set forth in the Executive Summary section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Throughout this Form 10-K, we refer to Community Health Systems, Inc., or the Parent Company, and its consolidated subsidiaries in a simplified manner and on a collective basis, using words like “we,” “our,” “us” and the “Company.” This drafting style is suggested by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and is not meant to indicate that the publicly-traded Parent Company or any particular subsidiary of the Parent Company owns or operates any asset, business or property. The hospitals, operations and businesses described in this filing are owned and operated, and management services provided, by distinct and indirect subsidiaries of Community Health Systems, Inc.

On August 3, 2015, we announced a plan to spin off 38 hospitals and Quorum Health Resources into Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, an independent, publicly-traded corporation. The transaction, which would be effected through the distribution of QHC common stock to the Company’s shareholders, is intended to be tax free to the Company and its shareholders, and is expected to close in the first half of 2016. The completion of the spin-off is subject to, among other requirements, the effectiveness of QHC’s registration statement on Form 10, requisite regulatory approvals, execution of operational transition agreements, the receipt of opinions of tax, legal and valuation advisors (including as to the tax-free nature of the transaction), market conditions and final Board approval. QHC filed an Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 on December 4, 2015 (the Form 10 has not yet become effective), which filing contains information regarding the contemplated spin-off and the anticipated business of QHC. The Form 10 is available on the SEC’s website but is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate timing of the spin-off, or that it will be completed.

Available Information

Our website address is www.chs.net and the investor relations section of our website is located at www.chs.net/investor-relations. We make available free of charge, through the investor relations section of our website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K as well as amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practical after they are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Our filings are also available to the public at the website maintained by the SEC, www.sec.gov.

We also make available free of charge, through the investor relations section of our website, our Governance Principles, our Code of Conduct and the charters of our Audit and Compliance Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee.

We have included the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer certifications regarding the public disclosure required by Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as Exhibits 31.1, 31.2, 32.1 and 32.2 to this Form 10-K.

Our Business Strategy

Our objective is to increase shareholder value by providing high-quality patient care using cost effective and efficient operations while pursuing selective growth opportunities. The key elements of our business strategy to achieve this objective are to:

2

Table of Contents

  Expand and Strengthen Regional Networks

We believe opportunities exist in selected urban markets to create networks between urban hospitals and non-urban hospitals in order to expand the breadth of services offerings in the non-urban hospitals while improving alignment in these markets and making them more attractive to managed care. These networks allow us to build market density and develop better relationships with physicians, patients, employers and third-party payors and enable us to achieve an attractive return on investments in facility expansion and physician recruitment.

  Increase Revenue at Our Facilities

Overview. We seek to increase revenue at our facilities by providing a broader range of services in a more attractive care setting, as well as by supporting, recruiting and employing physicians. We identify the healthcare needs of the community by analyzing demographic data and patient referral trends. We also work with local hospital boards, management teams and medical staffs to determine the number and type of additional physician specialties needed. In recent years, we have built through acquisitions and consolidation several major networks of affiliated hospitals in key states in which we operate. We believe the use of these hospital networks allows us to provide more integrated services and maximizes the usage of our strong physician base. Our initiatives to increase revenue include:

Physician Recruiting. The primary method of adding or expanding medical services is the recruitment of new physicians into the community. A core group of primary care physicians is necessary as an initial contact point for all local healthcare. The addition of specialists who offer services, including general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiovascular services, orthopedics and urology, completes the full range of medical and surgical services required to meet a community’s core healthcare needs. At the time we acquire a hospital and from time to time thereafter, we identify the healthcare needs of the community in which such hospital is located by analyzing demographic data and patient referral trends. As a result of this analysis, we are able to determine what we believe to be the optimum mix of primary care physicians and specialists. We employ recruiters at the corporate level to support the local hospital managers in their recruitment efforts. Additionally, in response to the recent trend in physicians seeking employment, we have begun employing more physicians, including, in many instances, acquiring physician practices. We have increased the number of physicians affiliated with us through our recruiting and employment efforts. The percentage of recruited or other physicians commencing practice with us that were specialists was over 55% in 2015. However, most of the physicians in our communities remain in private practice and are not our employees. We believe we have been successful in recruiting physicians because of the practice opportunities afforded physicians in our markets, as well as lower managed care penetration as compared to larger urban areas.

Expansion of Services and Capital Investment. In an effort to better meet the healthcare needs of the communities we serve and to capture a greater portion of the healthcare spending in our markets, we have added a broad range of services to our facilities and, in certain markets, acquired physician practices to broaden our service offerings. These services range from various types of diagnostic equipment capabilities to additional and renovated emergency rooms, surgical and critical care suites and specialty services. We have concentrated our focus on expanding our service lines to those service offerings that we believe have the greatest growth potential,

3

Table of Contents

including orthopedics, neuroscience, cardiovascular care, women’s health and cancer care. The expansion of these service lines has also been enabled through providing additional access points separate from the traditional hospital service location, through the maximization of physician practice utilization, partnerships with third-party urgent care and retail service locations, expansion of outside diagnostic and surgery center locations, and advancing tele-health strategies.

We spent approximately $451 million on 70 major construction projects that were completed in 2015. The 2015 projects included new emergency rooms, cardiac catheterization laboratories, hospital additions and surgical suites. These projects improved various diagnostic and other inpatient and outpatient service capabilities. We believe that appropriate capital investments in our facilities, combined with the development of our service capabilities, will reduce the migration of patients to competing providers while providing an attractive return on investment. We also employ a small group of clinical consultants at our corporate headquarters to assist the hospitals in their development of surgery, emergency, critical care, cardiovascular and hospitalist services. In addition to spending capital on expanding services at our existing hospitals, we also build replacement facilities in certain markets to better meet the healthcare needs in those communities. In 2015 and 2014, we spent $123 million and $120 million, respectively, on construction projects related to the Birmingham and York replacement hospitals discussed below. In September 2010, we received approval of our request for a certificate of need, or CON, from the Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board for a replacement hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. This CON was challenged in the Alabama state circuit and appellate courts, but the CON was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama in May 2013, eliminating any further appeals. Completion of the replacement hospital, Grandview Medical Center, and transfer of all operations was completed on October 10, 2015. As part of an acquisition in 2012, we agreed to build a replacement hospital in York, Pennsylvania by July 2017. The total cost of the replacement hospital in York, Pennsylvania is estimated to be $125 million.

Managed Care Strategy. Managed care has seen growth across the U.S. as health plans expand service areas and membership in an attempt to control rising medical costs. As we service primarily non-urban markets, we do not have significant relationships with individual managed care organizations, including Medicare Advantage. We have responded with a proactive and carefully considered strategy developed specifically for each of our facilities. Our experienced corporate managed care department reviews and approves all managed care contracts, which are organized and monitored using a central database. The primary mission of this department is to select and evaluate appropriate managed care opportunities, manage existing reimbursement arrangements and negotiate increases. Generally, we do not intend to enter into capitated or risk sharing contracts. However, some purchased hospitals have risk sharing contracts at the time we acquire them. We seek to discontinue these contracts to eliminate risk retention related to payment for patient care. We do not believe that we have, at the present time, any risk sharing contracts that would have a material impact on our results of operations.

Improve Profitability

Overview. To improve efficiencies and increase operating margins, we implement cost containment programs and adhere to operating philosophies that include:

4

Table of Contents

In addition, each of our hospital management teams is supported by our centralized operational, reimbursement, regulatory and compliance expertise, as well as by our senior management team, a seasoned group of executives with an average of over 25 years of experience in the healthcare industry.

Standardization and Centralization. Our standardization and centralization initiatives encompass nearly every aspect of our business, from developing standard policies and procedures with respect to patient accounting and physician practice management to implementing standard processes to initiate, evaluate and complete construction projects. Our standardization and centralization initiatives are a key element in improving our operating results.

Case and Resource Management. The primary goal of our case management program is to ensure the delivery of safe, high quality care in an efficient and cost effective manner. The program focuses on:

5

Table of Contents

Our case management program integrates the functions of utilization review, discharge planning, assessment of medical necessity and resource management. Patients are assessed upon presentation to the hospital and throughout their course of care with ongoing reviews. Industry standard criteria are utilized in patient assessments, and discharge plans are adjusted according to patient needs. Cases are monitored to prevent delays in service or unnecessary utilization of resources. When a patient is ready for discharge, a case manager works with the patient’s attending physician to evaluate and coordinate the patient’s needs for continued care in the post-acute setting. Each hospital has the support of a physician advisor to act as a liaison to the medical staff and assist with all the activities of the program.

  Improve Patient Safety and Quality of Care

Each of our hospitals is operated by a corporate board of directors that has established a local board of trustees, which includes members of the hospital’s medical staff. The board of directors delegates certain matters to the board of trustees, including establishing policies concerning the hospital’s medical, professional, and ethical practices, monitoring these practices, and responsibility for ensuring that these practices conform to legally required standards. We maintain quality assurance programs to support and monitor quality of care standards and to meet Medicare and Medicaid accreditation and regulatory requirements. Patient care evaluations and other quality of care assessment activities are reviewed and monitored continuously with comparison to regional and national benchmarks when available.

We believe value-based purchasing models, such as linking payment for healthcare services to performance on objective measures, will increasingly become key drivers of financial performance. We have implemented various programs to support our hospitals in an effort to ensure continuous improvement in patient safety and the quality of care provided. We have developed high reliability/safety and quality training programs for all senior hospital management, chief nursing officers, quality directors, physicians and other clinical staff. We share information among our hospital management to implement best practices and assist in complying with regulatory requirements. We have standardized many of our processes for documenting compliance with accreditation requirements and clinical practices proven to lead to improved patient outcomes. All hospitals conduct patient, physician and staff satisfaction surveys to help identify methods of improving patient safety and the quality of care.

To ensure the experience of our emergency room patients meets our service and quality expectations, we have implemented a program to contact selected patients as a follow-up to the services they received. We verify that patients were able to obtain any prescriptions and outpatient appointments recommended at discharge. We also ensure that their symptoms have abated and that they understood the discharge instructions given at the hospital. Through this program, we placed almost two million follow-up calls in 2015.

In 2011, we established a component patient safety organization, or PSO, which was listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on January 11, 2012. We believe our PSO has assisted, and will continue to assist, us in improving patient safety at our hospitals. The PSO was recertified in 2014 through 2018.

  Grow Through Selective Acquisitions

Acquisition Criteria. Acquisitions have been a core part of our growth strategy historically. We intend to maintain a disciplined and targeted approach to acquisitions and seek opportunities that are complementary to our existing markets or represent new markets that fit our operating criteria. Generally, we pursue acquisition candidates that:

6

Table of Contents

Occasionally, we have pursued acquisition opportunities outside of our specified criteria when such opportunities have had uniquely favorable characteristics. In addition, in recent years, we have been successful in acquiring multi-hospital systems in larger metropolitan areas. We believe the acquisition of certain hospitals located in select urban or other geographic regions can provide additional opportunities for increased services and leveraging of our existing presence in some regions as well as reduced costs through shared resources.

While no hospital acquisitions closed during 2013, in July 2013 we announced that we, one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, and HMA had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (which we subsequently amended on September 24, 2013). On January 27, 2014, we completed the merger with HMA, which at the time of acquisition owned or leased 71 hospitals. In addition to the HMA hospitals, during 2014 we acquired four other hospitals located in Ocala, Florida; Sharon, Pennsylvania; Natchez, Mississippi; and Gaffney, South Carolina. No hospital acquisitions closed during 2015.

We also apply these factors in the reverse to the hospitals currently in our portfolio to determine if there are facilities that no longer meet our operating criteria. Separate and apart from the planned spin-off of the 38 facilities to Quorum Health Corporation, in 2015, we divested eight facilities, including two that were mandated by the Federal Trade Commission in connection with the HMA transaction. As the delivery model continues to evolve and we expand our existing networks of hospitals and facilities, we will also seek to divest facilities that no longer fit our model but may be more valuable when realigned with other providers’ networks.

Disciplined Acquisition Approach. We believe that we have been disciplined in our approach to acquisitions. We have a dedicated team of internal and external professionals who complete a thorough review of the hospital’s financial and operating performance, the demographics and service needs of the market and the physical condition of the facilities. Based on our historical experience, we then build a pro forma financial model that reflects what we believe can be accomplished under our ownership. Whether we buy or lease the existing facility or agree to construct a replacement hospital, we believe we have been disciplined in our approach to pricing. We typically begin the acquisition process by entering into a non-binding letter of intent with an acquisition candidate. After we complete business and financial due diligence and financial modeling, we decide whether or not to enter into a definitive agreement. Once an acquisition is completed, we have an organized and systematic approach to transitioning and integrating the new hospital into our system of hospitals.

Acquisition Efforts. A key part of our strategy involves establishing a broader presence in our states and markets of operation and expanding and strengthening our regional networks where appropriate. Apart from our acquisition of Triad hospitals in 2007 and HMA in 2014, most of our acquisition targets have been municipal or other not-for-profit hospitals. We believe that our access to capital, ability to recruit physicians and reputation for providing quality care make us an attractive partner for these communities. In addition, we have found that communities located in states where we already operate a hospital are more receptive to our acquiring their hospitals, because they are aware of our operating track record with respect to our other hospitals within the state.

At the time we acquire a hospital, we may commit to an amount of capital expenditures, such as a replacement facility, renovations, or equipment over a specified period of time. Pursuant to a hospital purchase agreement in effect as of December 31, 2015, we are required to build a replacement facility in York, Pennsylvania by July 2017. Estimated construction costs, including equipment costs, are approximately $125 million for this replacement facility, of which approximately $5 million has been incurred to date. In addition, in October 2008, after the purchase of the noncontrolling owner’s interest in our Birmingham, Alabama facility, we initiated the purchase of a site, which included a partially constructed hospital structure, for a potential replacement for our

7

Table of Contents

existing Birmingham facility. In September 2010, we received approval of our request for a certificate of need from the Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board. This CON was challenged in the Alabama state circuit and appellate courts, but the CON was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama in May 2013, eliminating any further appeals. Construction of the replacement hospital, Grandview Medical Center, and transfer of all operations was completed on October 10, 2015. Our construction costs, including the acquisition of the site and equipment costs, for the Birmingham replacement facility at Grandview Medical Center have totaled approximately $303 million to date. Under other purchase agreements in effect as of December 31, 2015, we have committed to spend $516 million, generally over a five to seven year period after acquisition, for costs such as capital improvements, equipment, selected leases and physician recruiting. Through December 31, 2015, we have incurred approximately $254 million related to these commitments.

Industry Overview

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, reported that in 2014 total U.S. healthcare expenditures grew by 5.3% to approximately $3.0 trillion. CMS also projected total U.S. healthcare spending to grow by 5.3% in 2015 and by an average of 5.8% annually from 2014 through 2024, largely as a result of the continued implementation of the Affordable Care Act coverage expansions, faster projected economic growth and the aging of the population. By these estimates, healthcare expenditures will account for approximately $5.4 trillion, or 19.6% of the total U.S. gross domestic product, by 2024.

Hospital services, the market within the healthcare industry in which we operate, is the largest single category of healthcare expenditures at 32.1% of total healthcare spending in 2014, or approximately $972 billion, as reported by CMS. CMS projected the hospital services category to increase 5.4% in 2015 due to the continued effects of the Affordable Care Act insurance expansion combined with the effect of faster economic growth. For 2016 through 2024, CMS projected that continued population aging and the impact of improved economic conditions will result in projected average annual growth of 6.1%.

U.S. Hospital Industry. The U.S. hospital industry is broadly defined to include acute care, rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities that are either public (government owned and operated), not-for-profit private (religious or secular), or for-profit institutions (investor owned). According to the American Hospital Association, there are approximately 5,000 inpatient hospitals in the U.S. which are not-for-profit owned, investor owned, or state or local government owned. Of these hospitals, approximately 40% are located in non-urban communities. We believe that a majority of these hospitals are owned by not-for-profit or governmental entities. These facilities offer a broad range of healthcare services, including internal medicine, general surgery, cardiology, oncology, orthopedics, OB/GYN and emergency services. In addition, hospitals also offer other ancillary services, including psychiatric, diagnostic, rehabilitation, home care and outpatient surgery services.

Urban vs. Non-Urban Hospitals. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 19.3% of the U.S. population lives in communities designated as non-urban. In these non-urban communities, hospitals are typically the primary source of healthcare. In many cases a single hospital is the only provider of general healthcare services in these communities.

Factors Affecting Performance. Among the many factors that can influence a hospital’s financial and operating performance are:

8

Table of Contents

Patients needing the most complex care are more often served by the larger and/or more specialized urban hospitals. We believe opportunities exist in selected urban markets to create networks between urban hospitals and non-urban hospitals in order to expand the breadth of services offered in the non-urban hospitals while improving physician alignment in those markets and making them more attractive to managed care.

Hospital Industry Trends

Demographic Trends. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014, there were approximately 46.2 million Americans aged 65 or older in the U.S. comprising approximately 14.5% of the total U.S. population. By the year 2030, the number of Americans aged 65 or older is expected to climb to 72.1 million, or 19.3% of the total population. Due to the increasing life expectancy of Americans, the number of people aged 85 years and older is also expected to increase from 6.2 million in 2014 to 8.7 million by the year 2030. This increase in life expectancy will increase demand for healthcare services and, as importantly, the demand for innovative, more sophisticated means of delivering those services. Hospitals, as the largest category of care in the healthcare market, will be among the main beneficiaries of this increase in demand. Based on data compiled for us, the populations of the service areas where our hospitals are located grew 3.2% from 2010 to 2015 and are expected to grow by 3.6% from 2015 to 2020. The number of people aged 65 or older in these service areas grew by 15.8% from 2010 to 2015 and is expected to grow by 16.6% from 2015 to 2020. People aged 65 or older comprised 16.8% of the total population in our service areas in 2015, yet they could comprise 18.9% of the total population in our service areas by 2020.

Consolidation. In addition to our own acquisitions in recent years, consolidation activity in the hospital industry, primarily through mergers and acquisitions involving both for-profit and not-for-profit hospital systems, is continuing. Reasons for this activity include:

The healthcare industry is also undergoing consolidation in reaction to efforts to reform the payment system. Hospital systems are acquiring physician practices and other outpatient and sub-acute providers to position themselves for readmission, bundling and other payment restructuring. Similarly, payors are consolidating and acquiring disease management service providers in an effort to offer more competitive programs.

Trends in Payment for Healthcare Services. As discussed in more detail in the Government Regulation section of this Form 10-K, the impact of healthcare reform legislation, combined with the growing financial and economic pressures on the healthcare industry, has resulted in challenges to current and future reimbursement trends. Because of higher healthcare costs and expanded coverage for uninsured patients, the healthcare industry must face the risk that higher deductibles and co-payment requirements for insured patients will increase, resulting in the potential for greater write-offs of uncollectible amounts from those patients.

9

Table of Contents

Shift to Outpatient Services. Because of the growing availability of stand-alone outpatient healthcare facilities and the increase in the services that are able to be provided at these locations, many individuals are seeking a broader range of services at outpatient facilities. This trend has contributed to an increase in outpatient services while inhibiting the growth of inpatient admissions.

Selected Operating Data

The following table sets forth operating statistics for our hospitals for each of the years presented, which are included in our continuing operations. Statistics for 2015 include a full year of operations for 194 hospitals. Statistics for 2014 include a full year of operations for 127 hospitals and partial periods for 70 hospitals acquired during the year reflecting the operations of these hospitals following the completion of the acquisition. Statistics for 2013 include a full year of operations for 129 hospitals. Statistics for hospitals which have been sold are excluded from all periods presented.

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

The following table reflects the calculation of adjusted EBITDA, as defined, from income from continuing operations before income taxes and reconciles adjusted EBITDA, as defined, to our net cash provided by operating activities as derived directly from our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 (in millions):

12

Table of Contents

Sources of Revenue

We receive payment for healthcare services provided by our hospitals from:

The following table presents the approximate percentages of operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before provision for bad debts), by payor source for the periods indicated. The data for the years presented are not strictly comparable due to the effect that hospital acquisitions have had on these statistics.

As shown above, we receive a substantial portion of our revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Included in Managed Care and other third-party payors is operating revenues from insurance companies with which we have insurance provider contracts, Medicare managed care, insurance companies for which we do not have insurance provider contracts, workers’ compensation carriers and non-patient service revenue, such as rental income and cafeteria sales. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the Reform Legislation, has increased and is expected to continue to increase the number of insured patients particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid, which, in turn, has reduced and is expected to continue to reduce the percentage of our revenues from self-pay patients. However, other aspects of the Reform Legislation, including payment reductions and uncertainty regarding implementation and potential changes to the law, create uncertainty regarding the law’s ultimate impact.

Medicare is a federal program that provides medical insurance benefits to persons age 65 and over, some disabled persons, and persons with end-stage renal disease. Medicaid is a federal-state funded program, administered by the states, which provides medical benefits to individuals who are unable to afford healthcare. All of our hospitals are certified as providers of Medicare and Medicaid services. In the future, we generally expect revenues received from the Medicare and Medicaid programs to increase due to the general aging of the population. However, amounts received under the Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally significantly

13

Table of Contents

less than a hospital’s customary charges for the services provided. Further, the Reform Legislation imposes significant reductions in amounts the government pays healthcare providers and Medicare managed care plans. The trend toward increased enrollment in Medicare managed care may adversely affect our operating revenue growth. Since a substantial portion of our revenue comes from patients under Medicare and Medicaid programs, our ability to operate our business successfully in the future will depend in large measure on our ability to adapt to changes in these programs.

In addition to government programs, we are paid by private payors, which include insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs, other managed care companies and employers, and by patients directly. Blue Cross payors are included in the “Managed Care and other third-party payors” line in the above table. Patients are generally not responsible for any difference between customary hospital charges and amounts paid for hospital services by Medicare and Medicaid programs, insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and other managed care companies, but are responsible for services not covered by these programs or plans, as well as for deductibles and co-insurance obligations of their coverage. The amount of these deductibles and co-insurance obligations has increased in recent years. Collection of amounts due from individuals is typically more difficult than collection of amounts due from government or business payors. To further reduce their healthcare costs, an increasing number of insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and other managed care companies negotiate discounted fee structures or fixed amounts for hospital services performed, rather than paying healthcare providers the amounts billed, and utilize structures such as narrow networks that restrict the providers that enrollees may utilize. We negotiate discounts with managed care companies, which are typically smaller than discounts under government programs. If an increased number of insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and other managed care companies succeed in negotiating discounted fee structures or fixed amounts or if we are unable to participate in managed care networks serving our markets, our results of operations may be negatively affected. There can be no assurance that we will retain our existing reimbursement arrangements or that these third-party payors will not attempt to further reduce the rates they pay for our services. For more information on the payment programs on which our revenues depend, see “Payment” on page 22.

As of December 31, 2015, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana represented our only areas of significant geographic concentration. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by the Company’s hospitals in Florida (which became an area of geographic concentration in 2014 as a result of the HMA merger), as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 13.6% in 2015 and 13.0% in 2014. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by the Company’s hospitals in Texas, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 11.1% in 2015, 10.9% in 2014 and 15.0% in 2013. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by the Company’s hospitals in Pennsylvania, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 10.6% in 2015, 11.1% in 2014 and 13.1% in 2013. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by the Company’s hospitals in Indiana, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 7.3% in 2015, 7.6% in 2014 and 10.6% in 2013.

Hospital revenues depend upon inpatient occupancy levels, the volume of outpatient procedures and the charges or negotiated payment rates for hospital services provided. Charges and payment rates for routine inpatient services vary significantly depending on the type of service performed and the geographic location of the hospital. In recent years, we have experienced a significant increase in revenue received from outpatient services. We attribute this increase to:

14

Table of Contents

Government Regulation

Overview. The healthcare industry is required to comply with extensive government regulation at the federal, state and local levels. Under these regulations, hospitals must meet requirements to be certified as hospitals and qualified to participate in government programs, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These requirements include those relating to the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures; billing and coding for services; properly handling overpayments; classifications of levels of care provided; preparing and filing of cost reports; relationships with referral sources and referral recipients; maintenance of adequate records; hospital use; rate-setting; compliance with building codes; environmental protection; and privacy and security. There are also extensive laws and regulations governing a hospital’s participation in these government programs. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we may be subject to criminal penalties and civil sanctions, our hospitals could lose their licenses and we could lose our ability to participate in these government programs. Further, government regulations may change. If that happens, we may have to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel and services so that our hospitals remain certified as hospitals and qualified to participate in these programs. We believe that our hospitals are currently in substantial compliance with current federal, state and local regulations and standards. We cannot make assertions that governmental officials responsible for enforcing these laws or whistleblowers will not assert that we are in violation of them or that such statutes or regulations will be interpreted by the courts in a manner consistent with our interpretation.

Hospitals are subject to periodic inspection by federal, state and local authorities to determine their compliance with applicable regulations and requirements necessary for licensing and certification. All of our hospitals are licensed under appropriate state laws and are qualified to participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, most of our hospitals are accredited by The Joint Commission. This accreditation indicates that a hospital satisfies the applicable health and administrative standards to participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Healthcare Reform. The U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures have introduced and passed a large number of proposals and legislation designed to make major changes in the healthcare system, including changes that increased access to health insurance. The Reform Legislation mandates that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain medical insurance coverage and expands health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms. Based on projections issued by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, in March 2015, the incremental insurance coverage due to the Reform Legislation could result in 25 million formerly uninsured Americans gaining coverage by the end of 2025.

As the number of persons with access to health insurance in the United States increases, there may be a resulting increase in the number of patients using our facilities who have health insurance coverage. We operate hospitals in eight of the 10 states that experienced the largest reductions in uninsured rates among adult residents between 2013 and 2015. Most of these states with the greatest reductions in the number of uninsured adult residents have established a health insurance exchange operated either by the state or in partnership with the federal government and also expanded Medicaid. However, states may opt out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions of the Reform Legislation without losing existing federal Medicaid funding. A number of states have opted out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions, but could ultimately decide to expand their programs at a later date. Of the 28 states in which we operate hospitals that are included in continuing operations, 15 states have taken action to expand their Medicaid programs, including Louisiana, which is expected to implement Medicaid coverage expansion at some point in 2016. At this time, the other 13 states have not, including Florida, Tennessee and Texas, where we operated a significant number of hospitals as of December 31, 2015. Some states that have opted out are evaluating options such as waiver plans to operate an alternative Medicaid expansion plan. Failure to expand Medicaid or implement an effective alternative in these states will likely have a negative impact on the goal of reducing the number of uninsured individuals.

15

Table of Contents

Our hospitals are well positioned to participate in the provider networks of various qualified health plans, or QHPs, offering plan options on the health insurance exchanges created pursuant to the Reform Legislation. For the 2016 plan year, all of our hospitals in continuing operations have arrangements to participate in at least one health insurance exchange agreement, approximately 90% of our hospitals participate in two or more contracts, approximately 87% of our hospitals participate in the first or second lowest cost bronze plan networks (QHPs with a 60% actuarial value) and approximately 90% of our hospitals participate in the first or second lowest cost silver plan networks (QHPs with a 70% actuarial value).

We have conducted significant healthcare reform outreach efforts across all of our markets. Such efforts included the expanded use of eligibility screening services, select facility designations as Certified Application Counselor Organizations, and approximately 700 volunteers and staff members trained and designated as Certified Application Counselors, or CACs. These CACs assisted people in understanding and, if appropriate, enrolling in new coverage options, including, but not limited to QHPs on the health insurance exchange or Marketplace, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

The Reform Legislation makes a number of changes to Medicare and Medicaid, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, each of which could adversely impact the reimbursement received under these programs.

The Reform Legislation also includes provisions aimed at reducing fraud, waste and abuse in the healthcare industry. These provisions allocate significant additional resources to federal enforcement agencies and expand the use of private contractors to recover potentially inappropriate Medicare and Medicaid payments. The Reform Legislation amends several existing federal laws, including the federal anti-kickback statute and the False Claims Act making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. These amendments also make it easier for potentially severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations.

We believe the expansion of private sector health insurance and Medicaid coverage will, over time, increase our reimbursement related to providing services to individuals who were previously uninsured, which should reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable. The various provisions in the Reform Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement take effect over a number of years. In addition, we believe that the Reform Legislation had a positive impact on net operating revenues and income from continuing operations during 2014 and 2015 as the result of the expansion of private sector and Medicaid coverage that has already occurred from the Reform Legislation and we believe that the net impact of the Reform Legislation on our net operating revenues will continue to be positive. Other provisions of the Reform Legislation, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, have increased and will continue to increase our operating costs.

However, because of the many variables involved, including clarifications and modifications resulting from the rule-making process, legislative efforts to repeal or modify the law, future judicial interpretations resulting from court challenges to its constitutionality and interpretation, the development of agency guidance, whether and how many states ultimately decide to expand Medicaid coverage, the number of uninsured who elect to purchase health insurance coverage, budgetary issues at federal and state levels, and the potential for delays in the implementation of the Reform Legislation, it is difficult to predict the ultimate effect of the Reform Legislation. We may not be able to fully realize the positive impact the Reform Legislation may otherwise have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity. Furthermore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation.

Fraud and Abuse Laws. Participation in the Medicare program is heavily regulated by federal statute and regulation. If a hospital fails to comply substantially with the requirements for participating in the Medicare program, the hospital’s participation may be terminated and/or civil or criminal penalties may be imposed. The

16

Table of Contents

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 requires civil monetary penalties to increase by up to 150% by August 1, 2016, and to increase annually thereafter based on updates to the consumer price index. Further, a hospital may lose its ability to participate in the Medicare program if it engages in any of the following acts:

Any person or entity that knowingly and willfully defrauds or attempts to defraud a healthcare benefit program, including private healthcare plans, may be subject to fines, imprisonment or both. Additionally, any person or entity that knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact or makes any material false or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery or payment of healthcare services by a healthcare benefit plan is subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.

Another law regulating the healthcare industry is a section of the Social Security Act, known as the “anti-kickback statute”. This law prohibits some business practices and relationships under Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. These practices include the payment, receipt, offer, or solicitation of remuneration of any kind in exchange for items or services that are reimbursed under most federal or state healthcare programs. Violations of the anti-kickback statute may be punished by criminal and civil fines, exclusion from federal healthcare programs and damages up to three times the total dollar amount involved.

The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or OIG, is responsible for identifying and investigating fraud and abuse activities in federal healthcare programs. As part of its duties, the OIG provides guidance to healthcare providers by identifying types of activities that could violate the anti-kickback statute. The OIG also publishes regulations outlining activities and business relationships that would be deemed not to violate the anti-kickback statute. These regulations are known as “safe harbor” regulations. However, the failure of a particular activity to comply with the safe harbor regulations does not necessarily mean that the activity violates the anti-kickback statute; however, such failure may lead to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities.

The OIG has identified the following incentive arrangements as potential violations of the anti-kickback statute:

17

Table of Contents

We have a variety of financial relationships with physicians who refer patients to our hospitals. Physicians own interests in a number of our facilities. Physicians may also own our stock. We also have contracts with physicians providing for a variety of financial arrangements, including employment contracts, leases, management agreements and professional service agreements. We provide financial incentives to recruit physicians to relocate to communities served by our hospitals. These incentives include relocation, reimbursement for certain direct expenses, income guarantees and, in some cases, loans. Although we strive to comply with the anti-kickback statute, taking into account available guidance including the “safe harbor” regulations, we cannot assure you that regulatory authorities will not determine otherwise. If that happens, we could be subject to criminal and civil penalties and/or exclusion from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, or other government healthcare programs.

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” This law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to healthcare entities in which they or any of their immediate family members have ownership interests or other financial arrangements. These types of referrals are commonly known as “self referrals.” There are ownership and compensation arrangement exceptions to the self-referral prohibition. One exception, known as the “whole hospital” exception, allows a physician to make a referral to a hospital if the physician owns an interest in the entire hospital, as opposed to an ownership interest in a department of the hospital. Another exception allows a physician to refer patients to a healthcare entity in which the physician has an ownership interest if the entity is located in a rural area, as defined in the statute. There are also exceptions for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases and recruitment agreements. From time to time, the federal government has issued regulations which interpret the provisions included in the Stark Law.

The Reform Legislation narrowed the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation permitted existing physician investments in a whole hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians are prohibited, from the time the Reform Legislation became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Reform Legislation also restricts the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their aggregate licensed beds, operating rooms and procedure rooms. The whole hospital exception also contains additional public disclosure requirements.

Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties of up to $15,000 per claim submitted and exclusion from federal healthcare programs. The statute also provides for a penalty of up to $100,000 for a scheme intended to circumvent the Stark Law prohibitions.

In addition to the restrictions and disclosure requirements applicable to physician-owned hospitals under the Stark Law, CMS regulations require physician-owned hospitals and their physician owners to disclose certain ownership information to patients. Physician-owned hospitals must disclose their physician ownership in writing to patients and must make a list of their physician owners available upon request. Additionally, each physician owner who is a member of a physician-owned hospital’s medical staff must agree, as a condition of continued

18

Table of Contents

medical staff membership or admitting privileges, to disclose in writing to all patients whom they refer to the hospital their (or an immediate family member’s) ownership interest in the hospital. A hospital is considered to be physician-owned if any physician, or an immediate family member of a physician, holds debt, stock or other types of investment in the hospital or in any owner of the hospital, excluding physician ownership through publicly-traded securities that meet certain conditions. If a hospital fails to comply with these regulations, the hospital could lose its Medicare provider agreement and be unable to participate in Medicare.

Evolving interpretations of current, or the adoption of new, federal or state laws or regulations could affect many of the arrangements entered into by each of our hospitals. In addition, law enforcement authorities, including the OIG, the courts and Congress are increasing scrutiny of arrangements between healthcare providers and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed as a mechanism to improperly pay for patient referrals and/or other business. Investigators also have demonstrated a willingness to look behind the formalities of a business transaction to determine the underlying purpose of payments between healthcare providers and potential referral sources.

Many states in which we operate have also adopted laws that prohibit payments to physicians in exchange for referrals similar to the federal anti-kickback statute or that otherwise prohibit fraud and abuse activities. Many states have also passed self-referral legislation similar to the Stark Law, prohibiting the referral of patients to entities with which the physician has a financial relationship. Often these state laws are broad in scope and may apply regardless of the source of payment for care. These statutes typically provide criminal and civil penalties, as well as loss of licensure. Little precedent exists for the interpretation or enforcement of these state laws.

Our operations could be adversely affected by the failure of our arrangements to comply with the anti-kickback statute, the Stark Law, billing laws and regulations, current state laws or other legislation or regulations in these areas adopted in the future. We are unable to predict whether other legislation or regulations at the federal or state level in any of these areas will be adopted, what form such legislation or regulations may take or how they may affect our operations. We are continuing to enter into new financial arrangements with physicians and other providers in a manner structured to comply in all material respects with these laws. We strive to comply with applicable fraud and abuse laws. We cannot assure you, however, that governmental officials responsible for enforcing these laws or whistleblowers will not assert that we are in violation of them or that such statutes or regulations ultimately will be interpreted by the courts in a manner consistent with our interpretation.

Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Laws. Another trend affecting the healthcare industry is the increased use of the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, which can be used to prosecute Medicare and other government program fraud involving issues such as coding errors, billing for service not provided and submitting false cost reports. Further, the FCA covers payments involving federal funds in connection with the health insurance exchanges created under the Reform Legislation, if those payments involve any federal funds. Liability under the FCA often arises when an entity knowingly submits a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The FCA broadly defines the term “knowingly.” Although simple negligence will not give rise to liability under the FCA, submitting a claim with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity may constitute “knowingly” submitting a false claim and result in liability. Among the many other potential bases for liability under the FCA is the knowing and improper failure to report and refund amounts owed to the government within 60 days of identifying an overpayment. Effective March 14, 2016, an overpayment is deemed to be identified when a person has, or should have through reasonable diligence, determined that an overpayment was received and quantified the overpayment. Submission of a claim for an item or service generated in violation of the anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. In some cases, whistleblowers, the federal government and courts have taken the position that providers who allegedly have violated other statutes, such as the Stark Law, have thereby submitted false claims under the FCA.

When a defendant is determined by a court of law to be liable under the FCA, the defendant must 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. Civil monetary penalties will increase by up to 150% by August 1, 2016, and will increase annually thereafter. Settlements entered into prior to litigation usually involve a less severe

19

Table of Contents

calculation of damages. The FCA also contains “qui tam” or whistleblower provisions, which allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the defendant has defrauded the federal government. If the government intervenes in the action and prevails, the party filing the initial complaint may share in any settlement or judgment. If the government does not intervene in the action, the whistleblower plaintiff may pursue the action independently and may receive a larger share of any settlement or judgment. When a private party brings a qui tam action under the FCA, the defendant generally will not be made aware of the lawsuit until the government commences its own investigation or determines whether it will intervene. Every entity that receives at least $5 million annually in Medicaid payments must have written policies for all employees, contractors and agents providing detailed information about false claims, false statements and whistleblower protections under certain federal laws, including the FCA, and similar state laws.

A number of states, including states in which we operate, have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions whereby a private party may file a civil lawsuit in state court. Federal law provides an incentive to states to enact false claims laws that are comparable to the FCA. From time to time, companies in the healthcare industry, including ours, may be subject to actions under the FCA or similar state laws.

Corporate Practice of Medicine; Fee-Splitting. Some states have laws that prohibit unlicensed persons or business entities, including corporations, from employing physicians. Some states also have adopted laws that prohibit direct or indirect payments to, or entering into fee-splitting arrangements with, physicians and unlicensed persons or business entities. Possible sanctions for violations of these restrictions include loss of a physician’s license, civil and criminal penalties and rescission of business arrangements. These laws vary from state to state, are often vague and have seldom been interpreted by the courts or regulatory agencies. We structure our arrangements with healthcare providers to comply with the relevant state law. However, we cannot be assured that governmental officials responsible for enforcing these laws will not assert that we, or transactions in which we are involved, are in violation of these laws. These laws may also be interpreted by the courts in a manner inconsistent with our interpretations.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act imposes requirements as to the care that must be provided to anyone who comes to facilities providing emergency medical services seeking care before they may be transferred to another facility or otherwise denied care. Sanctions for failing to fulfill these requirements include exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs and civil money penalties. In addition, the law creates private civil remedies which enable an individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a violation of the law to sue the offending hospital for damages and equitable relief. A medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result of another participating hospital’s violation of the law also has a similar right. Although we believe that our practices are in compliance with the law, we can give no assurance that governmental officials responsible for enforcing the law or others will not assert we are in violation of these laws.

Conversion Legislation. Many states, including some where we have hospitals and others where we may in the future acquire hospitals, have adopted legislation regarding the sale or other disposition of hospitals operated by not-for-profit entities. In other states that do not have specific legislation, the attorneys general have demonstrated an interest in these transactions under their general obligations to protect charitable assets from waste. These legislative and administrative efforts primarily focus on the appropriate valuation of the assets divested and the use of the proceeds of the sale by the not-for-profit seller. While these reviews and, in some instances, approval processes can add additional time to the closing of a hospital acquisition, we have not had any significant difficulties or delays in completing the process. There can be no assurance, however, that future actions on the state level will not seriously delay or even prevent our ability to acquire hospitals. If these activities are widespread, they could limit our ability to acquire hospitals.

Certificates of Need. The construction of new facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities and the addition of new services at our facilities may be subject to state laws that require prior approval by state regulatory agencies. These CON laws generally require that a state agency determine the public need and give approval prior to the

20

Table of Contents

construction or acquisition of facilities or the addition of new services. As of December 31, 2015, we operated 111 hospitals in 15 states that have adopted CON laws for acute care facilities. If we fail to obtain necessary state approval, we will not be able to expand our facilities, complete acquisitions or add new services in these states. Violation of these state laws may result in the imposition of civil sanctions or the revocation of a hospital’s licenses.

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy and Security Requirements. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for healthcare claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the healthcare industry. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has established electronic data transmission standards that all healthcare providers must use when submitting or receiving certain healthcare transactions electronically. In addition, HIPAA requires that each provider use a National Provider Identifier. As of October 1, 2015, all healthcare providers covered by HIPAA are required to use updated standard code sets for certain diagnoses and procedures known as ICD-10 code sets. We have transitioned all of our hospitals to the ICD-10 coding system. This transition continues to involve a significant focus on our technology and information systems, as well as costs related to training of hospital employees and providers and corporate support staff involved with coding and billing. Use of the ICD-10 code sets has required and continues to require significant changes; however, we believe that the cost of compliance with these regulations has not had and is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. The Reform Legislation requires the HHS to adopt standards for additional electronic transactions and to establish operating rules to promote uniformity in the implementation of each standardized electronic transaction.

As required by HIPAA, HHS has issued privacy and security regulations that extensively regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health-related information and require covered entities, including health plans and most healthcare providers, to implement administrative, physical and technical practices to protect the security of individually identifiable health information that is electronically maintained or transmitted. Certain provisions of the security and privacy regulations apply to business associates (entities that handle identifiable health-related information on behalf of covered entities), and business associates are subject to direct liability for violation of the regulations. In addition, a covered entity may be subject to penalties as a result of a business associate violating HIPAA, if the business associate is found to be an agent of the covered entity. We have developed and utilize a HIPAA compliance plan as part of our effort to comply with HIPAA privacy and security requirements. The privacy regulations and security regulations have and will continue to impose significant costs on our facilities in order to comply with these standards.

Covered entities must report breaches of unsecured protected health information to affected individuals without unreasonable delay, but not to exceed 60 days of discovery of the breach by the covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to HHS and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. HHS is required to publish on its website a list of all covered entities that report a breach involving more than 500 individuals. All non-permitted uses or disclosures of unsecured protected health information are presumed to be breaches unless the covered entity or business associate establishes that there is a low probability the information has been compromised. Various state laws and regulations may also require us to notify affected individuals in the event of a data breach involving individually identifiable information.

Violations of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations may result in criminal penalties and in civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation for a maximum of $1,500,000 in a calendar year for violations of the same requirement. HHS is required to perform compliance audits and has announced its intent to perform audits in 2016. In addition to enforcement by HHS, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunction or damages in response to violations of HIPAA privacy and security regulations that threaten the privacy of state residents. HHS may resolve HIPAA violations through informal means, such as allowing a covered entity to implement a corrective action plan, but HHS has the discretion to move directly to impose monetary penalties and is required to impose penalties for violations resulting from willful neglect. Our facilities

21

Table of Contents

also are subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties. For example, the Federal Trade Commission uses its consumer protection authority to initiate enforcement actions in response to data breaches.

Payment

Medicare. Under the Medicare program, we are paid for inpatient and outpatient services performed by our hospitals.

Payments for inpatient acute services are generally made pursuant to a prospective payment system, commonly known as “PPS.” Under PPS, our hospitals are paid a predetermined amount for each hospital discharge based on the patient’s diagnosis. Specifically, each discharge is assigned to a diagnosis-related group, commonly known as a “DRG,” based upon the patient’s condition and treatment during the relevant inpatient stay. Each DRG is assigned a payment rate using 100% of the national average cost per case and 100% of the severity-adjusted DRG weights. DRG payments are based on national averages and not on charges or costs specific to a hospital. Severity-adjusted DRGs more accurately reflect the costs a hospital incurs for caring for a patient and account more fully for the severity of each patient’s condition. However, DRG payments are adjusted by a predetermined geographic adjustment factor assigned to the geographic area in which the hospital is located. While a hospital generally does not receive payment in addition to a DRG payment, hospitals may qualify for an “outlier” payment when the relevant patient’s treatment costs are extraordinarily high and exceed a specified regulatory threshold.

The DRG payment rates are adjusted by an update factor on October 1 of each year, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. The index used to adjust the DRG payment rates, known as the “market basket index,” gives consideration to the inflation experienced by hospitals in purchasing goods and services. DRG payment rates were increased by the full “market basket index,” for the federal fiscal years 2015 and 2016 by 2.9% and 2.4% respectively, subject to certain reductions. For federal fiscal year 2015, the DRG payment rates were reduced by 0.8% for documentation and coding; reduced by 0.5% for the multi-factor productivity adjustment; and reduced by 0.2% in accordance with the Reform Legislation. For federal fiscal year 2016, the DRG payment rates were reduced by 0.8% for documentation and coding; reduced by 0.5% for the multi-factor productivity adjustment; and reduced by 0.2% in accordance with the Reform Legislation. There is also a negative 0.2% adjustment to offset projected spending increases associated with admission and medical review criteria for inpatient services commonly known as the “two midnight rule.” Under the rule, services to Medicare beneficiaries are only payable as inpatient hospital services when there is a reasonable expectation that the hospital care is medically necessary and will be required across two midnights, absent unusual circumstances. A two percentage point reduction to the market basket index occurs if patient quality data is not submitted, and a reduction of one-half of the market basket index update occurs for hospitals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health records, or EHR, technology without receiving a hardship exception. Future legislation may decrease the rate of increase for DRG payments or even decrease such payment rates, but we are not able to predict the amount of any reduction or the effect that any reduction will have on us.

The DRG payment rates are also adjusted pursuant to provisions of the Reform Legislation that promote value-based purchasing, linking payments to quality and efficiency. First, hospitals that meet or exceed certain quality performance standards will receive greater reimbursement under CMS’s value-based purchasing program, while hospitals that do not satisfy certain quality performance standards will receive reduced Medicare inpatient hospital payments. The amount collected from the reductions is pooled and used to fund the payments that reward hospitals based on a set of quality measures that have been linked to improved clinical processes of care and patient satisfaction. CMS scores each hospital on its achievement relative to other hospitals and improvement relative to that hospital’s own past performance. Second, hospitals experiencing “excess readmissions” for conditions designated by CMS within 30 days from the patient’s date of discharge will receive inpatient payments reduced by an amount determined by comparing that hospital’s readmission performance to a risk-adjusted national average. Third, the 25% of hospitals with the worst national risk-adjusted hospital acquired

22

Table of Contents

condition, or HAC, rates in the previous year will have their total inpatient operating Medicare payments reduced by 1%. In addition, HHS has indicated that it will increase its efforts to promote, develop and use alternative payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, and bundled payment arrangements.

In addition, hospitals may qualify for Medicare disproportionate share payments when their percentage of low income patients exceeds specified regulatory thresholds. A majority of our hospitals qualify to receive Medicare disproportionate share payments. Medicare disproportionate share payments are reduced by 75% and earmarked for an uncompensated care payment pool, in accordance with the Reform Legislation. The uncompensated care pool is further reduced each year by a formula that reflects reductions in the U.S. uninsured population that is under 65 years of age. Thus, the greater the level of coverage for the uninsured, the more the Medicare uncompensated care pool will be reduced. Each eligible hospital is then paid, out of the uncompensated care pool, an amount based upon its estimated cost of providing uncompensated care. At this time, we cannot predict an impact for this change. These Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments as a percentage of operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), were 1.2% and 1.5% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Hospitals may also qualify for Medicaid disproportionate share payments when they qualify under the state established guidelines. These Medicaid disproportionate share payments as a percentage of operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), were 0.4% and 0.3% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

We also receive Medicare reimbursement for outpatient services through a PPS. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 2.9% effective January 1, 2015; however, there was a negative 0.2% adjustment in accordance with the Reform Legislation and a negative 0.5% productivity adjustment and other payment adjustments, which CMS estimated would result in a 2.3% increase. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 2.4% effective January 1, 2016; however, there is a negative 0.2% adjustment in accordance with the Reform Legislation, a negative 0.5% productivity adjustment and a negative 2.0% adjustment to address what CMS views as inflated payments for laboratory tests packaged with payments for hospital outpatient services. Taking into account these and other payment adjustments, CMS estimates the 2016 update will result in a 0.4% decrease in outpatient PPS payments to hospitals. For fiscal year 2016, an additional reduction applies to hospitals that do not submit required patient quality data. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

The HHS also uses a PPS to reimburse providers of home health services (i.e., home care). The home health agency market basket percentage increased by 2.6% on January 1, 2015; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables within the home health agency PPS, an approximate 0.3% net decrease in home health agency payments was expected to occur. The home health agency market basket percentage increased by 2.3% on January 1, 2016; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables within the home health agency PPS, an approximate 1.4% net decrease in home health agency payments is expected to occur. The Reform Legislation increases the home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate by 3.0% for home health services provided to patients in rural areas on or after April 1, 2010 through December 31, 2016. This 3% increase was extended through December 31, 2018 with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA. A two percentage point reduction to the market basket occurs if patient quality data is not submitted. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

The Medicare reimbursement discussed above was reduced in 2013 due to the Budget Control Act of 2011 that required across-the-board spending cuts to the federal budget, also known as sequestration. These sequestration cuts included reductions in payments for Medicare and other federally funded healthcare programs, including TRICARE. The cuts began on March 1, 2013, with the sequester-related Medicare reimbursement cuts beginning April 1, 2013. These reductions have been extended through 2025.

Payment under the Medicare program for physician services, which is based upon the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, or MPFS, changed in April 2015 with the enactment of MACRA. The law effectively eliminated a payment reduction that was scheduled for physicians and other practitioners who treat Medicare patients.

23

Table of Contents

MACRA provides for a 0.5% update to the MPFS for each calendar year through 2019. MACRA also requires the establishment of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, beginning in 2019, under which physicians will receive performance-based payment incentives or payment reductions based on their performance with respect to clinical quality, resource use, clinical improvement activities, and meaningful use of EHR. MIPS will consolidate certain existing physician incentive programs, and also requires CMS to provide, beginning in 2019, incentive payments for physicians and other eligible professionals that participate in alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations, or ACOs. In addition, MACRA extended the Medicare Inpatient Low Volume payment and Medicare Dependent Hospital programs to qualifying hospitals through September 30, 2017. If additional legislation is not passed to extend these Medicare hospital payment programs, we could experience a reduction in future reimbursement.

Medicaid. Most state Medicaid payments are made under a PPS or under programs which negotiate payment levels with individual hospitals. Medicaid is funded jointly by state and federal government. The federal government and many states are currently considering significantly reducing Medicaid funding, while at the same time expanding Medicaid benefits. Currently, several states utilize supplemental reimbursement programs for the purpose of providing reimbursement to providers to offset a portion of the cost of providing care to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are designed with input from CMS and are funded with a combination of state and federal resources, including, in certain instances, fees or taxes levied on the providers. Similar programs are also being considered by other states. We can provide no assurance that reductions to Medicaid funding will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations. Further, the Reform Legislation prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical services provided to treat HACs.

TRICARE. TRICARE is the Department of Defense’s healthcare program for members of the armed forces. For inpatient services, TRICARE generally reimburses hospitals based on a DRG system modeled on the Medicare inpatient PPS. For outpatient services, TRICARE reimburses hospitals based on a PPS that is similar to that utilized for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.

Annual Cost Reports. Hospitals participating in the Medicare and some Medicaid programs, whether paid on a reasonable cost basis or under a PPS, are required to meet specified financial reporting requirements. Federal and, where applicable, state regulations require submission of annual cost reports identifying medical costs and expenses associated with the services provided by each hospital to Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients.

Annual cost reports required under the Medicare and some Medicaid programs are subject to routine governmental audits. These audits may result in adjustments to the amounts ultimately determined to be due to us under these reimbursement programs. Finalization of these audits often takes several years. Providers can appeal any final determination made in connection with an audit. DRG outlier payments have been and continue to be the subject of CMS audit and adjustment. The OIG is also actively engaged in audits and investigations into alleged abuses of the DRG outlier payment system.

Commercial Insurance and Managed Care Companies. Our hospitals provide services to individuals covered by private healthcare insurance or by health plans administered by managed care companies. These payors pay our hospitals or in some cases reimburse their policyholders based upon the hospital’s established charges and the coverage provided in the insurance policy. They try to limit the costs of hospital services by negotiating discounts, including PPS, which would reduce payments by commercial insurers or health plans to our hospitals. Commercial insurers and managed care companies also seek to reduce payments to hospitals by establishing payment rules that in effect re-characterize the services ordered by physicians. For example, some payors vigorously review each patient’s length of stay in the hospital and recharacterize as outpatient all in-patient stays of less than a particular duration (e.g. 24 hours). Reductions in payments for services provided by our hospitals to individuals covered by these payors could adversely affect us.

24

Table of Contents

Medicare Administrative Contractors. CMS competitively bids the Medicare fiscal intermediary and Medicare carrier functions to Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, in 12 jurisdictions. Each MAC is geographically assigned and serves both Part A and Part B providers within a given jurisdiction. CMS is currently engaged in a consolidation strategy to move from 15 MAC jurisdictions to 10. Chain providers had the option of having all hospitals use one home office MAC, and we chose to do so. However, CMS has not converted all of our hospitals to one MAC and currently does not have an established date to accomplish the conversion. CMS periodically re-solicits bids, and the MAC servicing a geographic area can change as a result of the bid competition. MAC transition periods can impact claims processing functions and the resulting cash flow.

Medicare Integrity. CMS contracts with third parties to promote the integrity of the Medicare program through review of quality concerns and detection of improper payments. Quality Improvement Organizations, or QIOs, for example, are groups of physicians and other healthcare quality experts which work on behalf of CMS to ensure that Medicare pays only for goods and services that are reasonable and necessary and that are provided in the most appropriate setting. Under the Recovery Audit Contractor, or RAC, program, CMS contracts with RACs nationwide to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the Medicare program, as required by statute. RACs review claims submitted to Medicare for billing compliance, including correct coding and medical necessity. Compensation for RACs is on a contingency basis and based upon the amount of overpayments and underpayments identified, if any. CMS recently reduced the number of claims that RACs may audit by limiting the number of records that RACs may request from hospitals based on each provider’s claim denial rate for the previous year.

The RAC program’s scope also includes Medicaid claims. States may coordinate with Medicaid RACs regarding recoupment of overpayments and refer suspected fraud and abuse to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Under the Medicaid Integrity Program, CMS employs private contractors, referred to as Medicaid Integrity Contractors, or MICs, to perform reviews and post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. MICs are assigned to five geographic jurisdictions. Besides MICs, several other contractors and state Medicaid agencies have increased their review activities.

We maintain policies and procedures to respond to the RAC requests and payment denials. Payment recoveries resulting from RAC reviews and denials are appealable, and we pursue reversal of adverse determinations at appropriate appeal levels. Currently, there are significant delays in the assignment of new Medicare appeals to Administrative Law Judges. In April 2015, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals estimated that the assignment of requests for hearings could be delayed for up to 28 months. Thus, we may experience significant delays in appealing any RAC payment denials. Depending upon the growth of RAC programs and our success in appealing claims in future periods, our cash flows and results of operations could be negatively impacted.

Accountable Care Organizations. With the aim of reducing healthcare costs by improving quality and operational efficiency, ACOs are gaining traction in both the public and private sectors. An ACO is a network of providers and suppliers (including hospitals, physicians and other designated professionals) which work together to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to achieve high quality and efficient delivery of services. ACOs are intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. Pursuant to the Reform Legislation, HHS established a Medicare Shared Savings Program that seeks to promote accountability and coordination of care through the creation of ACOs. Medicare-approved ACOs that achieve quality performance standards established by HHS are eligible to share in a portion of the amounts saved by the Medicare program. HHS has significant discretion to determine key elements of ACO programs. Certain waivers are available from fraud and abuse laws for ACOs. As of January 2016, CMS has approved over 475 ACOs to participate in various Medicare ACO initiatives.

Bundled Payment Initiatives. The Reform Legislation created the CMS Innovation Center with responsibility for establishing demonstration projects and other initiatives in order to identify, develop, test and encourage the adoption of new methods of delivering and paying for healthcare that create savings under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while maintaining or improving quality of care. One initiative implemented by the CMS Innovation Center is a voluntary bundled payment initiative known as the Bundled Payment for Care

25

Table of Contents

Improvement, or BPCI, initiative. This voluntary initiative is comprised of four broadly defined models of care and links payments to participating providers for services provided during an episode of care. Participating providers agree to receive one payment for services provided to Medicare patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care. In contrast to the traditional fee-for-service model, bundled payments are intended to align incentives for providers, encouraging more effective and efficient care. We are participating in these BPCI initiatives in eleven of our markets.

Beginning in April 2016, hospitals located in markets selected by CMS, including some of our facilities, will be required to participate in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model, a mandatory bundled payment initiative for specified joint replacement procedures. Participating hospitals will be evaluated against quality standards and Medicare spending targets established by CMS for each episode of care. An episode of care begins with a patient’s hospital admission and includes all related care by the hospital and other providers within 90 days of discharge. Depending on whether overall CMS spending per episode exceeds or falls below the target and whether quality standards are met, hospitals may receive supplemental Medicare payments or owe repayments to CMS.

The Reform Legislation also provides for a bundled payment demonstration project for Medicaid services, but CMS has not yet implemented this project. HHS may select up to eight states to participate, and these state programs may target particular categories of beneficiaries, selected diagnoses or geographic regions of the state. The selected state programs will provide one payment for both hospital and physician services provided to Medicaid patients for certain episodes of inpatient care.

Supply Contracts

In March 2005, we began purchasing items, primarily medical supplies, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, under an agreement with HealthTrust, a GPO in which we are a noncontrolling partner. As of December 31, 2015, we had a 24.7% ownership interest in HealthTrust. By participating in this organization, we are able to procure items at competitively priced rates for our hospitals. There can be no assurance that our arrangement with HealthTrust will continue to provide the discounts that we have historically received.

Competition

The hospital industry is highly competitive. An important part of our business strategy is to continue to acquire hospitals in non-urban markets and selected urban markets. However, other for-profit hospital companies and not-for-profit hospital systems generally attempt to acquire the same type of hospitals as we do. In addition, some hospitals are sold through an auction process, which may result in higher purchase prices than we believe are reasonable.

In addition to the competition we face for acquisitions, we must also compete with other hospitals and healthcare providers for patients. The competition among hospitals and other healthcare providers for patients has intensified in recent years. The majority of our hospitals are located in non-urban service areas in which we are the sole provider of general acute care health services. Those hospitals in non-urban service areas face no direct competition because there are no other hospitals in their primary service areas. However, these hospitals face competition from hospitals outside of their primary service area, including hospitals in urban areas that provide more complex services. Patients in those service areas may travel to these other hospitals for a variety of reasons, including the need for services we do not offer or physician referrals. Patients who are required to seek services from these other hospitals may subsequently shift their preferences to those hospitals for services we do provide. Those hospitals in selected urban service areas may face competition from hospitals that are more established than our hospitals. Certain of these competing facilities offer services, including extensive medical research and medical education programs, which are not offered by our facilities. In addition, in certain markets where we operate, there are large teaching hospitals that provide highly specialized facilities, equipment and services that may not be available at our hospitals. We also face competition from other specialized care

26

Table of Contents

providers, including outpatient surgery, orthopedic, oncology and diagnostic centers. Some competitors are implementing physician alignment strategies, such as employing physicians, acquiring physician practice groups, and participating in ACOs, or other clinical integration models.

In most markets in which we are not the sole provider of general acute care health services, our primary competitor is a not-for-profit hospital. These hospitals are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or not-for-profit entities supported by endowments and charitable contributions. These hospitals do not pay income or property taxes, and can make capital expenditures without paying sales tax. These financial advantages may better position such hospitals to maintain more modern and technologically upgraded facilities and equipment and offer services more specialized than those available at our hospitals.

The number and quality of the physicians on a hospital’s staff is an important factor in a hospital’s competitive position. Physicians decide whether a patient is admitted to the hospital and the procedures to be performed. Admitting physicians may be on the medical staffs of other hospitals in addition to those of our hospitals. We attempt to attract our physicians’ patients to our hospitals by offering quality services and facilities, convenient locations and state-of-the-art equipment. In addition, CMS publicizes on its Hospital Compare website data that hospitals submit in connection with Medicare reimbursement claims, including performance data related to quality measures and patient satisfaction surveys. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Additional quality measures and other future trends toward clinical transparency may have a potential impact on our competitive position and patient volumes in ways that we are unable to predict. In addition, as a result of the Reform Legislation, hospitals must either make public a list of their standard charges, or their policies for allowing the public to view a list of these charges in response to an inquiry.

Compliance Program

We take an operations team approach to compliance and utilize corporate experts for program design efforts and facility leaders for employee-level implementation. We believe compliance is another area that demonstrates our utilization of standardization and centralization techniques and initiatives which yield efficiencies and consistency throughout our facilities. We recognize that our compliance with applicable laws and regulations depends on individual employee actions as well as company operations. Our approach focuses on integrating compliance responsibilities with operational functions. This approach is intended to reinforce our company-wide commitment to operate strictly in accordance with the laws and regulations that govern our business.

Our company-wide compliance program has been in place since 1997. Currently, the program’s elements include leadership, management and oversight at the highest levels, a Code of Conduct, risk area specific policies and procedures, employee education and training, an internal system for reporting concerns, auditing and monitoring programs and a means for enforcing the program’s policies.

The compliance program continues to be expanded and developed to meet the industry’s expectations and our needs. Specific written policies, procedures, training and educational materials and programs, as well as auditing and monitoring activities, have been prepared and implemented to address the functional and operational aspects of our business. Included within these functional areas are materials and activities for business sub-units, including laboratory, radiology, pharmacy, emergency, surgery, observation, home care, skilled nursing and clinics. Specific areas identified through regulatory interpretation and enforcement activities have also been addressed in our program. Claims preparation and submission, including coding, billing and cost reports, comprise the bulk of these areas. Financial arrangements with physicians and other referral sources, including compliance with the federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark Law, emergency department treatment and transfer requirements and other patient disposition issues, are also the focus of policy and training, standardized documentation requirements and review and audit. Another focus of the program is the interpretation and implementation of the HIPAA standards for privacy and security.

27

Table of Contents

We have a Code of Conduct which applies to all directors, officers, employees and consultants, and a confidential disclosure program to enhance the statement of ethical responsibility expected of our employees and business associates who work in the accounting, financial reporting and asset management areas of our Company. Our Code of Conduct is posted on our website at www.chs.net/company-overview/code-of-conduct.

Corporate Integrity Agreement

On August 4, 2014, we announced that we had entered into a civil settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, other federal agencies and identified relators that concluded previously announced investigations and litigation related to short stay admissions through emergency departments at certain of our affiliated hospitals. See the “Legal Proceedings” discussion in Part II, Item 1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 for further discussion of the background of this matter and details of the settlement. In addition to the amounts paid in the settlement, we executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement, or CIA, with the OIG that has been incorporated into our existing and comprehensive compliance program.

The compliance measures and reporting and auditing requirements contained in the CIA include:

Material, uncorrected violations of the CIA could lead to our suspension or disbarment from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs and repayment obligations. In addition, we are subject to possible civil penalties for failure to substantially comply with the terms of the CIA, including stipulated penalties ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 per day. We are also subject to a stipulated penalty of $50,000 for each false certification made by us or on our behalf in connection with reports required under the CIA. The CIA increases the amount of information we must provide to the federal government regarding our healthcare

28

Table of Contents

practices and our compliance with federal regulations. The reports we provide in connection with the CIA could result in greater scrutiny by regulatory authorities. We believe our existing Compliance Program addresses compliance with the operational terms of the CIA.

Employees and Medical Staff

At December 31, 2015, we had approximately 137,000 employees, including approximately 28,000 part-time employees. References herein to “employees” refer to employees of our affiliates. We are subject to various state and federal laws that regulate wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions relating to employment. At December 31, 2015, certain employees at 32 of our hospitals are represented by various labor unions. It is likely that union organizing efforts will take place at additional hospitals in the future. We consider our employee relations to be good and have not experienced work stoppages that have materially, adversely affected our business or results of operations. Our hospitals, like most hospitals, have experienced rising labor costs. In some markets, nurse and medical support personnel availability has become a significant operating issue to healthcare providers. To address this challenge, we have implemented several initiatives to improve retention, recruiting, compensation programs and productivity.

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

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

Professional Liability Claims

As part of our business of owning and operating hospitals, we are subject to legal actions alleging liability on our part. To cover claims arising out of the operations of hospitals, we maintain professional malpractice liability insurance and general liability insurance on a claims made basis in excess of those amounts for which we are self-insured, in amounts we believe to be sufficient for our operations. We also maintain umbrella liability coverage for claims which, due to their nature or amount, are not covered by our other insurance policies. However, our insurance coverage does not cover all claims against us or may not continue to be available at a reasonable cost for us to maintain adequate levels of insurance. For a further discussion of our insurance coverage, see our discussion of professional liability claims in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, discharge and disposal of hazardous materials, including medical and pharmaceutical waste products. We do not currently

29

Table of Contents

expect compliance with these laws and regulations to have a material adverse effect on us. It is possible, however, that environmental issues may arise in the future which we cannot now predict.

We are insured for damages of personal property or environmental injury arising out of environmental impairment for both above ground and underground storage tank issues under one insurance policy for all of our hospitals. Our policy coverage is $5 million per occurrence with a $50,000 deductible and a $20 million annual aggregate. This policy also provides pollution legal liability coverage.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business faces a variety of risks. If any of the events or circumstances described in any of the following risk factors occurs, our business, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected, and our actual results may differ materially from those predicted in any forward-looking statements we make in any public disclosures. Additional factors that could affect our business, results of operations and financial condition are discussed elsewhere in this Report (including in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K). Additional risks or uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial, also may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our level of indebtedness could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry and prevent us from meeting our obligations under the agreements relating to our indebtedness.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness, which is more fully described in the Capital Resources section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $10.5 billion aggregate principal amount of senior secured indebtedness outstanding, and approximately $6.6 billion of senior unsecured indebtedness outstanding. Our substantial leverage could have important consequences for you, including the following:

30

Table of Contents

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness, and we may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may not be successful.

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

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, including those required for operating our existing hospitals, for integrating our historical acquisitions or for future acquisitions. We also may be forced to sell assets or operations, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. We cannot assure you that we would be able to take any of these actions, that these actions would be successful and permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations or that these actions would be permitted under the terms of our existing or future debt agreements, including our credit facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. For example, our credit facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes restrict our ability to dispose of assets and use the proceeds from any dispositions. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions and any proceeds we receive may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

In addition, we are a holding company with no direct operations. Our principal assets are the equity interests we hold in our operating subsidiaries. As a result, we are dependent upon dividends and other payments from our subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our outstanding debt service and other obligations. Our subsidiaries may not generate sufficient cash from operations to enable us to make principal and interest payments on our indebtedness. In addition, any payments of dividends, distributions, loans or advances to us by our subsidiaries are subject to certain legal and contractual restrictions, including under our credit facility and indentures.

Restrictive covenants in the agreements governing our indebtedness may adversely affect us.

Our credit facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes contain various covenants that limit our ability to take certain actions, including our ability to:

31

Table of Contents

In addition, our credit facility contains restrictive covenants and requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy other financial condition tests. Our ability to meet these restrictive covenants and financial ratios and tests may be affected by events beyond our control, and we cannot assure you that we will meet those tests.

A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under our credit facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under our credit facility or the indentures governing our outstanding notes, all amounts outstanding under our credit facility and our outstanding notes may become immediately due and payable and all commitments under the credit facility to extend further credit may be terminated. The acceleration of any such indebtedness will result in an event of default under all of our other long-term indebtedness.

Despite current indebtedness levels, we may still be able to incur substantially more debt. This could further exacerbate the risks described above.

We and our subsidiaries have the ability to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future, subject to restrictions contained in our credit facilities and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. Our credit facility as well as a separate receivables facility provide for commitments and borrowings of up to approximately $8.8 billion in the aggregate, of which approximately $7.9 billion is outstanding at December 31, 2015. Our credit facility also gives us the ability to provide for one or more additional tranches of term loans and increases in our revolving credit facility in the aggregate principal amount of up to the greater of (x) $1.5 billion and (y) an amount such that our senior secured net leverage ratio would not exceed 4.0:1.0 without the consent of the existing lenders if specified criteria are satisfied. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face could be further exacerbated.

Failure to continue to achieve expected benefits of the HMA merger and to continue to integrate HMA’s operations with ours could adversely affect us.

We have achieved synergies, and believe that we will achieve additional synergies, from the HMA merger as a result of eliminating duplicate corporate functions and centralizing many support functions. However, we cannot be certain whether, and to what extent, additional efficiencies and cost savings in connection with the HMA merger will continue to be achieved in the future. For example, costs associated with HMA’s legal proceedings and other loss contingencies may be greater than expected, and could exceed the amount of any reduction in payment under the contingent value rights, or CVRs, issued in the HMA merger to HMA stockholders. In addition, in order to continue to obtain the benefits of the merger, we must achieve additional efficiencies through the integration of HMA’s operations. Such integration may be complex and the failure to do so efficiently and effectively may negatively affect earnings.

We are the subject of various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings that, if resolved unfavorably, could have an adverse effect on us, and we may be subject to other loss contingencies, both known and unknown.

We are a party to various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings and other related matters. Those proceedings include, among other things, government investigations. In addition, we are and may become subject to other loss contingencies, both known and unknown, which may relate to past, present and future facts, events, circumstances and occurrences. Should an unfavorable outcome occur in some or all of our legal, regulatory or governmental proceedings or other loss contingencies, or if we become subject to any such loss contingencies in the future, there could be an adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

In particular, government investigations, as well as qui tam lawsuits, may lead to significant fines, penalties, damages payments or other sanctions, including exclusion from government healthcare programs. Settlements of lawsuits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments and corporate integrity agreements, each of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

32

Table of Contents

If competition decreases our ability to acquire additional hospitals on favorable terms, we may be unable to execute our acquisition strategy.

An important part of our business strategy is to acquire two to four hospitals each year. However, not-for-profit hospital systems and other for-profit hospital companies generally attempt to acquire the same type of hospitals as we do. LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. is a principal competitor for acquisitions. Other competitors include HCA Holdings, Inc., Universal Health Services, Inc., other non-public, for profit hospitals and local market hospitals. Some of our competition for acquisitions have greater financial resources than we have. Furthermore, some hospitals are sold through an auction process, which may result in higher purchase prices than we believe are reasonable. Therefore, we may not be able to acquire additional hospitals on terms favorable to us.

If we fail to improve the operations of acquired hospitals, we may be unable to achieve our growth strategy.

Many of the hospitals we have acquired had lower operating margins than we do and operating losses incurred prior to the time we acquired them. Future acquired hospitals may have similar financial performance issues. In the past, we have occasionally experienced delays in improving the operating margins or effectively integrating the operations of acquired hospitals. In the future, if we are unable to improve the operating margins of acquired hospitals, operate them profitably, or effectively integrate their operations, we may be unable to achieve our growth strategy.

If we acquire hospitals with unknown or contingent liabilities, we could become liable for material obligations.

Hospitals that we have acquired, or in the future could acquire, may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including liabilities for failure to comply with healthcare laws and regulations. Although we generally seek indemnification from sellers covering these matters, we may nevertheless have material liabilities for past activities of acquired hospitals.

State efforts to regulate the construction, acquisition or expansion of healthcare facilities could limit our ability to build or acquire additional healthcare facilities, renovate our facilities or expand the breadth of services we offer.

Some states in which we operate require a CON or other prior approval for the construction or acquisition of healthcare facilities, capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount, changes in bed capacity or services and some other matters. In evaluating a proposal, these states consider the need for additional or expanded healthcare facilities or services. If we are not able to obtain required CONs or other prior approvals, we would not be able to acquire, operate, replace or expand our facilities or expand the breadth of services we offer. Furthermore, if a CON or other prior approval upon which we relied to invest in construction of a replacement or expanded facility were to be revoked or lost through an appeal process, we may not be able to recover the value of our investment.

State efforts to regulate the sale of hospitals operated by municipal or not-for-profit entities could prevent us from acquiring these types of hospitals and executing our business strategy.

Many states have adopted legislation regarding the sale or other disposition of hospitals operated by municipal or not-for-profit entities. In some states that do not have specific legislation, the attorneys general have demonstrated an interest in these transactions under their general obligation to protect the use of charitable assets. These legislative and administrative efforts focus primarily on the appropriate valuation of the assets divested and the use of the proceeds of the sale by the non-profit seller. While these review and, in some instances, approval processes can add additional time to the closing of a hospital acquisition, we have not had any significant difficulties or delays in completing acquisitions. However, future state actions could seriously delay or even prevent our ability to acquire hospitals.

33

Table of Contents

If we are unable to effectively compete for patients, local residents could use other hospitals and healthcare providers.

The healthcare industry is highly competitive among hospitals and other healthcare providers for patients, affiliations with physicians and acquisitions. The competition among hospitals and other healthcare providers for patients has intensified in recent years. However, the majority of our hospitals are located in non-urban service areas where we believe we are the sole provider of general acute care health services. As a result, the most significant competition our hospitals face typically comes from hospitals outside of our primary service areas, including hospitals in urban areas that provide more complex services. Patients in our primary service areas may travel to these other hospitals because of physician referrals or their need for services we do not offer, among other reasons. Patients who receive services from these other hospitals may subsequently shift their preferences to those hospitals for the services we provide. Competition for patients is also increasing among other healthcare providers, including outpatient surgery, orthopedic, oncology and diagnostic centers. Our hospitals and our competitors are implementing physician alignment strategies, such as acquiring physician practice groups, employing physicians and participating in ACOs or other clinical integration models, which may impact our competitive position.

At December 31, 2015, 63 of our hospitals competed with more than one other hospital in their respective primary service areas. In most markets in which we are not the sole provider of general acute care health services, our primary competitor is a municipal or not-for-profit hospital. These hospitals are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or not-for-profit entities supported by endowments and charitable contributions. They do not pay income or property taxes, and can make capital expenditures without paying sales tax. These financial advantages may better position these hospitals to maintain more modern and technologically upgraded facilities and equipment and offer services more specialized than those available at our hospitals. If our competitors are better able to attract patients with these offerings, we may experience an overall decline in patient volume.

Trends toward clinical transparency and value-based purchasing may have an unanticipated impact on our competitive position and patient volumes. The CMS Hospital Compare website makes available to the public certain data that hospitals submit in connection with Medicare reimbursement claims, including performance data related to quality measures and patient satisfaction surveys. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Further, every hospital must establish and update annually a public listing of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services or publish its policies for allowing the public to view a list of these charges in response to an inquiry. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results (or results that are lower than our competitors) on these quality measures or on patient satisfaction surveys, or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, we may attract fewer patients.

We expect these competitive trends to continue. If we are unable to compete effectively with other hospitals and other healthcare providers, local residents may seek healthcare services at providers other than our hospitals and affiliated businesses.

The failure to obtain our medical supplies at favorable prices could cause our operating results to decline.

We have a participation agreement with HealthTrust, a GPO. The current term of this agreement expires in January 2017, with automatic renewal terms of one year unless either party terminates by giving notice of non-renewal. GPOs attempt to obtain favorable pricing on medical supplies with manufacturers and vendors, sometimes by negotiating exclusive supply arrangements in exchange for discounts. To the extent these exclusive supply arrangements are challenged or deemed unenforceable, we could incur higher costs for our medical supplies obtained through HealthTrust. Further, costs of supplies and drugs may continue to increase due to market pressure from pharmaceutical companies and new product releases. Higher costs could continue to adversely impact our operating results. Also, there can be no assurance that our arrangement with HealthTrust will provide the discounts we expect to achieve.

34

Table of Contents

If the fair value of our reporting units declines, a material non-cash charge to earnings from impairment of our goodwill could result.

At December 31, 2015, we had approximately $9.0 billion of goodwill recorded on our books, including approximately $4.5 billion of goodwill resulting from the acquisition of HMA. We expect to recover the carrying value of this goodwill through our future cash flows. On an ongoing basis, under GAAP, we evaluate, based on the fair value of our reporting units, whether the carrying value of our goodwill is impaired when events or changes in circumstances indicate that such carrying value may not be recoverable. GAAP requires us to test goodwill for impairment at least annually. The testing of goodwill for impairment requires us to make significant estimates about our future performance and cash flows, as well as other assumptions related to our cost of capital and other factors impacting our fair value models. These estimates can be affected by various factors, including changes in economic, industry or other market assumptions, changes in our business operations, and potential changes in our stock price and market capitalization. Changes in these factors, or changes in our actual performance compared with our estimates of future projections, could affect our calculation of the fair value of our reporting units, which could result in an impairment charge to goodwill.

No impairment was indicated in connection with our last annual goodwill evaluation conducted during the fourth quarter of 2015. However, based on the excess of fair value over the carrying value, our hospital operations reporting unit was at risk of goodwill impairment as of December 31, 2015, primarily due to a decline in our stock price during the fourth quarter and lower projections of future cash flows.

If the carrying value of our goodwill is impaired, we may incur a material non-cash charge to earnings during the period in which the impairment is determined.

A significant decline in operating results or other indicators of impairment at one or more of our facilities could result in a material, non-cash charge to earnings to impair the value of long-lived assets.

Our operations are capital intensive and require significant investment in long-lived assets, such as property, equipment and other long-lived intangible assets, including capitalized internal-use software. If one of our facilities experiences declining operating results or is adversely impacted by one or more of these risk factors, we may not be able to recover the carrying value of those assets through our future operating cash flows. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate whether changes in future undiscounted cash flows reflect an impairment in the fair value of our long-lived assets. If the carrying value of those assets is impaired, we may incur a material non-cash charge to earnings.

We are subject to uncertainties regarding healthcare reform.

The U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures have introduced and passed a large number of proposals and legislation designed to make major changes in the healthcare system, including changes that increase access to health insurance. In particular, the Reform Legislation mandates that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain medical insurance coverage and expands health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms. Based on projections issued by the CBO in March 2015, the incremental insurance coverage due to the Reform Legislation could result in 25 million formerly uninsured Americans gaining coverage by the end of 2025.

States may opt out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions of the Reform Legislation without losing existing federal Medicaid funding. A number of states have opted out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions, but could ultimately decide to expand their programs at a later date. At our hospitals in these states, the number of uninsured patients will likely decline by a smaller margin than we initially expected when the Reform Legislation was first adopted. Of the 28 states in which we operate hospitals that are included in continuing operations, 15 states have expanded their Medicaid programs. At this time, the other 13 states have not, including Florida, Tennessee and Texas, where we operated a significant number of hospitals as of December 31, 2015. Some states that have opted out are evaluating options such as waiver plans to operate an alternative Medicaid expansion plan.

35

Table of Contents

The Reform Legislation also makes a number of changes to Medicare and Medicaid that could adversely impact the reimbursement our facilities receive under these programs, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update through federal fiscal year 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments. Despite these provisions, we believe that the Reform Legislation had a positive impact on net operating revenues and income from continuing operations during 2014 and 2015 as the result of the expansion of private sector and Medicaid coverage that has already occurred from the Reform Legislation. We believe that the net impact of the Reform Legislation on our net operating revenues will continue to be positive, but there can be no assurances that such impact will continue to remain positive in the future.

Also included in the Reform Legislation are provisions aimed at reducing fraud, waste and abuse in the healthcare industry. These provisions allocate significant additional resources to federal enforcement agencies and expand the use of private contractors to recover potentially inappropriate Medicare and Medicaid payments. The Reform Legislation amends several existing federal laws, including the anti-kickback statute and the FCA, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. These amendments also make it easier for potentially severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers accused of violating applicable laws and regulations.

Because of the many variables involved, including clarifications and modifications resulting from the rule-making process, legislative efforts to repeal or modify the law, judicial interpretations resulting from court challenges to its constitutionality and interpretation, the development of agency guidance, whether and how many states ultimately decide to expand Medicaid coverage, the number of uninsured who elect to purchase health insurance coverage, uncertainty regarding the long-term viability of the health insurance exchanges, budgetary issues at federal and state levels, and the potential for delays in the implementation of the Reform Legislation, we may not be able to realize the positive impact the Reform Legislation may have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity. Furthermore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation or other federal or state health reform initiatives.

If reimbursement rates paid by federal or state healthcare programs or commercial payors are reduced, if we are unable to maintain favorable contract terms with payors or comply with our payor contract obligations, if insured individuals move to insurance plans with greater coverage exclusions or narrower networks, or if insurance coverage is otherwise restricted, our net operating revenues may decline.

In 2015, 35.3% of our operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), came from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Federal healthcare expenditures continue to increase and state governments continue to face budgetary shortfalls as a result of current economic conditions and increasing Medicaid enrollment. As a result of such events and also pursuant to the Reform Legislation, federal and state governments have made, and continue to make, significant changes in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including reductions in reimbursement levels and supplemental payment programs like disproportionate share payments. Some of these changes have decreased, or could decrease, the amount of money we receive for our services relating to these programs.

In addition, government and commercial payors as well as other third parties from whom we receive payment for our services attempt to control healthcare costs by, for example, requiring hospitals to discount payments for their services in exchange for exclusive or preferred participation in their benefit plans, restricting coverage through utilization review, reducing coverage of inpatient services and shifting care to outpatient settings, requiring prior authorizations, and implementing alternative payment models. The ability of commercial payors to control healthcare costs using these measures may be enhanced by the increasing consolidation of insurance and managed care companies.

In 2015, 52.4% of our operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), came from commercial payors. Our contracts with payors require us to comply with a

36

Table of Contents

number of terms related to the provision of services and billing for services. If we are unable to negotiate increased reimbursement rates, maintain existing rates or other favorable contract terms, effectively respond to payor cost controls or comply with the terms of our payor contracts, the payments we receive for our services may be reduced or we may be involved in disputes with payors and experience payment denials, both prospectively and retroactively. In addition, some individuals may move from existing coverage under health insurance plans with higher reimbursement rates for our services and lower co-pays and deductibles to plans, such as those purchased on the health insurance exchanges, that may provide for lower reimbursement for our services along with higher co-pays and deductibles or even exclusion of our hospitals and employed physicians from coverage.

We may be adversely affected by consolidation among health insurers.

In recent years, a number of health insurers have merged or increased efforts to consolidate with other payors as well as providers, in part, as a result of the medical loss ratio (“MLR”) requirements imposed by the Reform Legislation. The MLR represents the percentage of premiums used to pay customer medical claims and for other activities that improve the quality of care. Health insurers that do not meet minimum MLR requirements must pay premium rebates on individual and group medical insurance products and, for certain Medicare products, may be subject to additional penalties. Our ability to negotiate prices and favorable terms with health insurers in certain markets could be affected negatively as a result of these efforts. Also, the shift toward value-based payment models could be accelerated if larger insurers find these models to be financially beneficial. We cannot predict whether we will be able to respond effectively to the impact of increased consolidation in the payor industry.

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

The healthcare industry is governed by laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels. These laws and regulations include standards addressing, among other issues, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures; billing and coding for services; properly handling overpayments; classification of levels of care provided; preparing and filing of cost reports; relationships with referral sources and referral recipients; maintenance of adequate records; compliance with building codes; environmental protection; and privacy and security. Examples of these laws include, but are not limited to, HIPAA, the Stark Law, the federal anti-kickback statute, the FCA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and similar state laws. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations we could suffer civil sanctions and criminal penalties, including the loss of our operating licenses and our ability to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs.

In addition, there are heightened coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts by both federal and state government agencies relating to the healthcare industry, including the hospital segment. Recent enforcement actions have focused on financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians, billing for services without adequately documenting medical necessity and billing for services outside the coverage guidelines for such services. Specific to our hospitals, we have received inquiries and subpoenas from various governmental agencies regarding these and other matters, and we are also subject to various claims and lawsuits relating to such matters. For a further discussion of these matters, see “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 of this Form 10-K.

In the future, evolving interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject our current practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses.

37

Table of Contents

If we become subject to significant legal actions, we could be subject to substantial uninsured liabilities or increased insurance costs.

Physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers have become subject to an increasing number of legal actions alleging malpractice, product liability, or related legal theories. Even in states that have imposed caps on damages, litigants are seeking recoveries under new theories of liability that might not be subject to the caps on damages. Many of these actions involve large claims and significant defense costs. To protect us from the cost of these claims, we maintain claims made professional malpractice liability insurance and general liability insurance coverage in excess of those amounts for which we are self-insured. This insurance coverage is in amounts that we believe to be sufficient for our operations; however, our insurance coverage may not continue to be available at a reasonable cost for us to maintain adequate levels of insurance. Additionally, our insurance coverage does not cover all claims against us, such as fines, penalties, or other damage and legal expense payments resulting from qui tam lawsuits.

We could be subject to increased monetary penalties and/or other sanctions, including exclusion from federal health care programs, if we fail to comply with the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement.

On August 4, 2014, we announced that we had entered into a civil settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, other federal agencies and identified relators that concluded previously announced investigations and litigation related to short stay admissions through emergency departments at certain of our affiliated hospitals. See our discussion of this matter under the section “Business of Community Health Systems, Inc.” in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K and “Legal Proceedings” in Part II, Item 1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 for further discussion of the background of this matter and details of the settlement. In addition to the amounts paid in the settlement, we executed the CIA with the OIG that has been incorporated into our existing and comprehensive compliance program.

Material, uncorrected violations of the CIA could lead to our suspension or disbarment from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs and repayment obligations. In addition, we are subject to possible civil penalties for failure to substantially comply with the terms of the CIA, including stipulated penalties ranging between $1,000 to $2,500 per day. We are also subject to a stipulated penalty of $50,000 for each false certification made by us or on our behalf, pursuant to the reporting provisions of the CIA. The CIA increases the amount of information we must provide to the federal government regarding our healthcare practices and our compliance with federal regulations. The reports we provide in connection with the CIA could result in greater scrutiny by regulatory authorities.

If we experience growth in self-pay volume and revenues, or if we experience continued deterioration in the collectability of patient responsibility accounts, our financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our primary collection risks relate to uninsured patients and outstanding patient balances for which the primary insurance payor has paid some but not all of the outstanding balance, with the remaining outstanding balance (generally deductibles and co-payments) owed by the patient. Collections are impacted by the economic ability of patients to pay and the effectiveness of our collection efforts. Significant changes in payor mix, business office operations, economic conditions or trends in federal and state governmental healthcare coverage may affect our collection of accounts receivable and are considered in our estimates of accounts receivable collectability.

Since the implementation of the Reform Legislation, our self-pay revenues as a percentage of total revenue have decreased, primarily resulting from a shift from self-pay to Medicaid and private insurers for a portion of our patient population, driven by the insurance coverage expansion provisions of the Reform Legislation. In addition, the Reform Legislation’s future impact on the uninsured population and the percentage of our total revenue comprised of self-pay revenues may be different than anticipated because of, among other variables,

38

Table of Contents

uncertainty regarding the number and identity of states that ultimately choose to expand Medicaid, the number of uninsured who elect to purchase health insurance, and efforts to repeal or revise the Reform Legislation. Moreover, we may still be adversely affected by the growth in patient responsibility accounts as a result of increases in the adoption of plan structures, including health savings accounts, narrow networks and tiered networks, that shift greater responsibility for care to individuals through greater exclusions and copayment and deductible amounts. Further, our ability to collect patient responsibility accounts may be limited by statutory, regulatory and investigatory initiatives, including private lawsuits directed at hospital charges and collection practices for uninsured and underinsured patients. In addition, a deterioration of economic conditions in the United States could potentially lead to higher levels of uninsured patients, result in higher levels of patients covered by lower paying government programs, result in fiscal uncertainties at both government payors and private insurers and/or limit the economic ability of patients to make payments for which they are responsible. If we experience growth in self-pay volume or further deterioration in collectability of patient responsibility accounts, our financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

The failure of certain employers, or the closure of certain manufacturing and other facilities in our markets, could have a disproportionate impact on our hospitals.

The economies in the non-urban communities in which our hospitals primarily operate are often dependent on a small number of large employers, especially manufacturing or other facilities. These employers often provide income and health insurance for a disproportionately large number of community residents who may depend on our hospitals for care. The failure of one or more large employers, or the closure or substantial reduction in the number of individuals employed at manufacturing or other facilities located in or near many of the non-urban communities in which our hospitals primarily operate, could cause affected employees to move elsewhere for employment or lose insurance coverage that was otherwise available to them. The occurrence of these events may cause a reduction in our revenues and adversely impact our results of operations.

If there are delays in regulatory updates by governmental entities to federal and state healthcare programs, we may experience increased volatility in our operating results as such delays may result in a timing difference between when such program revenues are earned and when they become known or estimable for purposes of accounting recognition.

We derive a significant amount of our net operating revenues from governmental healthcare programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. The reimbursements due to us from those programs are subject to legislative and regulatory changes that can have a significant impact on our operating results. When delays occur in the implementation of regulations or passage of legislation, there is the potential for material increases or decreases in operating revenues to be recognized in periods subsequent to when such related services were performed, resulting in the potential for an adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

If our adoption and utilization of electronic health record systems fails to achieve the required measures for meaningful use, our consolidated results of operations could be adversely affected.

As a result of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, eligible hospitals and healthcare professionals can receive incentive payments for their adoption and meaningful use of EHR technology. The implementation of EHR technology that meets the meaningful use criteria requires a significant capital investment, and we have and intend to continue to offset some of these costs by maximizing our receipt of incentive payments. Eligible hospitals and professionals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology and have not applied and qualified for a hardship exception are subject to reduced reimbursement from Medicare. Thus, if our hospitals and employed professionals are unable to comply with the meaningful use standards, we will not be eligible to receive incentive payments that could offset some of the costs of implementing EHR systems, and we could be subject to penalties that may have an adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

39

Table of Contents

The transition to ICD-10 coding may adversely impact our consolidated results of operations.

All healthcare providers covered by HIPAA, including our hospitals, were required to transition by October 1, 2015 to the ICD-10 code set to report medical diagnoses and inpatient procedures. ICD-10 significantly expands the number of and detail in the codes used by providers to bill for services. All of our hospitals have transitioned to the ICD-10 coding system, which continues to involve a significant capital investment in technology and coding of our information systems, as well as significant costs related to training of staff involved with coding and billing. These ICD-10 transition costs and any difficulty or delays in payors and providers transitioning to this significantly more detailed code set could have an adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and cash flows. The potential for delay in billing and collection on patient receivables could also have an adverse effect on the quality of receivables that serve as collateral for borrowings under our receivables facility, resulting in a potential default or repayment of outstanding borrowings.

A cybersecurity attack or security breach could cause a loss of confidential data, give rise to remediation and other expenses, expose us to liability under HIPAA, consumer protection laws, common law or other theories, subject us to litigation and federal and state governmental inquiries, damage our reputation, and otherwise be disruptive to our business.

We rely extensively on our computer systems to manage clinical and financial data, communicate with our patients, payors, vendors and other third parties and summarize and analyze operating results. We have made significant investments in technology to protect our systems and information from cybersecurity risks. During the second quarter of 2014, our computer network was the target of an external, criminal cyber-attack in which the attacker successfully copied and transferred certain data outside the Company. This data included certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers) considered protected under HIPAA, but did not include patient credit card, medical or clinical information. The remediation efforts in response to the attack have been substantial, including continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access. Also in connection with the cyber-attack, we have been subject to multiple purported class action lawsuits and may be subject to additional litigation, potential governmental inquiries and potential reputation damages.

In spite of our security measures, there can be no assurance that we will not be subject to additional cyber-attacks or security breaches in the future. Such attacks or breaches could result in loss of protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws or disrupt our information technology systems or business. We continue to prioritize cybersecurity and the development of practices and controls to protect our systems. As cyber-threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. If we are subject to cyber-attacks or security breaches in the future, this could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of a contagious disease in the markets in which we operate or that otherwise impacts our facilities could adversely impact our business.

If a pandemic or other public health crisis were to affect our markets, our business could be adversely affected. Such a crisis could diminish the public trust in healthcare facilities, especially hospitals that fail to accurately or timely diagnose, or that are treating (or have treated) patients affected by contagious diseases. If any of our facilities were involved in treating patients for such a contagious disease, other patients might cancel elective procedures or fail to seek needed care at our facilities. Further, a pandemic might adversely impact our business by causing a temporary shutdown or diversion of patients, by disrupting or delaying production and delivery of materials and products in the supply chain or by causing staffing shortages in our facilities. Although we have disaster plans in place and operate pursuant to infectious disease protocols, the potential impact of a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of a contagious disease with respect to our markets or our facilities is difficult to predict and could adversely impact our business.

40

Table of Contents

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

Although we employ some physicians, physicians are often not employees at our healthcare facilities at which they practice. The success of our healthcare facilities depends in part on the number and quality of the physicians on the medical staffs of our healthcare facilities, our ability to employ quality physicians, the admitting and utilization practices of employed and independent physicians, maintaining good relations with those physicians and controlling costs related to the employment of physicians. In many of the markets we serve, many physicians have admitting privileges at other healthcare facilities in addition to our healthcare facilities. Such physicians may terminate their affiliation with or employment by our healthcare facilities at any time. If we are unable to provide adequate support personnel or technologically advanced equipment and facilities that meet the needs of those physicians and their patients, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities, admissions may decrease and our operating performance may decline.

Our labor costs could be adversely affected by competition for staffing, the shortage of experienced nurses and labor union activity.

In addition to our physicians, the operations of our hospitals are dependent on the efforts, abilities and experience of our management and medical support personnel, such as nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians. We compete with other healthcare providers in recruiting and retaining qualified management and support personnel responsible for the daily operations of our hospitals, including nurses and other non-physician healthcare professionals. In some markets, the availability of nurses and other medical support personnel has been a significant operating issue to healthcare providers. We may be required to continue to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other medical support personnel or to hire more expensive temporary or contract personnel. In addition, the states in which we operate could adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or could reduce mandatory nurse-staffing ratios already in place. State-mandated nurse-staffing ratios could significantly affect labor costs and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit admissions in order to meet the required ratios.

Increased or ongoing labor union activity is another factor that could adversely affect our labor costs or otherwise adversely impact us. To the extent a significant portion of our employee base unionizes, our labor costs could increase significantly. In addition, when negotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions, whether such agreements are renewals or first contracts, there is the possibility that strikes could occur during the negotiation process, and our continued operation during any strikes could increase our labor costs and otherwise adversely impact us.

If our labor costs increase, we may not be able to raise rates to offset these increased costs. Because a significant percentage of our revenues consists of fixed, prospective payments, our ability to pass along increased labor costs is constrained. In the event we are not entirely effective at recruiting and retaining qualified management, nurses and other medical support personnel, or in controlling labor costs, this could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

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

The trend toward value-based purchasing of healthcare services is gaining momentum across the healthcare industry among both government and commercial payors. Generally, value-based purchasing initiatives tie payment to the quality and efficiency of care. For example, hospital payments may be negatively impacted by the occurrence of HACs. As of federal fiscal year 2015, hospitals that fall into the top 25% of national risk-adjusted HAC rates for all hospitals in the previous year receive a 1% reduction in their total Medicare payments. Medicare does not reimburse for care related to HACs. In addition, federal funds may not be used under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for services provided to treat HACs. Hospitals that experience excess readmissions for designated conditions receive reduced payments for all inpatient discharges. HHS also reduces Medicare inpatient hospital payments for all discharges by a required percentage and pools the amount collected

41

Table of Contents

from these reductions to fund payments to reward hospitals that meet or exceed certain quality performance standards. Further, Medicare and Medicaid require hospitals to report certain quality data to receive full reimbursement updates.

HHS has indicated that it is particularly focused on tying Medicare payments to quality or value through alternative payment models, which generally aim to make providers attentive to the quality and cost of care they deliver to patients. Examples of alternative payment models include ACOs and bundled payment arrangements. Beginning in April 2016, HHS will require hospitals in certain geographic areas to participate in a bundled payment program for specified joint replacement procedures, and HHS may increasingly establish similar mandatory programs. It is unclear whether alternative payment models will successfully coordinate care and reduce costs or whether they will decrease aggregate reimbursement. Several of the nation’s largest commercial payors have also expressed an intent to increase reliance on value-based reimbursement arrangements. Further, many large commercial payors require hospitals to report quality data, and several commercial payors do not reimburse hospitals for certain preventable adverse events.

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

Our revenues are concentrated in a small number of states which will make us particularly sensitive to regulatory and economic changes in those states.

Our revenues are particularly sensitive to regulatory and economic changes in states in which we generate a significant portion of our revenues, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Indiana and Tennessee. Accordingly, any change in the current demographic, economic, competitive or regulatory conditions in these states could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Changes to the Medicaid programs in these states could also have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. For example, in 2014, CMS deferred the federal portion of Medicaid payments associated with the Texas Medicaid Waiver Program, a measure it has since lifted. The waiver for the Texas program expires on September 30, 2016. Texas has submitted an application to extend its Medicaid Waiver Program, but CMS has not yet issued a decision. We cannot predict whether the Texas Medicaid Waiver Program will be extended, continue in its current form or guarantee that revenues recognized from the program will not decrease.

The proposed spin-off of a group of our hospitals and Quorum Health Resources into an independent, publicly-traded corporation may not be completed on the currently contemplated timeline or terms, or at all, and may not achieve the intended benefits.

In August 2015, we announced a plan to spin off 38 of our hospitals and Quorum Health Resources into QHC, an independent, publicly-traded corporation. We expect to complete the spin-off in the first half of 2016, although there can be no assurance as to whether or when the spin-off will occur. Various developments, including related to (i) obtaining various tax and regulatory approvals, (ii) the execution of operational transitional agreements, (iii) receiving opinions of tax, legal and valuation advisors (including as to the tax-free nature of the transaction) and (iv) market conditions, could delay or prevent the proposed spin-off or cause the proposed spin-off to occur on terms or conditions that are less favorable and/or different than expected. In addition, even if completed, we may not realize the anticipated benefits from the spin-off, and expenses incurred in connection with the proposed spin-off may be significantly higher than we currently anticipate.

We and our stockholders could incur significant tax liabilities if the distribution were to be deemed a taxable event.

In Rev. Proc. 2013-12, the IRS announced that, effective for ruling requests postmarked or received after August 23, 2013, it generally will no longer provide private letter rulings to the effect that a spin-off transaction

42

Table of Contents

(similar to the contribution of the businesses by us to QHC and the distribution of QHC common stock in connection with the proposed spin-off transaction) will qualify as a tax-free transaction under Sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 355 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. Consequently, we are not seeking such a ruling from the IRS. However, we submitted a request for a private letter ruling from the IRS as to whether the anticipated distribution by QHC of QHC senior notes to us in connection with the proposed spin-off transaction satisfies certain U.S. federal income tax requirements. On December 21, 2015, we received a favorable ruling with respect to the distribution by QHC of QHC senior notes. Moreover, it is a condition to the distribution that we receive an opinion from our outside tax advisor, Deloitte Tax LLP, to the effect that the distribution of QHC common stock should qualify as generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 355 of the Code. However, this opinion will not be binding on the IRS or the courts. In addition, the opinion from Deloitte Tax LLP will rely on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings from us and QHC regarding the past and future conduct of the companies’ respective businesses and other matters. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings is incorrect or not satisfied, we and our stockholders may not be able to rely on the opinion of Deloitte Tax LLP and could be subject to significant tax liabilities. Notwithstanding our receipt of the opinion from Deloitte Tax LLP, there can be no assurance that the IRS will determine that the distribution is not a taxable event. If the distribution is determined to be taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we and our stockholders that are subject to U.S. federal income tax could incur significant U.S. federal income tax liabilities. In addition, even if the spin-off otherwise qualifies as a tax-free transaction, the distribution could be taxable to us (and, in certain circumstances, to our stockholders) if future significant acquisitions of our stock or the stock of QHC following the distribution are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that included the spin-off.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

Item 2. Properties

Corporate Headquarters

We own our corporate headquarters building located in Franklin, Tennessee.

Hospitals

Our hospitals are general care hospitals offering a wide range of inpatient and outpatient medical services. These services generally include general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. In addition, some of our hospitals provide skilled nursing and home care services based on individual community needs.

43

Table of Contents

For each of our hospitals owned or leased as of December 31, 2015, the following table shows its location, the date of its acquisition or lease inception and the number of licensed beds:

44

Table of Contents

45

Table of Contents

46

Table of Contents

47

Table of Contents

48

Table of Contents

The real property of substantially all of our wholly-owned hospitals is also encumbered by mortgages to support obligations under our credit facility and outstanding senior secured notes.

49

Table of Contents

The following table lists the hospitals owned by joint venture entities in which we do not have a consolidating ownership interest, along with our percentage ownership interest in the joint venture entity as of December 31, 2015. Information on licensed beds was provided by the majority owner and manager of each joint venture. A subsidiary of HCA Holdings, Inc. is the majority owner of Macon Healthcare LLC, and a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. is the majority owner of Summerlin Hospital Medical Center LLC and Valley Health System LLC.

From time to time, we receive inquiries or subpoenas from state regulators, state Medicaid Fraud Control units, fiscal intermediaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Justice regarding various Medicare and Medicaid issues. In addition to the matters discussed below, we are currently responding to subpoenas and administrative demands concerning (a) certain cardiology procedures, medical records and policies at a New Mexico hospital, (b) a civil investigative demand concerning cardiology devices at a Pennsylvania hospital, (c) an inquiry regarding a sleep lab at a Louisiana hospital, (d) a subpoena regarding wound care services at one of our Florida hospitals (which appears to be related to the recently unsealed case styled U.S. ex rel. Van Raalte, v. Healogics, Inc.), (e) a subpoena concerning provider based billing status for hyperbaric oxygen therapy at one of our Tennessee hospitals and (f) a civil investigative demand concerning neonatal services at one of our Washington hospitals. In addition, we are subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, some of which are beyond our control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. Settlements of suits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments as well as corporate integrity agreements. Additionally, qui tam or “whistleblower” actions initiated under the civil False Claims Act may be pending but placed under seal by the court to comply with the False Claims Act’s requirements for filing such suits. In September 2014, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, or DOJ, announced that all qui tam cases will be shared with their Division to determine if a parallel criminal investigation should be opened. The Criminal Division has also frequently stated an intention to pursue corporations in criminal prosecutions. From time to time, we detect issues of non-compliance with Federal healthcare laws pertaining to claims submission and reimbursement practices and/or financial relationships with physicians. We avail ourselves of various mechanisms to address potential overpayments arising out of these issues, including repayment of claims, rebilling of claims, and participation in voluntary disclosure protocols offered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the Inspector General. Participating in voluntary repayments and voluntary disclosure protocols can have the potential for significant settlement obligations or even enforcement action.

50

Table of Contents

The following legal proceedings are described in detail because, although they may not be required to be disclosed in this Part I, Item 3 under SEC rules, due to the nature of the business of the Company, we believe that the following discussion of these matters may provide useful information to security holders. This discussion does not include claims and lawsuits covered by medical malpractice, general liability or employment practices insurance and risk retention programs, none of which claims or lawsuits would in any event be required to be disclosed in this Part I, Item 3 under SEC rules. Certain of the matters referenced below are also discussed in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements at Part II, Item 8 under Note 17 “Commitments and Contingencies.”

Community Health Systems, Inc. Legal Proceedings

Shareholder Litigation

Class Action Shareholder Federal Securities Cases. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs’ counsel. In lieu of ruling on our motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint which was filed on October 5, 2015. Our motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and is scheduled for oral argument on April 11, 2016. The court also lifted the discovery stay and discovery is underway. We believe this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

Shareholder Derivative Actions. Three purported shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed May 24, 2011; Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed June 21, 2011; and Lambert Sweat v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed October 5, 2011. These three cases allege breach of fiduciary duty arising out of allegedly improper inpatient admission practices, mismanagement, waste and unjust enrichment. These cases have been consolidated into a single, consolidated action. The plaintiffs filed an operative amended derivative complaint in these three consolidated actions on March 15, 2012. Our motion to dismiss was argued on June 13, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. An initial case management order was entered on November 11, 2014, but no trial date has been set. Discovery is continuing. We believe all of the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and will vigorously defend them.

Other Government Investigations

Dothan, Alabama – Independent Lab Billing. On February 12, 2015, our hospital in Dothan, Alabama received a Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, from the United States Department of Justice for information concerning its status as a “covered hospital” under certain lab billing regulations. These regulations discuss permissible billing of the technical component of lab tests performed for hospital patients by an independent laboratory. The CID seeks documentation and explanation whether the hospital qualifies as a covered hospital for billing purposes under the applicable regulations. We are cooperating fully with this investigation.

Blue Island, Illinois – Patient Status. On October 9, 2015, our hospital in Blue Island, Illinois received a CID from the Office of the United States Attorney in Chicago, Illinois concerning allegations of upcoding observation and other outpatient services and improperly falsifying inpatient admission orders. The CID requests medical records and documentation concerning status change, from observation to inpatient. We are fully cooperating with this investigation.

51

Table of Contents

Qui Tam Cases – Government Declined Intervention

On February 4, 2014, a redacted case then styled (Sealed Party) v. Pottstown Hospital Co., LLC d/b/a Pottstown Memorial Medical Center and Community Health Systems, Inc. was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 6, 2014, the district court ordered the seal lifted. The relator is Alan E. Cooper, M.D. The complaint alleges the hospital traded on call agreements for referrals. There is no indication that the DOJ has intervened in this matter. This matter was previously reported in prior filings in the Legal Proceedings section as subpoenas to two Pennsylvania hospitals and one of our subsidiaries concerning on call agreements and physician directorships. On June 5, 2014, we filed motions to dismiss the complaint and on June 30, 2014 the relator filed his response. Oral argument occurred on October 15, 2014 and the matter was taken under advisement and discovery was stayed. Our motions to dismiss were granted with prejudice on March 13, 2015; the relator filed an appeal and oral argument on the appeal was originally set for November 20, 2015 but by order of the court was submitted on paper only. We are awaiting a decision. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter.

On July 28, 2015, a first amended complaint was filed by a relator in the matter of U.S. ex rel. Howard v. Taos Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital. Our affiliate Quorum Health Resources, also a defendant in this case, provides senior level management personnel under contract to the non-affiliated hospital. The action is pending in the United States District Court, State of New Mexico. Relator, who previously practiced emergency medicine at the hospital, alleges fraudulent billing for midlevel practitioners by the hospital and retaliation in his termination. The United States declined to intervene in this matter. This matter has now been settled and is expected to be dismissed.

Commercial Litigation and Other Lawsuits

Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation d/b/a Community Health Systems d/b/a Community Health Systems PSC, Inc. d/b/a Rockwood Clinic P.S. and Rockwood Clinic, P.S. (Superior Court, Spokane, Washington). This suit was filed on February 29, 2012, by a former chief financial officer at Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Washington. Becker claims he was wrongfully terminated for allegedly refusing to certify a budget for Rockwood Clinic in 2012. On February 29, 2012, he also filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration alleging that he is a whistleblower under Sarbanes-Oxley, which was dismissed by the agency and was appealed to an administrative law judge for a hearing that occurred on January 19-26, 2016 and will be ready for decision pending submittal of final briefing. At a hearing on July 27, 2012, the trial court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from the state case and subsequently certified the state case for an interlocutory appeal of the denial to dismiss his employer and the management company. The appellate court accepted the interlocutory appeal, and it was argued on April 30, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the court denied our appeal. On October 20, 2014, we filed a petition to review the denial with the Washington Supreme Court. Our appeal was accepted and oral argument was heard on June 9, 2015. On September 15, 2015, the court denied our appeal and remanded to the trial court where it is now set for trial on September 12, 2016. We are vigorously defending these actions.

Eliel Ntakirutimana, M.D. and Anesthesia Healthcare Partners of Laredo, P.A., Jose Berlioz, M.D. and Jose Berlioz, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Safari Pediatrics v. Laredo Texas Hospital Company, L.P. d/b/a Laredo Medical Center, CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., Webb Hospital Corporation, Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Abraham “Abe” Martinez, Argelia “Argie” Martinez, Michael Portacci, Wayne Smith, Timothy P. Adams, and Timothy Schmidt. On December 28, 2012, two physicians and each of their professional associations, who previously contracted as independent contractors with Laredo Medical Center under contracts that could be terminated without cause upon certain written notice, filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint alleged claims for breaches of contracts, unjust enrichment, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty, defamation and business disparagement, R.I.C.O., economic duress/coercion, tortious interference with contracts or prospective business relations, conspiracy, respondent superior,

52

Table of Contents

actual and apparent authority, ratification, vice-principal liability, and joint enterprise liability. The first amended complaint, in part, alleges facts concerning payments made by Dr. Eliel Ntakirutimana to former Laredo Medical Center CEO, Abe Martinez, who is also a defendant in the suit. On October 23, 2013, an Order staying the case until further notice was entered.

Cyber Attack. As previously disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by us on August 18, 2014, our computer network was the target of an external, criminal cyber-attack that we believe occurred between April and June, 2014. We and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by us in connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign “Advanced Persistent Threat” group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass our security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or clinical information. We continue to work closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and possible prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident and continues to advise the Company regarding security and monitoring efforts. We are providing appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal and state law. We are offering identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack.

We have incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate this matter, and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. In addition, multiple purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the Company. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A consolidated complaint was filed and we filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue. Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally, the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to continue their cases. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from this litigation, but we intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. This matter may subject the Company to additional litigation, potential governmental inquiries, potential reputational damage, and additional remediation, operating and other expenses.

Suit Under California Insurance Code. People of the State of California, ex rel. Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation et. al. v. CPH Hospital Management, LLC, et. al. This case is a whistleblower suit under California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act and California Unfair Competition Act brought by 57 workers’ compensation insurance companies alleging 17 hospitals, 15 orthopedic doctors and numerous other entities conspired to fraudulently mark up the pricing for non-FDA approved and counterfeit orthopedic pedicle screws and paid kick-backs to doctors to use the screws. Abilene Medical Center, Abilene, Texas is our only affiliated entity named in the suit. On September 30, 2015, we filed a Demurrer to the complaint and a motion to Quash Service. On December 17, 2015, our Demurrer was granted and our hospital was dismissed from the case. The plaintiffs will have sixty days to appeal once an order of dismissal is entered. We believe all of the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit as to our affiliate and will vigorously defend this case.

Mounce v. Community Health Systems, Inc. This case is a purported class action lawsuit served on July 29, 2015, claiming our affiliated Arkansas hospitals violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs at any affiliated Arkansas hospital. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

53

Table of Contents

Certain Legal Proceedings Related to HMA

Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits

On January 11, 2010, HMA and one of its subsidiaries were named in a qui tam lawsuit entitled U.S. ex rel. J. Michael Mastej v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. in the United States 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 False Claims Act. The plaintiff seeks recovery of all Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that the defendants received as a result of the alleged false 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 February 23, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. 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 for failure to state a claim with the particularity required and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On January 26, 2012, the United States gave notice of its decision not to intervene in this lawsuit. On February 16, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The court’s order permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On March 8, 2012, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which was similar to the first amended complaint and the second amended complaint. On March 26, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the same bases set forth in earlier motions to dismiss. On March 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. On March 28, 2013, the United States of America filed a motion to clarify that the dismissal with prejudice did not relate to the United States. On April 4, 2013, the defendants filed an opposition to the United States’ motion for clarification. The Government’s motion remains pending at this time. The case was appealed by Mastej to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 30, 2014 the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of part of the case and reversed the dismissal of part of the case. The relator sought further relief from the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on June 1, 2015. The case has been remanded to the district court and has been set for trial during the November 1, 2016 trial term. We intend to vigorously defend HMA and its subsidiary against the allegations in this matter.

Beginning during the week of December 16, 2013 eleven qui tam lawsuits filed by private individuals against HMA were unsealed in various United States district courts. The United States has elected to intervene in all or part of eight of these matters; namely U.S. ex rel. Craig Brummer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Brummer”); U.S. ex rel. Ralph D. Williams v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Williams”); U.S. ex rel. Scott H. Plantz, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Northern District Illinois) (“Plantz”); U.S. ex rel. Thomas L. Mason, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Western District North Carolina) (“Mason”); U.S. ex rel. Jacqueline Meyer, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., Gary Newsome et al. (“Jacqueline Meyer”) (District of South Carolina); U.S. ex rel. George Miller, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (“Miller”); U.S. ex rel. Bradley Nurkin v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District of Florida) (“Nurkin”); and U.S. ex rel. Paul Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Southern District Florida) (“Paul Meyer”). The United States has elected to intervene with respect to allegations in these cases that certain HMA hospitals inappropriately admitted patients and then submitted reimbursement claims for treating those individuals to federal healthcare programs in violation of the False Claims Act or that certain HMA hospitals had inappropriate financial relationships with physicians which violated the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the False Claims Act. Certain of these complaints also allege the same actions violated various state laws which prohibit false claims. The United States has declined to intervene in three of the eleven matters, namely U.S. ex rel. Anita France, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“France”) which involved allegations of wrongful billing and was

54

Table of Contents

settled; U.S. ex rel. Sandra Simmons v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Eastern District Oklahoma) (“Simmons”) which alleges unnecessary surgery by an employed physician and which was settled as to all allegations except alleged wrongful termination; and U.S. ex rel. David Napoliello, M.D. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“Napoliello”) which alleges inappropriate admissions. On April 3, 2014, the Multi District Litigation Panel ordered the transfer and consolidation for pretrial proceedings of the eight intervened cases, plus the Napoliello matter, to the District of the District of Columbia under the name In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. Qui Tam Litigation. On June 2, 2014, the court entered a stay of this matter until October 6, 2014, which was subsequently extended until February 27, 2015, May 27, 2015, September 25, 2015, January 25, 2016, and now until May 25, 2016. We intend to defend against the allegations in these matters, but have also been cooperating with the government in the ongoing investigation of these allegations. We have been in discussions with the Civil Division of the DOJ regarding the resolution of these matters. During the first quarter of 2015, we were informed the Criminal Division continues to investigate former executive-level employees of HMA and continues to consider whether any HMA entities should be held criminally liable for the acts of the former HMA employees. We are voluntarily cooperating with these inquiries and have not been served with any subpoenas or other legal process.

Securities and Exchange Commission Investigations

On April 25, 2013, HMA received a subpoena from the SEC, issued pursuant to an investigation, requesting documents related to accounts receivable, billing write-downs, contractual adjustments, reserves for doubtful accounts, and accounts receivable aging, and revenue from Medicare, Medicaid and from privately insured or uninsured patients. On June 5, 2013, HMA received a supplemental subpoena from the SEC which requests additional financial reports. Subsequent subpoenas have been directed to us, our accountants, the former accountants for HMA and certain individuals. On July 17, 2014, we received an additional subpoena from the SEC seeking numerous categories of documents relating to the financial statement adjustments taken in the fourth quarter of 2013 in the areas described above. This investigation is ongoing and we are unable to determine the potential impact, if any, of this investigation.

Class Action Lawsuits

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA’s common stock during the period from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation status when they should not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they should have been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which asserted substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As of August 15, 2013, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully briefed and awaiting the Court’s decision. On May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on

55

Table of Contents

June 20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where oral argument was heard on February 6, 2015. On May 11, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the granting of the motion to dismiss. On June 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an application for an en banc review. We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from its final resolution.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuits

William J. Schoen vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. Schoen, former Chairman of the Board of HMA, filed suit against HMA on June 27, 2014 alleging breach of contract for a lump sum termination payment, certain airplane usage rights and underpayment of his SERP. He also seeks declaratory judgment that he and his spouse are entitled to lifetime health insurance benefits. On July 25, 2014, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On September 22, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss this matter, which was granted in part and denied in part. This matter has now been settled and dismissed.

Management of Significant Legal Proceedings

In accordance with our governance documents, including our Governance Guidelines and the charter of the Audit and Compliance Committee, our management of significant legal proceedings is overseen by the independent members of the Board of Directors and, in particular, the Audit and Compliance Committee. The Audit and Compliance Committee is charged with oversight of compliance, regulatory and litigation matters, and enterprise risk management. Management has been instructed to refer all significant legal proceedings and allegations of financial statement fraud, error, or misstatement to the Audit and Compliance Committee for its oversight and evaluation. Consistent with New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and Sarbanes-Oxley independence requirements, the Audit and Compliance Committee is comprised entirely of individuals who are independent of Company management, and all three members of the Audit and Compliance Committee are “audit committee financial experts” as defined in the Exchange Act.

In addition, the Audit and Compliance Committee and the other independent members of the Board of Directors oversee the functions of the voluntary compliance program, including its auditing and monitoring functions and confidential disclosure program. In recent years, the voluntary compliance program has addressed the potential for a variety of billing errors that might be the subject of audits and payment denials by the CMS Recovery Audit Contractors’ permanent project, including MS-DRG coding, outpatient hospital and physician coding and billing, and medical necessity for services (including a focus on hospital stays of very short duration). Efforts by management, through the voluntary compliance program, to identify and limit risk from these government audits have included significant policy and guidance revisions, training and education, and auditing. The Board of Directors now oversees and reviews periodic reports of the Company’s compliance with the Corporate Integrity Agreement, or CIA, that the Company entered into with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General during 2014.

For the past several years, our Board of Directors has met monthly to review the status of the lawsuits and investigations relating to allegations of improper billing for inpatient care at our hospitals and to oversee management in connection with our investigation and defense of these matters. Following the consummation of the HMA merger, these meetings have been expanded to include the review and oversight of the legal proceedings related to HMA that are covered by the CVR. The independent members of our Board of Directors remain fully engaged in the oversight of these matters.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

56

Table of Contents

PART II

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

We completed an initial public offering of our common stock on June 14, 2000. Our common stock began trading on June 9, 2000 and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CYH. As of February 10, 2016, there were approximately 190 record holders of our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sale prices per share of our common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange.

57

Table of Contents

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph sets forth the cumulative return of our common stock during the five year period ended December 31, 2015, as compared to the cumulative return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index (S&P 500) and the cumulative return of the Dow Jones Healthcare Index. The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the foregoing indices and the reinvestment of dividends where applicable. The comparisons in the graph below are based on historical data and are not indicative of, or intended to forecast, future performance of our common stock.

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

Among Community Health Systems, Inc., the S&P 500 Index, and the Dow Jones US Health Care Index

The Company is a holding company which operates through its subsidiaries. Our Credit Facility and the indentures governing the senior and senior secured notes contain various covenants under which the assets of our subsidiaries are subject to certain restrictions relating to, among other matters, dividends and distributions, as referenced in the paragraph below.

With the exception of a special cash dividend of $0.25 per share paid by us in December 2012, historically, we have not paid any cash dividends. Subject to certain exceptions, our Credit Facility limits the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends and make distributions to us, and limits our ability to pay dividends and/or repurchase stock, to an amount not to exceed $200 million in the aggregate plus an additional $25 million in any particular year plus the aggregate amount of proceeds from the exercise of stock options. The indentures governing the senior and senior secured notes also restrict our subsidiaries from, among other matters, paying dividends and making distributions to us, which thereby limits our ability to pay dividends and/or repurchase stock. As of December 31, 2015, under the most restrictive test under these agreements (and subject to certain exceptions), we have approximately $318 million remaining available with which to pay permitted dividends and/or repurchase shares of our stock or our senior and senior secured notes.

58

Table of Contents

On November 6, 2015, we adopted a new open market repurchase program for up to 10,000,000 shares of our common stock, not to exceed $300 million in repurchases. The new repurchase program will expire at the earliest of three years from the commencement date, when the maximum number of shares has been repurchased, or when the maximum dollar amount has been expended. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we repurchased and retired 532,188 shares at a weighted-average price of $27.31 per share.

On December 10, 2014, we adopted an open market repurchase program for up to 5,000,000 shares of our common stock, not to exceed $150 million in repurchases. This repurchase program expired on December 1, 2015. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we repurchased and retired the maximum 5,000,000 shares of our common stock authorized for repurchase under this program at a weighted-average price of $28.84 per share.

On December 14, 2011, we adopted an open market repurchase program for up to 4,000,000 shares of our common stock, not to exceed $100 million in repurchases. This repurchase program expired on December 13, 2014. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we repurchased and retired 175,000 shares at a weighted-average price of $49.72 per share. The cumulative number of shares repurchased and retired under this program was 881,023 shares at a weighted-average price of $40.64 per share.

59

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following table summarizes specified selected financial data and should be read in conjunction with our related Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The amounts shown below have been adjusted for discontinued operations.

Community Health Systems, Inc.

Five Year Summary of Selected Financial Data

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

You should read this discussion together with our Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and “Selected Financial Data” included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Executive Overview

We are one of the largest publicly-traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals in communities across the country. We provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout

60

Table of Contents

the United States. We generate revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital healthcare services and other outpatient services to patients in the communities in which we are located. As of December 31, 2015, we owned or leased 194 hospitals included in continuing operations, comprised of 190 general acute care hospitals and four stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. In addition to our hospitals and related businesses, we own and operate home care agencies, located primarily in markets where we also operate a hospital. Also, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Quorum Health Resources, LLC, or QHR, we provide management and consulting services to non-affiliated general acute care hospitals located throughout the United States (QHR is part of our operations that we have announced will be included in our spin-off as noted below). For the hospitals and home care agencies that we own and operate, we are paid for our services by governmental agencies, private insurers and directly by the patients we serve. For our management and consulting services, we are paid by the non-affiliated hospitals utilizing our services.

On January 27, 2014, we and one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries completed the acquisition of Health Management Associates, Inc., or HMA, by acquiring through a merger all the outstanding shares of common stock of HMA, or HMA common stock, for approximately $7.3 billion, including the assumption of approximately $3.8 billion of indebtedness, consisting of a combination of cash and Parent Company common stock. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recognized approximately $1 million and $69 million of acquisition and integration expenses related to the HMA merger, respectively.

We believe the HMA merger has benefited us since it has expanded the number of markets we serve and reduced our concentration of credit risk and other risks in any one state. We have also achieved synergies, and believe that we will achieve additional synergies, from eliminating duplicate corporate functions and centralizing many support functions, which we believe will allow us to continue to improve HMA’s margins. We believe this merger has extended and strengthened our hospital and physician networks.

On August 3, 2015, we announced a plan to spin off 38 hospitals and Quorum Health Resources into Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, an independent, publicly-traded corporation. The transaction, which would be effected through the distribution of QHC common stock to the Company’s shareholders, is intended to be tax free to the Company and its shareholders, and is expected to close in the first half of 2016. The completion of the spin-off is subject to, among other requirements, the effectiveness of QHC’s registration statement on Form 10, requisite regulatory approvals, execution of operational transition agreements, the receipt of opinions of tax, legal and valuation advisors (including as to the tax-free nature of the transaction), market conditions and final Board approval. QHC filed an Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 on December 4, 2015 (the Form 10 has not yet become effective), which filing contains information regarding the contemplated spin-off and the anticipated business of QHC. The Form 10 is available on the SEC’s website but is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate timing of the spin-off, or that it will be completed.

Operating results and statistical data for the year ended December 31, 2015, include information for the operations of the acquired HMA hospitals from January 27, 2014, the date of the HMA merger. Throughout this executive overview and management’s discussion and analysis, same-store operating results and statistical data for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 includes the hospitals acquired in the HMA merger. For the hospitals acquired in the HMA merger, this same-store information reflects the periods from January 1 through December 31, 2015 and 2014, as if such hospitals were owned during both comparable periods. For all hospitals owned throughout both periods, the same-store operating results and statistical data reflects the indicated periods. In addition, the same-store comparisons exclude our hospitals that have previously been classified as discontinued operations for accounting purposes.

In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2015, we divested seven hospitals previously recorded in discontinued operations and one additional hospital. Two of these hospitals were required to be divested by the Federal Trade Commission as a condition of its approval of the HMA merger.

61

Table of Contents

Our net operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015, increased $798 million to approximately $19.4 billion compared to approximately $18.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2014. Our provision for bad debts increased to $3.127 billion, or 13.9% of operating revenues (before the provision for bad debts) for the year ended December 31, 2015, from $2.922 billion, or 13.6% of operating revenues (before the provision for bad debts) for the year ended December 31, 2014. Included in the increase to the provision for bad debts is a $169 million change in estimate recorded during the fourth quarter of 2015. This increase resulted from an increase in uncollectible accounts and other unfavorable trends noted during the fourth quarter. We believe the increase in uncollectible accounts is the result of slightly lower benefits from healthcare reform compared to what was previously estimated and a deterioration in the quality of certain categories of self-pay accounts being pursued for collection by our in-house collection agency. These specific categories of self-pay accounts include decreases in collections of deductibles and co-pays, increases in personal bankruptcies, and declines in the growth of scheduled time payments.

We had income from continuing operations before noncontrolling interests of $295 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to $260 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. Income from continuing operations before noncontrolling interests for the year ended December 31, 2015 included an after-tax charge of $10 million for loss from early extinguishment of debt, $1 million after-tax expense for acquisition and integration expenses from the HMA merger, $3 million after-tax expense for government legal settlements for several qui tam matters settled in principle and related legal expenses, $41 million after-tax expense for the impairment of long-lived assets, an after-tax charge of $5 million from fair value adjustments related to the HMA legal proceedings, accounted for at fair value, underlying the CVR agreement and related legal expenses, an after-tax charge of $10 million related to costs incurred for the planned spin-off of QHC and $108 million after-tax charge related to the increase in the provision for bad debts as discussed above. Income from continuing operations before noncontrolling interests for the year ended December 31, 2014, included an after-tax charge of $45 million for loss from early extinguishment of debt, $43 million after-tax expense for acquisition and integration expenses from the HMA merger, an after-tax charge of $47 million for the acceleration of amortization on software to be abandoned, an after-tax charge of $25 million for impairment of software costs taken out of service, and an after-tax charge of $64 million for the government settlement and related costs in connection with the agreement in principle to settle claims at our New Mexico hospitals. These after-tax charges were partially offset by an after-tax income of $3 million from fair value adjustments, net of legal expenses, related to the HMA legal proceedings underlying the CVR agreement. Consolidated inpatient admissions for the year ended December 31, 2015, increased 1.7%, compared to the year ended December 31, 2014, and consolidated adjusted admissions for the year ended December 31, 2015, increased 3.5%, compared to the year ended December 31, 2014. Same-store inpatient admissions for the year ended December 31, 2015, decreased 1.8%, compared to the year ended December 31, 2014, and same-store adjusted admissions for the year ended December 31, 2015, increased 0.3%, compared to the year ended December 31, 2014.

Self-pay revenues represented approximately 12.3% and 13.0% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. During 2015, we experienced a decline in self-pay admissions and adjusted admissions resulting in a corresponding decline in self-pay revenues as a percentage of total net operating revenues. This decrease is reflective of an increase in Medicaid admissions and revenues, primarily in Medicaid expansion states, as a result of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the Reform Legislation. The reduction in self-pay admissions and revenue was also experienced in non-expansion states, although to a lesser degree. The amount of foregone revenue related to providing charity care services as a percentage of net operating revenues was approximately 2.3% and 3.0% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Direct and indirect costs incurred in providing charity care services were approximately 0.3% and 0.5% for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures have introduced and passed a large number of proposals and legislation designed to make major changes in the healthcare system, including changes that increased access to health insurance. The Reform Legislation mandates that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain medical

62

Table of Contents

insurance coverage and expands health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms. Based on projections issued by the CBO in March 2015, the incremental insurance coverage due to the Reform Legislation could result in 25 million formerly uninsured Americans gaining coverage by the end of 2025.

As the number of persons with access to health insurance in the United States increases, there may be a resulting increase in the number of patients using our facilities who have health insurance coverage. We operate hospitals in eight of the 10 states that experienced the largest reductions in uninsured rates among adult residents between 2013 and 2015. Most of these states with the greatest reductions in the number of uninsured adult residents have established a health insurance exchange operated either by the state or in partnership with the federal government and also expanded Medicaid. However, states may opt out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions of the Reform Legislation without losing existing federal Medicaid funding. A number of states have opted out of the Medicaid coverage expansion provisions, but could ultimately decide to expand their programs at a later date. Of the 28 states in which we operate hospitals that are included in continuing operations, 15 states have taken action to expand their Medicaid programs, including Louisiana, which is expected to implement Medicaid coverage expansion at some point in 2016. At this time, the other 13 states have not, including Florida, Tennessee and Texas, where we operated a significant number of hospitals as of December 31, 2015. Some states that have opted out are evaluating options such as waiver plans to operate an alternative Medicaid expansion plan. Failure to expand Medicaid or implement an effective alternative in these states will likely have a negative impact on the goal of reducing the number of uninsured individuals.

We believe our hospitals are well positioned to participate in the provider networks of various qualified health plans, or QHPs, offering plan options on the health insurance exchanges created pursuant to the Reform Legislation. For the 2016 plan year, all of our hospitals in continuing operations have arrangements to participate in at least one health insurance exchange agreement, approximately 90% of our hospitals participate in two or more contracts, approximately 87% of our hospitals participate in the first or second lowest cost bronze plan networks (QHPs with a 60% actuarial value) and approximately 90% of our hospitals participate in the first or second lowest cost silver plan networks (QHPs with a 70% actuarial value).

The Reform Legislation makes a number of changes to Medicare and Medicaid, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, each of which could adversely impact the reimbursement received under these programs.

The Reform Legislation includes provisions aimed at reducing fraud, waste and abuse in the healthcare industry. These provisions allocate significant additional resources to federal enforcement agencies and expand the use of private contractors to recover potentially inappropriate Medicare and Medicaid payments. The Reform Legislation amends several existing federal laws, including the anti-kickback statute and the False Claims Act, to make it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. These amendments also make it easier for potentially severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations.

We believe the expansion of private sector health insurance and Medicaid coverage will, over time, increase our reimbursement related to providing services to individuals who were previously uninsured, which should reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable. The various provisions in the Reform Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement take effect over a number of years. In addition, we believe that the Reform Legislation had a positive impact on net operating revenues and income from continuing operations during 2014 and 2015 as the result of the expansion of private sector and Medicaid coverage that has already occurred from the Reform Legislation and we believe that the net impact of the Reform Legislation on our net operating revenues will continue to be positive. Other provisions of the Reform Legislation, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, have increased and will continue to increase our operating costs.

63

Table of Contents

Because of the many variables involved, including clarifications and modifications resulting from the rule-making process, legislative efforts to repeal or modify the law, future judicial interpretations resulting from court challenges to its constitutionality and interpretation, the development of agency guidance, whether and how many states ultimately decide to expand Medicaid coverage, the number of uninsured who elect to purchase health insurance coverage, budgetary issues at federal and state levels, and the potential for delays in the implementation of the Reform Legislation, it is difficult to predict the ultimate effect of the Reform Legislation. We may not be able to fully realize the positive impact the Reform Legislation may otherwise have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity. Furthermore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation.

Payment under the Medicare program for physician services, which is based upon the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, or MPFS, changed in April 2015 with the enactment of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA. The law effectively eliminated a payment reduction that was scheduled for physicians and other practitioners who treat Medicare patients. MACRA provides for a 0.5% update to the MPFS for each calendar year through 2019. In addition, MACRA requires the establishment of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, beginning in 2019, under which physicians will receive performance-based payment incentives or payment reductions based on their performance with respect to clinical quality, resource use, clinical improvement activities, and meaningful use of electronic health records. MIPS will consolidate certain existing physician incentive programs, and also requires CMS to provide, beginning in 2019, incentive payments for physicians and other eligible professionals that participate in alternative payment models, such as ACOs. In addition, MACRA extended the Medicare Inpatient Low Volume payment and Medicare Dependent Hospital programs to qualifying hospitals through September 30, 2017. If additional legislation is not passed to extend these Medicare hospital payment programs, we could experience a reduction in future reimbursement.

The federal government has implemented a number of regulations and programs designed to promote the use of electronic health records, or EHR, technology and pursuant to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, established requirements for a Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments program for eligible hospitals and professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified EHR technology. These payments are intended to incentivize the meaningful use of EHR. Our hospital facilities have been implementing EHR technology on a facility-by-facility basis since 2011. We recognize incentive reimbursement related to the Medicare or Medicaid incentives as we are able to implement the certified EHR technology and meet the defined “meaningful use criteria,” and information from completed cost report periods is available from which to calculate the incentive reimbursement. The timing of recognizing incentive reimbursement does not correlate with the timing of recognizing operating expenses and incurring capital costs in connection with the implementation of EHR technology which may result in material period-to-period changes in our future results of operations.

As of October 1, 2014, eligible hospitals and, as of January 1, 2015, professionals that have not demonstrated meaningful use of certified EHR technology and have not applied and qualified for a hardship exception are subject to penalties. Eligible hospitals are subject to a reduced market basket update to the inpatient prospective payment system standardized amount as of 2015 and for each subsequent fiscal year. Eligible professionals are subject to a 1% per year cumulative reduction applied to the Medicare physician fee schedule amount for covered professional services, subject to a cap of 5%.

Although we believe that our hospital facilities were in compliance with the meaningful use standards during 2015, there can be no assurance that all of our facilities will remain in compliance and therefore not be subject to the HITECH penalty provisions. We recognized approximately $160 million, $259 million and $162 million during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, for HITECH incentive reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid related to certain of our hospitals and for certain of our employed physicians, which are presented as a reduction of operating expenses.

64

Table of Contents

As a result of our current levels of cash, available borrowing capacity, long-term outlook on our debt repayments, the refinancing of our term loans and our continued projection of our ability to generate cash flows, we anticipate that we will be able to invest the necessary capital in our business over the next twelve months. We believe there continues to be ample opportunity for growth in substantially all of our markets by decreasing the need for patients to travel outside their communities for healthcare services. Furthermore, we continue to benefit from synergies from our acquisitions and will continue to strive to improve operating efficiencies and procedures in order to improve our profitability at all of our hospitals.

Acquisitions and Divestitures

On January 1, 2015, we sold Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center (116 licensed beds) in Hartsville, South Carolina and related outpatient services to Capella Healthcare for approximately $74 million in cash, which was received at the closing on December 31, 2014. This hospital was required to be divested by the Federal Trade Commission as a condition of its approval of the HMA merger.

On February 1, 2015, we sold Harris Hospital (133 licensed beds) in Newport, Arkansas and related healthcare services to White County Medical Center in Searcy, Arkansas for approximately $5 million in cash.

On March 1, 2015, we sold Riverview Regional Medical Center (281 licensed beds) in Gadsden, Alabama to Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. or Prime, for approximately $25 million in cash. This hospital was required to be divested by the Federal Trade Commission as a condition of its approval of the HMA merger.

On March 1, 2015, we sold Dallas Regional Medical Center (202 licensed beds) in Mesquite, Texas to Prime for approximately $25 million in cash.

On April 1, 2015, we sold Chesterfield General Hospital (59 licensed beds) in Cheraw, South Carolina and Marlboro Park Hospital (102 licensed beds) in Bennettsville, South Carolina and related outpatient services to M/C Healthcare, LLC for approximately $4 million in cash.

During the three months ended June 30, 2015, we finalized an agreement to terminate the lease and cease operations of Fallbrook Hospital (47 licensed beds) in Fallbrook, California. In agreeing to terminate the lease, we received approximately $3 million in cash from the Fallbrook Healthcare District, as the landlord, as consideration for certain operating assets of the hospital.

On July 31, 2015, we sold certain assets used in the operation of Payson Regional Medical Center (44 licensed beds) in Payson, Arizona, or Payson, to Banner Health for approximately $20 million in cash. We previously operated Payson under the terms of an operating lease with Mogollon Health Alliance, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit corporation, that expired on July 31, 2015. The lease termination and sale closed effective July 31, 2015. Pursuant to our adoption of Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2014-08, this divestiture does not meet the requirement for presentation in discontinued operations. Income from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 includes an impairment charge of approximately $6 million related to the write-off of the allocated reporting unit goodwill for this hospital.

Effective January 1, 2016, we sold Bartow Regional Medical Center (72 licensed beds) in Bartow Florida, and related outpatient services to BayCare Health Systems, Inc. for approximately $60 million in cash, which was received at the preliminary closing on December 31, 2015.

Effective February 1, 2016, we sold Lehigh Regional Medical Center (88 licensed beds) in Lehigh Acres, Florida, and related outpatient services to Prime for approximately $11 million in cash.

During 2015, we paid approximately $51 million to acquire the operating assets and related businesses of certain physician practices, clinics and other ancillary businesses that operate within the communities served by

65

Table of Contents

our hospitals. In connection with these acquisitions, we allocated approximately $19 million of the consideration paid to property and equipment and net working capital, and the remainder, approximately $39 million consisting of intangible assets that do not qualify for separate recognition, was allocated to goodwill. The value of the noncontrolling interest acquired in these acquisitions was $7 million.

Sources of Revenue

The following table presents the approximate percentages of operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before provision for bad debts), by payor source for the periods indicated. The data for the periods presented are not strictly comparable due to the effect that hospital acquisitions have had on these statistics.

As shown above, we receive a substantial portion of our revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Included in Managed Care and other third-party payors is operating revenues from insurance companies with which we have insurance provider contracts, Medicare managed care, insurance companies for which we do not have insurance provider contracts, workers’ compensation carriers and non-patient service revenue, such as rental income and cafeteria sales. In the future, we generally expect revenues received from the Medicare and Medicaid programs to increase due to the general aging of the population. In addition, the Reform Legislation has increased and is expected to continue to increase the number of insured patients in states that have expanded Medicaid, which in turn, has reduced and is expected to continue to reduce the percentage of revenues from self-pay patients. The Reform Legislation, however, imposes significant reductions in amounts the government pays Medicare managed care plans. The trend toward increased enrollment in Medicare managed care may adversely affect our operating revenue growth. Other provisions in the Reform Legislation impose minimum medical-loss ratios and require insurers to meet specific benefit requirements. Furthermore, in the normal course of business, managed care programs, insurance companies and employers actively negotiate the amounts paid to hospitals. The trend toward increased enrollment in managed care may adversely affect our operating revenue growth. There can be no assurance that we will retain our existing reimbursement arrangements or that these third-party payors will not attempt to further reduce the rates they pay for our services.

Net operating revenues include amounts estimated by management to be reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid under prospective payment systems and provisions of cost-based reimbursement and other payment methods. In addition, we are reimbursed by non-governmental payors using a variety of payment methodologies. Amounts we receive for the treatment of patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid and non-governmental payors are generally less than the standard billing rates. We account for the differences between the estimated program reimbursement rates and the standard billing rates as contractual allowance adjustments, which we deduct from gross revenues to arrive at net operating revenues. Final settlements under some of these programs are subject to adjustment based on administrative review and audit by third parties. We account for adjustments to previous program reimbursement estimates as contractual allowance adjustments and report them in the periods that such adjustments become known. Contractual allowance adjustments related to final settlements and previous program reimbursement estimates impacted net operating revenues and net income by an insignificant amount in each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.

The payment rates under the Medicare program for hospital inpatient and outpatient acute care services are based on a prospective payment system, depending upon the diagnosis of a patient’s condition. These rates are indexed for inflation annually, although increases have historically been less than actual inflation. On August 17,

66

Table of Contents

2015, CMS published the final rule to increase this index by 2.4% for hospital inpatient acute care services that are reimbursed under the prospective payment system, beginning October 1, 2015. The final rule also makes other payment adjustments that, coupled with the 0.8% reduction for documentation and coding, a 0.5% multifactor productivity reduction, and a 0.2% reduction to hospital inpatient rates implemented pursuant to the Reform Legislation, yielded an estimated net 0.9% increase in reimbursement for hospitals. For fiscal year 2016, an additional reduction applies to hospitals that do not submit required patient quality data. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

Payments may also be affected by admission and medical review criteria for inpatient services commonly known as the “two midnight rule.” Under the rule, for admissions on or after October 1, 2013, services to Medicare beneficiaries are only payable as inpatient hospital services when there is a reasonable expectation that the hospital care is medically necessary and will be required across two midnights, absent unusual circumstances. Stays expected to need less than two midnights of hospital care are subject to medical review on a case-by-case basis. Enforcement through Recovery Audit Contractor audits is expected to begin in 2016. Reductions in the rate of increase or overall reductions in Medicare reimbursement may cause a decline in the growth of our net operating revenues.

Currently, several states utilize supplemental reimbursement programs for the purpose of providing reimbursement to providers to offset a portion of the cost of providing care to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are designed with input from CMS and are funded with a combination of state and federal resources, including, in certain instances, fees or taxes levied on the providers. Similar programs are also being considered by other states. The programs are generally authorized for a specified period of time and require CMS’s approval to be extended. CMS has indicated that it will take into account a state’s status with respect to expanding its Medicaid program in considering whether to extend these supplemental programs. We are unable to predict whether or on what terms CMS will extend the supplemental programs in the states in which we operate, including Texas. Some of these programs are scheduled to expire in 2016. As a result of existing supplemental programs, we recognize revenue and related expenses in the period in which amounts are estimable and collection is reasonably assured. Reimbursement under these programs is reflected in net operating revenues and included as Medicaid revenue in the table above, and fees, taxes or other program related costs are reflected in other operating expenses.

Results of Operations

Our hospitals offer a variety of services involving a broad range of inpatient and outpatient medical and surgical services. These include general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic services, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. The strongest demand for hospital services generally occurs during January through April and the weakest demand for these services occurs during the summer months. Accordingly, eliminating the effect of new acquisitions, our net operating revenues and earnings are historically highest during the first quarter and lowest during the third quarter. Same-store operating results include the hospitals acquired in the HMA merger. For the hospitals acquired in the HMA merger, the same-store information for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 reflects the periods from January 1 through December 31, 2015 and 2014, as if such hospitals were owned during both comparable periods. For all hospitals owned throughout both periods, the same-store information reflects the indicated periods. The same-store information reflected below does not reflect the application of purchase accounting adjustments as if the HMA merger had been completed on January 1, 2014. Therefore, this information is not intended to present pro forma information prepared under the guidelines of Articles 3-05 and 11 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, management believes the information provides investors with useful information about hospital admissions, adjusted admissions and net operating revenues had the HMA facilities been owned for the indicated periods. This same-store information for the hospitals acquired in the HMA merger for the period from January 1 through December 31, 2014 is non-GAAP financial information and may not be comparable to the information provided for the comparable 2015 period due to the aforementioned purchase accounting adjustments not having been applied.

67

Table of Contents

The following tables summarize, for the periods indicated, selected operating data.