COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark One)

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 ☑    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 ☑

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 ☑    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 ☑    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. ☑

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 ☑

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $1,321,763,644. Market value is determined by reference to the closing price on June 30, 2016 of the Registrant’s Common Stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange. The Registrant does not (and did not at June 30, 2016) have any non-voting common stock outstanding. As of February 15, 2017, there were 113,849,339 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 2017 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, 2016.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

Year ended December 31, 2016

Table of Contents

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 and outpatient facilities 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, 2016, we owned or leased 155 hospitals included in continuing operations, with an aggregate of 26,222 licensed beds, comprised of 152 general acute care hospitals and three stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals are geographically diversified across 21 states, with the majority of our hospitals located in regional networks or in close geographic proximity to one or more of our other hospitals. We also owned or leased three hospitals included in discontinued operations at December 31, 2016. We generate revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital healthcare services and 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 network of affiliated physicians at our hospitals and affiliated businesses. As of December 31, 2016, we employed approximately 3,000 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. The financial information for our reportable operating segments is presented in Note 15 of the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Form 10-K.

Our business strategy has historically included growth by acquisition. In this regard, we have generally targeted 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. Since 2007, we have substantially increased the size of our business and the number of hospitals we operate through the acquisitions of hospitals from Triad Hospitals, Inc., or Triad, and Health Management Associates, Inc., or HMA. Our growth strategy has also included developing or acquiring select physician practices, physician-owned ancillary service providers and other outpatient capabilities in markets where we already had a hospital presence. More recently, our efforts have focused on creating regional networks in select urban markets. We believe opportunities exist for skilled, disciplined operators to create networks between urban and non-urban hospitals while improving physician alignment in both markets and making the hospitals more attractive to managed care.

We have been implementing a portfolio rationalization and deleveraging strategy by divesting hospitals and non-hospital businesses that are attractive to strategic and other buyers. Generally, these businesses are not in one of our strategically beneficial service areas, are less complementary to our business strategy and/or have lower operating margins. More recently, in connection with our announced divestiture initiative, strategic buyers have made offers to buy certain of our assets. Through consideration of these offers we have divested or may divest hospitals and non-hospital businesses when we find such offers to be attractive and in line with our operating strategy. In addition, we expect to return to our acquisition strategy when our portfolio rationalization and deleveraging strategy has been sufficiently completed.

1

Table of Contents

On January 27, 2014, we completed the acquisition of HMA for approximately $7.3 billion, including the assumption of approximately $3.8 billion of indebtedness, which is referred to in this report as the HMA merger. Additional details regarding the HMA merger are set forth in the Executive Overview section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

On April 29, 2016, we completed a spin-off of 38 hospitals and Quorum Health Resources, LLC, or QHR (our subsidiary through which we provided management advisory and consulting services to non-affiliated general acute care hospitals located throughout the United States), into Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, and distributed, on a pro rata basis, all of the shares of QHC common stock to our stockholders of record as of April 22, 2016. These stockholders received one share of QHC common stock for every four shares of our common stock held as of the record date plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares. The transaction was structured to be generally tax free to us and our stockholders. In recognition of the spin-off, we recorded a non-cash dividend of approximately $713 million during the year ended December 31, 2016, representing the net assets of QHC distributed to our stockholders. Following the spin-off, QHC became an independent public company with its common stock listed for trading under the symbol “QHC” on the New York Stock Exchange. Financial and statistical data reported in this Form 10-K include QHC operating results through the spin-off date. Same-store operating results and statistical data exclude information for the hospitals divested in the spin-off of QHC in the years ended December 31, 2016, and for the comparable periods in 2015 and 2014.

In connection with the spin-off, we entered into a separation and distribution agreement as well as certain ancillary agreements with QHC on April 29, 2016. These agreements allocate between QHC and us the various assets, employees, liabilities and obligations (including investments, property and employee benefits and tax-related assets and liabilities) that comprise the separate companies and govern certain relationships between, and activities of, QHC and us for a period of time after the spin-off.

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.

As initially disclosed on September 19, 2016, with the assistance of advisors, we are exploring a variety of options with financial sponsors, as well as other potential alternatives. These discussions are ongoing. There can be no certainty that the exploration will result in any kind of transaction. We do not expect to make further public comment regarding these matters while the exploration process takes place unless and until we otherwise deem further public comment is appropriate or required.

In addition, our Board of Directors adopted a Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement on October 3, 2016. The Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement will not prevent our takeover, but may cause substantial dilution to a person or group that acquires 15% or more of our common stock, which may inhibit or render more difficult a merger, tender offer or other business combination involving us that is not supported by our Board of Directors. The Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement will expire on April 1, 2017.

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.

2

Table of Contents

We also make available free of charge, through the investor relations section of our website, our By-laws, our Governance Guidelines, 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. The key elements of our business strategy to achieve this objective are to:

Expand and Strengthen Regional Networks

We believe opportunities exist in select 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.

Currently, 74 of our hospitals operate in 11 unique regional networks, which are comprised of one or more larger hospitals with smaller hospitals located in nearby communities. Within each regional network, we leverage the network’s brand and local scale to expand our continuum of care, enhance access to our facilities, provide a more integrated service offering and reduce costs through increased operating efficiencies. Additionally, 34 of our hospitals operate in close geographic proximity to one or more of our other hospitals in 13 geographic areas. For these hospitals, we seek to develop or expand similar specialty services and outpatient services as our regional networks to yield high patient and physician satisfaction, improve revenue and gain operational efficiencies. As of December 31, 2016, we estimate that approximately 70% of our facilities are located in regional networks or are in close proximity to another CHS hospital.

Increase Revenue at Our Facilities

Overview. We are implementing a strategy to expand and rationalize service lines. We believe this focused, service line strategy facilitates better capital allocation, and drives volume, acuity and rate growth in desirable areas. In addition, we are expanding the medical services we provide through the recruitment of additional primary care physicians and specialists. 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 these hospital networks allow us to provide more integrated services and maximize the usage of our strong physician base.

3

Table of Contents

Our initiatives to increase revenue include:

Physician Recruiting. The primary method of adding or expanding medical services is the recruitment of new primary care physicians and specialists 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. In some markets, we employ physicians, often acquiring their practice at the onset of the arrangement. We have increased the number of physicians affiliated with us through our recruiting and employment efforts. The percentage of recruited or employed physicians commencing practice with us that were specialists was over 70% in 2016. 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 and employing 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, including orthopedics, neuroscience, cardiovascular care, women’s health and cancer care. We have been able to expand these service lines through providing additional access points separate from the traditional hospital service location, the maximization of physician practice utilization, creation of free-standing emergency departments, joint venture partnerships with third-party urgent care, diagnostic, imaging and other retail service locations, expansion of outside diagnostic and surgery center locations, and advancing tele-health strategies. Focused initiatives in these areas are intended to provide quicker access to care in a lower cost setting, increase the number of patient transfer centers to better coordinate care, and implement digital health solutions to improve patient engagement and satisfaction. Some of these initiatives include:

4

Table of Contents

In addition to these initiatives, we believe our investment in expanding our footprint through free-standing emergency departments, ambulatory surgery centers and urgent care centers will generate increased revenues and earnings from businesses with higher growth and operating margins. We believe that appropriate capital investments in our outpatient facilities combined with the development of our service capabilities will increase patient retention while providing an attractive return on investment.

We spent approximately $192 million on 93 major construction projects that were completed in 2016. These projects included new emergency rooms, cardiac catheterization laboratories, hospital additions and surgical suites as well as improvements to various diagnostic and other inpatient and outpatient service capabilities. 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, we completed Grandview Medical Center, a replacement hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. Transfer of all operations to this new facility 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. In 2016, we spent $12 million on the construction project related to the York replacement hospital. In 2015, we spent $123 million on construction projects related to the Birmingham and York replacement hospitals.

Managed Care Strategy. Managed care continues to grow in the United States 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 to the growth in managed care 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 in reimbursement. 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.

Increase Productivity and Operating Efficiency

Overview. We focus on improving operating efficiency to enhance our operating margins. We seek to implement cost containment programs and adhere to operating philosophies that focus on standardizing and centralizing our methods of operation and management, including:

5

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 that has substantial industry knowledge and a proven track record of operations success in the hospital industry. Our chief executive officer and chief financial officer each have over 30 years of experience in the healthcare industry and have worked together since 1973. Our five division presidents have each worked at the Company for many years and average 21 years of experience in hospital and division executive roles. Additionally, we have recently made several key external hires to further strengthen our senior management team.

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.

6

Table of Contents

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:

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 maintain an emphasis on patient safety, the provision of quality care and improving clinical outcomes. We understand that high levels of quality are only achieved with a company-wide focus that embraces patient, physician and employee satisfaction and continual, systematic clinical improvements. We believe that a focus on continuous improvement yields the best results for patients, reduces risk and improves revenue through achievement of quality measures. We have developed and implemented programs to support and monitor patient safety and quality of care that include:

7

Table of Contents

As a result of these efforts, we have made significant progress in patient safety and clinical quality.

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.

Divestiture and Acquisition Strategy

Divestiture and Acquisition Criteria. Acquisitions have been a core part of our growth strategy historically. We have been implementing a portfolio rationalization and deleveraging strategy by divesting hospitals and non-hospital businesses that are attractive to strategic and other buyers. Generally, these businesses are not in one of our strategically beneficial service areas, are less complementary to our business strategy and/or have lower operating margins. In addition to the spin-off of the 38 facilities to QHC which was completed in April 2016 as noted above, in 2016 we divested two facilities and an 80% ownership interest in our home care division, which, as of December 31, 2016, owned and operated 74 licensed home care agencies and 15 licensed hospice agencies. For additional information regarding potential additional dispositions, see the Executive Overview of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Although we are not actively pursuing hospital acquisition opportunities at this time, we have continued to invest capital strategically in selected physician practice and ancillary service locations that will enhance the service lines and patient access points for our existing hospitals. We intend to focus again on hospital acquisitions once our portfolio rationalization has been sufficiently completed, and, at that time return to a disciplined and targeted approach to hospital acquisitions and seek opportunities that are complementary to our existing markets or represent new markets that fit our operating criteria. At that time, we may pursue acquisition candidates that:

In 2016 we acquired three hospitals located in Fayetteville, Arkansas; La Porte, Indiana and Knox, Indiana. We believe that our access to capital, reputation for providing quality care and ability to recruit physicians makes us an attractive partner for these communities. No hospital acquisitions closed during 2015.

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.

Acquisition Efforts. A key part of our strategy has involved establishing a broader presence in our states and markets of operation and expanding and strengthening our regional networks where appropriate. Apart from our

8

Table of Contents

acquisition of Triad hospitals in 2007 and HMA in 2014, most of the hospitals that we have acquired 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 have acquired 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, 2016, we have committed to build replacement facilities in both La Porte, Indiana and Knox, Indiana by March 2021. Construction costs, including equipment costs, for the La Porte and Knox replacement facilities are currently estimated to be approximately $125 million and $15 million, respectively. No costs have been incurred to date on those facilities. Additionally, 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 $17 million has been incurred to date. Under other purchase agreements in effect as of December 31, 2016, we have committed to spend $464 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, 2016, we have incurred approximately $209 million related to these commitments.

Industry Overview

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, national healthcare expenditures in 2016 are projected to have grown 4.8% to approximately $3.4 trillion. In addition, these CMS projections, published 2017, indicate that total U.S. healthcare spending will grow at an average annual rate of 5.9% for 2018 through 2019 and by an average of 5.8% annually from 2020 through 2025. However, these projections do not take into account initiatives, programs or other developments that may result from the 2016 federal elections, including any potential significant modifications to or repeal of the Affordable Care Act. CMS also projected that total U.S. healthcare annual expenditures will exceed $5.5 trillion by 2025, accounting for approximately 19.9% of the total U.S. gross domestic product. CMS expects healthcare spending to be largely influenced by changes in economic growth and population aging, and anticipates faster growth in medical prices.

Hospital services, the market within the healthcare industry in which we primarily operate, is the largest single category of healthcare expenditures. In 2016, hospital care expenditures are projected to have grown 4.9%, amounting to over $1 trillion. CMS estimates that the hospital services category will exceed $1.1 trillion in 2017, and projects growth in this category at an average of 5.5% annually from 2016 through 2025.

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 4,800 community hospitals in the U.S. which are not-for-profit owned, investor owned, or state or local government owned. Of these hospitals, nearly 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 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.

9

Table of Contents

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

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 organizations.

Hospital Industry Trends

Demographic Trends. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015, there were approximately 48 million Americans aged 65 or older in the U.S. comprising approximately 14.9% of the total U.S. population. By the year 2030, the number of Americans aged 65 or older is expected to climb to 72 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 million in 2015 to 9 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 those impacted most directly by this increase in demand. Based on data compiled for us, the populations of the service areas where our hospitals are located grew 4.6% from 2011 to 2016 and are expected to grow by 4.3% from 2016 to 2021. The number of people aged 65 or older in these service areas grew by 17.7% from 2011 to 2016 and is expected to grow by 17.4% from 2016 to 2021. People aged 65 or older comprised 17.1% of the total population in our service areas in 2016, yet they could comprise 19.3% of the total population in our service areas by 2021.

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:

10

Table of Contents

The payor industry is also consolidating and acquiring health services providers in an effort to offer more expansive, 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 traditional reimbursement trends. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the Affordable Care Act, has encouraged the adoption of new payment models that emphasize cost effective delivery of care and quality of outcomes. Although health insurance coverage has expanded, patients may face higher deductibles and increased co-payment requirements, which may result in greater write-offs of uncollectible amounts from those patients.

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 2016 include a full year of operations for 152 hospitals and partial periods for three hospitals acquired during the year reflecting the operations of these hospitals following the completion of the acquisition. 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 hospitals included in discontinued operations are excluded from all periods presented.

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

Adjusted EBITDA is not a measurement of financial performance under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. It should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income, operating income, or any other performance measure calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The items excluded from Adjusted EBITDA are significant components in understanding and evaluating financial performance. We believe such adjustments are appropriate as the magnitude and frequency of such items can vary significantly and are not related to the assessment of normal operating performance. Additionally, our calculation of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

The following table reflects the reconciliation of adjusted EBITDA, as defined, to net (loss) income attributable to Community Health Systems, Inc. stockholders as derived directly from our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):

13

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 reflected 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 Affordable Care Act has increased the number of insured patients, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid, which, in turn, has reduced the percentage of our revenues from self-pay patients. However, the outcome of the 2016 federal elections has cast considerable uncertainty on the future of the Affordable Care Act, and it is unclear whether the trend of increased coverage will continue. In addition, several private health insurers have withdrawn, or have announced their intent to withdraw, from the health insurance exchanges established pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, which may

14

Table of Contents

threaten the stability of those marketplaces. Legislation or regulation resulting from the repeal, replacement or amendment of the Affordable Care Act may result in payment reductions under the Medicare or Medicaid programs that could negatively impact our business.

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, that provides medical benefits to individuals who would otherwise be unable to afford healthcare. All of our hospitals are certified as providers of Medicare and Medicaid services. Amounts received under the Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally significantly less than a hospital’s customary charges for the services provided. Further, the Affordable Care Act imposes significant reductions in amounts the government pays healthcare providers and Medicare managed care plans. 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. The trend toward increased enrollment in Medicare managed care may adversely affect our operating revenue.

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, 2016, 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 our 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 14.1% in 2016, 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 our hospitals in Texas, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 11.4% in 2016, 11.1% in 2015 and 10.9% in 2014. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by our hospitals in Pennsylvania, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 11.2% in 2016, 10.6% in 2015 and 11.1% in 2014. Operating revenues, net of contractual allowances and discounts (but before the provision for bad debts), generated by our hospitals in Indiana, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 8.6% in 2016, 7.3% in 2015, and 7.6% in 2014.

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

15

Table of Contents

the hospital. In recent years, we have experienced a significant increase in revenue received from outpatient services. We attribute this increase to:

Health care facility operations are also subject to certain seasonal fluctuations, including decreases in patient utilization during holiday periods and increases in colder weather months.

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 be certain 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. Over the last decade, 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 most prominent of these recent efforts, the Affordable Care Act, affects how healthcare services are covered, delivered, and reimbursed. However, the future of the Affordable Care Act is uncertain following the 2016 federal elections. The newly elected presidential administration and certain members of Congress have stated their intent to repeal or make significant changes to the Affordable Care Act, its implementation or interpretation but have not yet agreed upon specific proposals for replacement reforms. In addition, a presidential executive order has been signed that directs agencies to minimize “economic and regulatory burdens” of the Affordable Care Act, but it is unclear how this will be implemented. The impact and timing of any potential repeal of or changes to the Affordable Care Act and any alternative provisions on the healthcare industry is unknown.

The Affordable Care Act, as currently structured, mandates that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain health insurance coverage and increases health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion

16

Table of Contents

and private sector health insurance reforms. Expansion in public program coverage has been driven primarily by adjusting eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage. A number of states opted out of the Medicaid expansion provisions, which they may do without losing federal funding. States that have opted out include Florida, Tennessee and Texas, where we operated a significant number of hospitals as of December 31, 2016. Some states that have opted out are evaluating options such as waiver plans to operate an alternative Medicaid expansion plan.

We believe that the Affordable Care Act has had a positive impact on net operating revenues and income from continuing operations as the result of the expansion of private sector and Medicaid coverage that has occurred. However, other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, have increased our operating costs. In addition, the Affordable Care Act has made changes to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that could adversely impact the reimbursement we receive under these programs. These changes include 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 reductions to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments.

Substantial uncertainty remains regarding the ongoing net effect of the Affordable Care Act due to the results of the 2016 federal elections, the possibility of repeal or significant change to the Affordable Care Act following such elections, and other factors, including clarifications and modifications resulting from executive orders, the rule-making process, the outcome of court challenges, 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 and budgetary issues at federal and state levels.

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. 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.

A section of the Social Security Act, known as the “anti-kickback statute” 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.

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. The

17

Table of Contents

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:

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. Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, civil monetary penalties increased substantially in 2016, were further increased in 2017, and will continue to increase annually based on updates to the consumer price index.

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

18

Table of Contents

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 Affordable Care Act narrowed the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Affordable Care Act 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 Affordable Care Act became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Affordable Care Act 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.

Taking into account 2017 updates to such penalties, sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties of up to $24,253 per claim submitted and exclusion from federal healthcare programs, and a penalty of up to $161,692 for a scheme intended to circumvent the Stark Law prohibitions. These civil monetary penalties will increase annually based on updates to the consumer price index.

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 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

19

Table of Contents

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 Affordable Care Act, 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. 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 $10,957 and $21,916 for each separate false claim, after taking into account 2017 updates to such penalties. These civil monetary penalties will increase annually based on updates to the consumer price index. Settlements entered into prior to litigation usually involve a less severe 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

20

Table of Contents

our arrangements with healthcare providers to comply with the relevant state law. However, we cannot provide assurance 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. These civil monetary penalties increased significantly in 2016, were further adjusted in 2017, and will be increased annually based on updates to the consumer price index. In addition, the law creates private civil remedies that 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 will not assert we are in violation of this law.

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 construction or acquisition of facilities or the addition of new services. As of December 31, 2016, we operated 83 hospitals in 12 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. 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. All healthcare providers covered by HIPAA were required to transition to updated standard code sets for certain diagnoses and procedures, known as ICD-10 code sets, by October 1, 2015. We have transitioned all of our hospitals to the ICD-10 coding system. The Affordable Care Act 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

21

Table of Contents

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 us 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 $55,910 per violation for a maximum of $1,677,299 in a calendar year for violations of the same requirement. These penalties will increase annually based on updates to the consumer price index. HHS is required to perform compliance audits. 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 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 2016 and 2017 by 2.4% and 2.7% respectively, subject to certain reductions. For federal fiscal year 2016, the DRG payment rates were reduced by

22

Table of Contents

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 Affordable Care Act. There was also a 0.2% downward adjustment to offset projected spending increases associated with admission and medical review criteria for inpatient services commonly known as the “two midnight rule.” For federal fiscal year 2017, the DRG payment rates were reduced by 1.5% for documentation and coding; reduced by 0.3% for the multi-factor productivity adjustment; and reduced by 0.75% in accordance with the Affordable Care Act. There is also a positive 0.8% adjustment to remove the effects of prior adjustments intended to offset projected spending increases associated with 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 25% reduction to the market basket index occurs if patient quality data is not submitted, and a reduction of 75% 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 unable to predict the amount of any reduction or the effect that any reduction will have on us.

The DRG payment rates are also adjusted to 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 condition, or HAC, rates in the previous year will have their total inpatient operating Medicare payments reduced by 1%. 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 Affordable Care Act. 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 1.0% and 1.2% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 0.3% and 0.4% for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

We also receive Medicare reimbursement for outpatient services through a PPS. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 2.4% effective January 1, 2016; however, there was a 0.2% downward adjustment in accordance with the Affordable Care Act, a 0.5% downward productivity adjustment and a 2.0% downward adjustment to address what CMS views as inflated payments for laboratory tests packaged with payments for hospital outpatient services. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 2.7% effective January 1, 2017;

23

Table of Contents

however, there was a 0.75% downward adjustment in accordance with the Affordable Care Act and a 0.3% downward productivity adjustment and other payment adjustments, for an estimated 1.65% increase. Taking into account these and other payment adjustments, CMS estimates the 2017 update will result in a 1.7% increase in outpatient PPS payments to hospitals. For fiscal year 2017, an additional 2.0% reduction applies to hospitals that do not submit required patient quality data. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

The Medicare reimbursement discussed above was reduced beginning 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 is based upon the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, or MPFS, under which CMS has assigned a national relative value unit, or RVU, to most medical procedures and services that reflects the resources required to provide the services relative to all other services. Each RVU is calculated based on a combination of the time and intensity of work required, overhead expense attributable to the service, and malpractice insurance expense. These elements are each modified by a geographic adjustment factor to account for local practice costs and are then aggregated. MACRA provides for a 0.5% update to the MPFS for each calendar year through 2019. MACRA also requires the establishment of the Quality Payment Program, or QPP, a payment methodology intended to reward high-quality patient care. Beginning in 2017, physicians and certain other healthcare clinicians are required to participate in one of two QPP tracks. Under both tracks, performance data collected in 2017 will affect Medicare payments in 2019. CMS expects to transition increasing financial risk to providers as QPP evolves. Under the Advanced Alternative Payment Model, or Advanced APM, track, incentive payments are available based on participation in specific innovative payment models approved by CMS. Providers may earn a Medicare incentive payment and will be exempt from the reporting requirements and payment adjustments imposed under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, if the provider has sufficient participation in an Advanced APM. Alternatively, providers may participate in the MIPS track, 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 components of certain existing physician incentive programs.

In addition to changing Medicare physician payment methodology, 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 Affordable Care Act 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.

24

Table of Contents

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.

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. 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 limits 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

25

Table of Contents

appropriate appeal levels. Currently, there are significant delays in the assignment of new Medicare appeals to Administrative Law Judges. According to the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, the average processing time in fiscal year 2016 was nearly two and a half years. HHS has finalized rules intended to streamline the process and improve efficiency, but has also stressed the need for additional funding. Thus, we may experience significant delays in appealing any RAC payment denials. To ease the backlog of appeals, CMS has made available an administrative settlement process for disputed claims, offering to pay 66% of the net allowable amount in exchange for a hospital’s withdrawal of all medical claims appealed. We are participating in this settlement process. 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 Affordable Care Act, 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.

Bundled Payment Initiatives. The CMS Innovation Center is responsible 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. For example, providers participating in bundled payment initiatives accept accountability for costs and quality of care by agreeing to receive one payment for services provided to Medicare patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care. By rewarding providers for increasing quality and reducing costs and penalizing providers if costs exceed a certain amount, bundled payment models are intended to lead to higher quality, more coordinated care at a lower cost to the Medicare program. The CMS Innovation Center has implemented a voluntary bundled payment program known as the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement, or BPCI, initiative. We are participating in BPCI initiatives in eleven of our markets. More recently, the CMS Innovation Center has established mandatory bundled payment programs for hospitals in selected geographic areas, including some of our hospitals. These mandatory initiatives focus on orthopedic and cardiac 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, 2016, we had a 23.1% 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

26

Table of Contents

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 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. We believe that we will continue to face increased competition in outpatient service models that become more integrated through acquisitions or partnerships between physicians, specialized care providers, and managed care payors.

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, 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

27

Table of Contents

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.

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:

28

Table of Contents

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 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, 2016, we had approximately 120,000 employees, including approximately 24,000 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, 2016, certain employees at 23 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.

29

Table of Contents

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 Part II, 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 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 refinance existing indebtedness or 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 related 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” in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K and the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $8.8 billion aggregate principal amount of senior secured indebtedness outstanding, and approximately $6.4 billion of senior unsecured indebtedness outstanding. A substantial amount of our outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured credit facility and outstanding notes is scheduled to mature at various dates beginning in December 2018 and through 2019. 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, regulatory 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.

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.

We may find it necessary or prudent to refinance certain of our outstanding indebtedness, the terms of which may not be favorable to us. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness on favorable terms, or at all, is directly affected by the then current general economic and financial conditions. In addition, our ability to incur secured indebtedness (which would generally enable us to achieve better pricing than the incurrence of unsecured indebtedness) depends in part on the value of our assets, which depends, in turn, on the strength of our cash flows and results of operations, and on economic and market conditions and other factors.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we could face substantial liquidity problems and may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, 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.

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.

Our variable rate indebtedness subjects us to interest rate risk, which could cause our debt service obligations to increase significantly.

Our borrowings under our credit facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. If interest rates increase, our debt service obligations on the variable rate indebtedness would increase even though the amount borrowed remained the same, and our net income would decrease. Our interest expense, net, for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $ 962 million. For the year ended December 31, 2016, a fluctuation in interest rates of 1% on our variable rate debt that is not hedged by interest rate swaps would have resulted in a fluctuation in our interest expense of approximately $50 million.

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 $8.2 billion in the aggregate, of which approximately $7.2 billion is outstanding at December 31, 2016. 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 4.50:1.00 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

32

Table of Contents

that we now face could be further exacerbated. For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2016, (a) the interest coverage ratio financial covenant in our credit facilities required the ratio of consolidated EBITDA, as defined, to consolidated interest expense to be greater than or equal to 2.00 to 1.00 and (b) the secured net leverage ratio financial covenant in our credit facilities limited the ratio of secured debt to consolidated EBITDA, as defined, to less than or equal to 4.50 to 1.00. We were in compliance with all such covenants at December 31, 2016, with an interest coverage ratio of approximately 2.43 to 1.00 and a secured net leverage ratio of approximately 3.96 to 1.00. If additional indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we currently face related to indebtedness as noted above could increase.

Failure to improve operations at certain hospitals acquired from HMA could adversely affect us.

We have achieved 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 operating improvements and efficiencies in connection with the HMA merger will be achieved in the future. In addition, operational improvement of some of the HMA hospitals has been more difficult to achieve than anticipated. Moreover, 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 order to obtain the intended benefits of the merger, we must achieve additional efficiencies and improve operations at certain of the former HMA hospitals. Such operational improvement 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 connection with 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.

The impact of past acquisitions, as well as potential future acquisitions, could have a negative effect on our operations.

Our business strategy has historically included growth by acquisitions. 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 Health, 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 the competitors for our 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.

In addition, many of the hospitals we have acquired have had lower operating margins than we do and operating losses incurred prior to the time we acquired them. Hospitals acquired in the future may have similar

33

Table of Contents

financial performance issues. In the past, we have experienced delays in improving the operating margins or effectively integrating the operations of certain 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, our results of operations and business may be adversely affected.

Moreover, 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.

If we are unable to complete divestitures that are currently contemplated, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

As noted above, we have been implementing a portfolio rationalization and deleveraging strategy by divesting hospitals and non-hospital businesses that are attractive to strategic and other buyers. Generally, these businesses are not in one of our strategically beneficial service areas, are less complementary to our business strategy and/or have lower operating margins. However, there is no assurance that these contemplated dispositions will be completed, will be completed within our contemplated timeframe, or will be completed on terms favorable to us or on terms sufficient to allow us to achieve our deleveraging strategy. Additionally, the results of operations for these hospitals we plan to divest and the potential gains or losses on the sales of those businesses may adversely affect our profitability. Moreover, we may incur asset impairment charges related to divestitures that reduce our profitability.

In addition, after entering into a definitive agreement, we may be subject to the satisfaction of pre-closing conditions as well as necessary regulatory and governmental approvals, which, if not satisfied or obtained, may prevent us from completing the sale. Dispositions may also involve continued financial exposure related to the divested business, such as through indemnities or retained obligations, that present risk to us.

Our planned divestiture activities may present financial, managerial, and operational risks. Those risks include diversion of management attention from improving existing operations; additional restructuring charges and the related impact from separating personnel, renegotiating contracts, and restructuring financial and other systems; adverse effects on existing business relationships with patients and third-party payors; and the potential that the collectability of any patient accounts receivable retained from any divested hospital may be adversely impacted. Any of these factors could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

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.

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.

34

Table of Contents

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 once we return to our acquisition strategy.

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, 2016, 59 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 2018, 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

35

Table of Contents

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.

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, 2016, we had approximately $6.5 billion of goodwill recorded on our books. 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.

During the three months ended June 30, 2016, we identified certain indicators of impairment requiring an interim goodwill impairment evaluation. Those indicators were primarily the decline in our market capitalization and fair value of long-term debt during the three months ended June 30, 2016, and a decline in our projected future earnings compared to our most recent annual evaluation. We performed an estimated calculation of fair value in step one of the impairment test at June 30, 2016, which indicated that the carrying value of our hospital operations reporting unit exceeded its fair value, which calculation was updated during the three months ended September 30, 2016. In addition, a step two calculation was performed to determine the implied value of goodwill in a hypothetical purchase price allocation. Based on these analyses, we recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $1.395 billion to goodwill during the year ended December 31, 2016 based on the fair value and resulting implied goodwill at that time.

We performed our annual goodwill evaluation during the fourth quarter of 2016. While no impairment was indicated by this evaluation, the reduction in our fair value and the resulting goodwill impairment charge recorded during 2016 reduced the excess of fair value calculated in the step two analysis over the carrying value of our hospital operations reporting unit to an amount less than 1% of our carrying value. This minimal amount in the excess fair value over carrying value of our hospital operations reporting unit increases the risk that future declines in fair value could result in goodwill impairment.

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, estimates of future revenue and expenses, estimated marked multiples, expected capital expenditures, potential changes in our stock price and market capitalization, and the fair value of our long-term debt. 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 a material impairment charge to goodwill and 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 our long-lived assets is impaired, we may incur a material non-cash charge to earnings.

36

Table of Contents

We are unable to predict the ultimate impact of the Affordable Care Act, and our business may be adversely affected if the Affordable Care Act is repealed entirely or if provisions benefitting our operations are significantly modified.

In recent years, 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 most prominent of these efforts, the Affordable Care Act, affects how healthcare services are covered, delivered, and reimbursed. As currently structured, the Affordable Care Act mandates that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain health insurance coverage, expands health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms, reduces Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, and promotes value-based purchasing. There are currently several public and private initiatives that aim to transition payment models from passive volume-based reimbursement to models that are tied to the quality and value of services.

The 2016 federal elections resulted in a new administration that, along with certain members of Congress, have stated their intent to repeal or make significant changes to the Affordable Care Act, its implementation and/or its interpretation. There is uncertainty regarding whether, when, and how the Affordable Care Act will be changed, what alternative provisions, if any, will be enacted, the timing of enactment and implementation of alternative provisions, and the impact of alternative provisions on providers as well as other healthcare industry participants. In addition, a presidential executive order has been signed that directs agencies to minimize “economic and regulatory burdens” of the Affordable Care Act, but it is unclear how this will be implemented. Further, Congress could eliminate or alter provisions beneficial to us while leaving in place provisions reducing our reimbursement. Government efforts to repeal or change the Affordable Care Act may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity.

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 2016, 34.4% 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 Affordable Care Act, 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 2016, 53.4% 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 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

37

Table of Contents

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.

The demand for services provided by our hospitals can be impacted by factors beyond our control.

Our admissions and adjusted admissions as well as acuity trends may be impacted by factors beyond our control. For example, seasonal fluctuations in the severity of influenza and other critical illnesses, unplanned shutdowns or unavailability of our facilities due to weather or other unforeseen events, decreases in trends in high acuity service offerings, changes in competition from outside service providers, turnover in physicians affiliated with our hospitals, or changes in medical technology can have an impact on the demand for services at our hospitals. The impact of these or other factors beyond our control could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

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 insurance industry challenges resulting from the Affordable Care Act. Our ability to negotiate prices and favorable terms with health insurers in certain markets could be affected negatively as a result of this consolidation. 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.

38

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 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 Affordable Care Act, 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 Affordable Care Act. However, the outcome of the 2016 federal elections has cast considerable uncertainty on the future of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, it is difficult to predict the ultimate impact of the Affordable Care Act on the uninsured population and the percentage of our total revenue comprised of self-pay revenues because of, among other variables, uncertainty regarding the number and identity of states that ultimately choose to expand

39

Table of Contents

Medicaid and the number of uninsured who elect to purchase health insurance. 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, which 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 deterioration in collectability of patient responsibility accounts, our financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Many of the non-urban communities in which we operate continue to face challenging economic conditions, and 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.

While the U.S. economy as a whole has improved, improvement in many of the non-urban communities in which we operate has lagged behind the larger urban communities. In addition, 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. When patients are experiencing personal financial difficulties or have concerns about general economic conditions, they may:

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

40

Table of Contents

EHR technology. The incentive payments are available for a maximum period of five or six years, depending on the program. 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 (to the extent incentive payments remain available), and we could be subject to penalties that may have an adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

A cyber-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. Additionally, growing cyber-security threats related to the use of ransomware and other malicious software threaten the access and utilization of critical information technology and data. We continue to prioritize cybersecurity and the development of practices and controls to protect our systems. Our ability to recover from a ransomware or other cyber-attack is dependent on these practices, including successful backup systems and other recovery procedures. 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.

41

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. The 25% of hospitals with the worst 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 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.

42

Table of Contents

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. HHS currently requires hospitals in certain geographic areas to participate in a bundled payment program for specified joint replacement procedures and will implement a mandatory program with a cardiac focus in 2017. 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 somewhat 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, the Texas Medicaid Waiver Program provides funding for uncompensated care and delivery system reform initiatives and allows Texas to continue receiving supplemental Medicaid reimbursement while expanding its Medicaid managed care program. CMS has extended the waiver through December 31, 2017. Texas has submitted an application to extend its Medicaid Waiver Program through September 30, 2019, 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.

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

The Company’s Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement could delay or prevent a change in control of the Company, which could have a negative effect on the price of the Company’s common stock.

The Board of Directors of the Company adopted a Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement on October 3, 2016. Under the terms of the Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement, any person (together with certain affiliated persons) that acquires 15% or more of the Company’s common stock could suffer substantial dilution of its ownership interest in the Company through the issuance of a large amount of stock to shareholders other than the acquiring person.

Our Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement was adopted in order to prevent the accumulation of a potentially controlling block of the Company’s common stock pending our exploration of potential strategic options and alternatives. However, our Stockholders Protection Rights Agreement may impede an attempt to acquire a significant or controlling ownership interest in the Company, and may prevent or make more difficult takeovers or unsolicited corporate transactions involving the Company not supported by our Board of Directors, even if such a transaction were considered beneficial by some of our stockholders. The Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement will expire on April 1, 2017.

43

Table of Contents

There can be no assurance that our exploration of strategic alternatives will result in any transaction, and exploration of strategic alternatives may impact our ability to pursue other opportunities.

As initially disclosed on September 19, 2016, with the assistance of advisors, we are exploring a variety of options with financial sponsors, as well as other potential alternatives. These discussions are ongoing. There can be no certainty that the exploration will result in any kind of transaction. We do not expect to make further public comment regarding these matters while the exploration takes place unless and until we otherwise deem further public comment is appropriate or required. In addition, the process of exploring strategic alternatives has involved and may continue to involve the dedication of significant resources, including the time and attention of our management, and the incurrence of significant costs and expenses. Moreover, uncertainty regarding the possible outcome of our exploration of strategic alternatives may increase the challenge of recruiting and retaining talented and skilled personnel. It is also possible that potentially inaccurate market speculation regarding the outcome of the process may cause our stock to trade based on factors other than our financial and operating performance and prospects as a stand-alone company.

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.

For each of our hospitals owned or leased as of December 31, 2016, 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.

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, 2016. 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.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

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, the Department of Justice and other government entities 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) an inquiry regarding a sleep lab at a Louisiana hospital, (c) a subpoena regarding wound care services at one of our Florida hospitals (which appears to be related to unsealed cases against Healogics, Inc.), (d) a subpoena concerning provider based billing status for hyperbaric oxygen therapy at one of our Tennessee hospitals, (e) a subpoena concerning a physician relationship at one of our Texas hospitals and (f) a civil investigative demand concerning short-term Medicaid eligibility determinations processed by third party vendors at one of our Pennsylvania hospitals. In addition, we are subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business including lawsuits and claims related to billing practices and the administration of charity care policies at our hospitals. 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

49

Table of Contents

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.

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 “Commitment 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 oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. Our motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter is fully briefed and we are waiting on the setting of a date for oral argument. 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. This case was settled pursuant to a final order entered on January 17, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, we are required to adopt and maintain for a specified period certain corporate governance measures. For more information, see the order and stipulation of settlement filed as Exhibit 99.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

50

Table of Contents

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.

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. In a decision dated November 9, 2016, the law judge awarded Becker approximately $1.9 million for front pay, back pay and emotional damages with attorney fees to be later determined. We have appealed the award to the Administrative Review Board and briefing is currently underway. 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; a previous trial setting of September 12, 2016 has been vacated and not reset. We continue to vigorously defend 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, 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. On April 13, 2016, the magistrate judge entered an order lifting the stay and set a scheduling conference that was held on June 8, 2016. On July 22, 2016, we filed several motions for summary judgment. Additional motions for summary judgment have been filed. We continue to vigorously defend this matter.

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

51

Table of Contents

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 us regarding security and monitoring efforts. We have provided 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 us and certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by us. 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. On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the bench, the court dismissed additional claims and following this oral ruling only eight of the forty plaintiffs remained with significant limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims for damages. These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on September 12, 2016. On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on February 15, 2017 this motion was denied. 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 us to additional litigation, potential governmental inquiries, potential reputational damage, and additional remediation, operating and other expenses.

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. A motion of summary judgment and a motion of class certification have been filed and both are currently pending. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Morrow v. Community Health Systems, Inc. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed on July 25, 2016, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee alleging our affiliated hospital, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center in Foley, AL, violated a payor contract by allegedly improperly asserting a hospital lien against a third-party tortfeasor and allegedly unjustly enriching the hospital. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class for any similarly situated plaintiffs at any Company affiliated hospital. A motion to dismiss has been filed. We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Certain Legal Proceedings Related to HMA

Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits

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,

52

Table of Contents

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 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, May 25, 2016, September 26, 2016, December 27, 2016 and now until April 27, 2017. 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.

Qui Tam Matters Where the Government Declined Intervention

U.S. ex rel. Richard M. O’Keeffe, Jr., M.D. v. The River Oaks Management Company, LLC, et al. (SD Mississippi). By order filed on February 10, 2017, the court ordered the unsealing of this matter. The unsealing revealed that on February 3, 2017 the United States had declined to intervene in the allegations that an HMA subsidiary had an inappropriate financial relationship with the relator because his employment contract allegedly was not fair market value in violation of the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

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

53

Table of Contents

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 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. On June 24, 2016 the application for en banc review was denied. On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On February 6, 2017, we filed a brief in opposition. 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.

Lopez v. Yakima Regional Medial & Cardiac Center and Toppenish Community Hospital is a class action lawsuit arising out of alleged conduct at these hospitals prior to the HMA acquisition. The suit alleges the hospitals’ charity care policies did not comply with Washington state law. The trial court has certified a class and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This matter has now been settled.

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 our management, and all three members of the Audit and Compliance Committee are “audit committee financial experts” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

54

Table of Contents

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 our compliance with the Corporate Integrity Agreement, or CIA, that we entered into with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General during 2014.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

55

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 15, 2017, there were approximately 188 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.

56

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, 2016, 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. The market price of our common stock used to calculate the cumulative return has been adjusted in prior periods for the impact of the April 2016 QHC spin-off and related distribution of QHC common stock to our stockholders.

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. The non-cash dividend of approximately $713 million recorded by us during the year ended December 31, 2016 to reflect the distribution of the net assets of QHC was a permitted transaction under our Credit Facility. As of December 31, 2016, under the most restrictive test under these agreements (and subject to certain exceptions),

57

Table of Contents

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.

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. This 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, which is the cumulative number of shares repurchased and retired under this program, at a weighted-average price of $27.31 per share. No shares were repurchased under this program during the year ended December 31, 2016.

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. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we repurchased and retired 706,023 shares at a weighted-average price of $38.39 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.

58

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.

Community Health Systems, Inc.

Five Year Summary of Selected Financial Data