COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC - Annual Report: 2019 (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:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☑    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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes ☑    No ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

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 $295,833,589. Market value is determined by reference to the closing price on June 30, 2019 of the Registrant’s Common Stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange. The Registrant does not (and did not at June 30, 2019) have any non-voting common stock outstanding. As of February 18, 2020, there were 117,856,892 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 2020 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, 2019.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

Year ended December 31, 2019

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, 2019, we owned or leased 102 hospitals with an aggregate of 16,240 licensed beds, comprised of 100 general acute care hospitals and two stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals are geographically diversified across 18 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 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 and ambulatory surgery centers. An integral part of providing these services is our network of affiliated physicians at our hospitals and affiliated businesses. As of December 31, 2019, we employed approximately 2,000 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.

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 connection with our divestiture initiative, we have received offers from strategic buyers to buy certain of our assets. After considering these offers, we have divested, and expect to continue to divest, hospitals and non-hospital businesses when we find such offers to be attractive and in line with our operating strategy.

During 2019, we completed the divestiture of 12 hospitals, including two hospitals the divestitures of which closed effective January 1, 2019 (for these hospitals, we received the net proceeds at a preliminary closing on December 31, 2018). Excluding the net proceeds for the two hospitals that preliminarily closed on December 31, 2018, we received total net proceeds of approximately $335 million in connection with the disposition of these hospitals. In addition, we completed the divestiture of an additional three hospitals on January 1, 2020 for which we received net proceeds of approximately $240 million at a preliminary closing on December 31, 2019. During 2018, we completed the divestiture of 11 hospitals. Including the net proceeds for the two additional hospitals that preliminarily closed on December 31, 2018 noted above, we received total net proceeds of approximately $405 million in connection with the disposition of these hospitals. During 2017, we completed the divestiture of 30 hospitals included in continuing operations, and received total net proceeds of approximately $1.7 billion in connection with the disposition of these hospitals.

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.

1

Table of Contents

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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the information contained on our website as noted above or elsewhere in this Form 10-K is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. 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. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains our reports, proxy and information statements, and other information that we file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

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 provide safe, high-quality healthcare for our patients and the communities we serve. We are committed to efficient, cost effective and profitable operations that seek to ensure sustainable health systems and deliver long-term shareholder value. Our efforts are focused around the following key strategies, which are designed to help us achieve our objectives:

Become a market leader and increase market share in the communities we serve

We operate across diverse markets that range from sole community providers to large regional networks. We are able to leverage our significant scale and standardized systems to provide cost-effective services and best practices for our affiliate operations. Each of our markets develops and executes a strategic plan with short and long-term goals, based on their unique opportunities and the needs of their respective communities. As an organization, we also have implemented a number of strategic initiatives designed to improve market position, expand services to our patients, and capture a greater share of healthcare spending in our markets. These include:

Strengthening Regional Networks and Local Market Operations. We believe opportunities exist in select markets to create healthcare networks consisting of multiple hospitals and corresponding outpatient services.

2

Table of Contents

Regional networks are able to expand the breadth of services provided for our patients, develop centers of excellence for key services, deliver care in an organized and efficient way across the network, improve alignment with physicians and other providers, and make services more attractive to managed care and other payers. Currently, 76 of our hospitals operate in 20 unique regional networks.

We also operate healthcare systems that are built around a single acute-care hospital. In these markets, we are focused on supporting the hospital with physician practices, outpatient services, clinical collaborations and partnerships that offer our patients health services across the continuum of care. These hospitals and their related outpatient services may operate in competitive markets or as sole community providers.

Expanding Patient Access Points, Health Services and Infrastructure. When expanding services – in both the acute and non-acute care settings – our approach is data-driven and strategic to ensure our investments are responsive to community and patient needs and produce sound financial results. While we continue to provide health services across a broad spectrum, we have focused our attention and resources on service lines we believe have the greatest potential for growth, including primary care, emergency medicine, orthopedics, neuroscience, cardiovascular care, surgical services and behavioral health. As the shift to delivering health services in outpatient settings accelerates, we continue to expand our care offerings beyond hospital walls to include more outpatient access through primary care practices, urgent care centers, free-standing emergency departments, ambulatory surgery centers, imaging and diagnostic centers, retail clinics and direct-to-consumer virtual health visits.

We believe expanding our patient access footprint can attract new patients and increase patient retention, as well as our ability to connect patients from one episode of care to the next appropriate care setting. We also believe our investments will enhance our long-term growth and generate increased revenue, earnings, and operating margins by providing a solid return on investment.

Recruiting and/or Employing Additional Primary Care Physicians and Specialists. The physician-patient relationship is the foundation on which all healthcare services are built. Understanding this, we continuously assess our communities to identify service gaps and practice opportunities in order to recruit an optimal mix of primary care physicians and specialists. We analyze demographic data and referral trends and employ recruiters at the corporate level to support local hospital administrators in their physician recruitment efforts. In some markets, we employ physicians, often acquiring their practices at the onset of the arrangement. However, most physicians in our communities and on our medical staffs remain in private practice and are not our employees.

We work hard to develop positive, collaborative relationships with physicians. We currently participate in 15 Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations which include approximately 5,200 employed and independent physicians in our communities. We look forward to realizing the benefits of these Accountable Care Organizations, including opportunities to strengthen quality, deepen clinical collaboration and demonstrate performance under a reimbursement system moving toward more value-based incentives and payments.

Developing a More Consumer-Centric Experience and Facilitating Connections between Episodes of Care. Consumers continue to take a more active role in healthcare decision-making, especially as they assume increasing responsibility for the cost of their healthcare. The rise in consumerism is highlighting customer expectations that have not always been prioritized in the healthcare setting. We are working on ways to create more enduring relationships with our patients by providing services that help people navigate their healthcare journeys and enable more seamless connections across episodes of care in our healthcare systems, hospitals, and physician practices. Some of these initiatives include:

3

Table of Contents

Increase productivity and operating efficiencies to enhance profitability

Our hospital management teams are supported by experienced corporate leaders who have significant industry knowledge and a proven track record of success. Local hospitals benefit from centralized clinical, operational, financial and regulatory expertise that encompasses nearly every aspect of our business. Additionally, we are able to leverage deep and meaningful data sources to facilitate informed decision-making and drive operational improvements across the enterprise in areas such as drug and supply procurement, workforce optimization and staffing and emergency department and operating room performance.

Standard policies and procedures in areas ranging from physician practice management to patient accounting to construction and facilities management help to facilitate best practices, reduce variation and improve operating results. The following areas highlight some of our standardized and centralized platforms.

Billing and Collections. We have adopted standard policies and procedures with respect to billing and collections. We have automated various components of the collection cycle, including statements and collection letters, to help facilitate timely and accurate progression of our accounts through the collection cycle. We have consolidated local billing and collection functions into six centralized business offices and have completed the transition of our hospital billing departments to this new infrastructure. We are now realizing the benefits of lower patient claim denials, higher underpayment recoveries and reduced operating expenses.

Physician Support. We support newly recruited physicians to facilitate a smooth and effective transition into our communities. Newly recruited physicians participate in orientation that covers matters related to starting up a new practice or joining an established practice. For employed physicians, we utilize software solutions that monitor and help optimize their practice performance against industry standard benchmarks and best practices. We also have implemented programs to improve physician workflow, reduce physician turnover, optimize staffing at physician clinics and standardize onboarding processes.

Procurement and Materials Management. We have standardized and centralized supply chain operations to improve procurement of the medical supplies, equipment and pharmaceuticals used in our hospitals. We have an ownership interest in and participation agreement with HealthTrust Purchasing Group, L.P., or HealthTrust, a group purchasing organization, or GPO, which benefits members through scaled pricing. HealthTrust contracts with certain vendors who supply a substantial portion of our medical supplies, equipment and pharmaceuticals.

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

4

Table of Contents

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

Other Initiatives. Numerous other initiatives have been standardized or centralized and leverage data to reduce costs and increase productivity. For example, we have improved staff scheduling and efficiency by implementing standardized time keeping systems and we have implemented initiatives to reduce unnecessary overtime and guide temporary staffing decisions that align with patient admissions and acuity. We have created a centralized team and implemented standard processes for payroll processing and management of accounts payable. Likewise, we have leveraged data and expertise to optimize our performance in clinical and operating areas such as emergency room, pharmacy, laboratory, imaging and skilled nursing services and health information management. Each time we implement a new process initiative, we work to identify and communicate best practices and we monitor progress and performance improvement throughout the organization.

Continuously Improve Patient Safety and Quality of Care

We maintain quality assurance programs to monitor, support and advance quality of care standards and to meet Medicare and Medicaid accreditation and regulatory requirements. We maintain an emphasis on patient safety and clinical outcomes and we are continuously focused on ways to improve patient, physician and employee satisfaction. We believe that a focus on continuous improvement yields the best results for patients, reduces risk and liability, and creates value for the people and communities we serve.

We have developed and implemented programs to support and monitor patient safety and quality of care that include:

We have operated a Patient Safety Organization, or PSO, since 2011. Our PSO is listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. We believe our PSO has assisted, and will continue to assist us, in improving patient safety at our hospitals. The PSO has been recertified through 2020.

Optimize our portfolio through select divestitures of non-core assets while investing in markets with the best opportunities for growth

We have been reshaping our portfolio through the divestiture of non-core hospital and non-hospital assets to strategic and other buyers. In 2019, we divested additional hospitals in select markets, and continue to pursue

5

Table of Contents

additional divestitures. Generally, these divested assets are less complementary to our business strategies and/or have lower operating margins. We have used proceeds from these divestitures, and expect to continue to use proceeds from future divestitures, to reduce debt and/or reinvest in our facilities to strengthen our regional networks and local market operations.

By divesting non-core assets, we are able to more sharply channel our resources and capital investments into strategic markets where we have the best ability to increase access and patient care, enhance our service lines, form successful joint ventures, produce growth and increase market share. As an example, we acquired 28 physician practices in 2019.

Our portfolio optimization efforts have included a significant number of transactions to date. In 2017, we divested 30 hospitals in single and multi-hospital transactions. In 2018, we divested an additional 11 hospitals in single and multi-hospital transactions. We also closed three non-core hospitals in 2018 in locations where the operations could be absorbed by one or more hospitals in the same regional network. In 2019, we divested an additional 12 hospitals in single and multi-hospital transactions. We also divested three additional hospitals effective January 1, 2020.

Industry Overview

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, national healthcare expenditures grew 4.6% in 2018 to $3.6 trillion and are projected to have grown 4.8% in 2019 to nearly $3.8 trillion. The CMS projections, published in February of 2019, indicate that total U.S. healthcare spending is expected to grow by 5.4% in 2020 and 5.6% in 2021, and at an average annual rate of 5.7% for 2020 through 2027. CMS anticipates that total U.S. healthcare annual expenditures will reach nearly $6.0 trillion by 2027, accounting for approximately 19.4% of the total U.S. gross domestic product. Healthcare spending is expected to be largely influenced by changes in economic conditions and demographics, as well as by increasing prices for medical goods and services. The CMS projections are constructed using a current-law framework. They are typically published once per year and are not updated to reflect interim changes. For example, the projections do not take into account the possibility of further modifications to, or repeal of, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the Affordable Care Act.

Hospital services, the market within the healthcare industry in which we primarily operate, is the largest single category of healthcare expenditures. In 2019, hospital care expenditures are projected to have grown 5.1%, amounting to approximately $1.3 trillion. CMS estimates that the hospital services category will amount to over $1.3 trillion in 2020 and projects growth in this category at an average of 5.8% annually from 2020 through 2027.

U.S. Hospital Industry. The U.S. hospital industry is broadly defined to include acute care, rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities that are either public (government owned and operated), not-for-profit private (religious or secular), or for-profit institutions (investor owned). According to the American Hospital Association, there are approximately 5,200 community hospitals in the U.S., which are not-for-profit owned, investor owned, or state or local government owned. Of these hospitals, approximately 35% 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.

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

6

Table of Contents

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

Hospital Industry Trends

Demographic Trends. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2018, there were approximately 52 million Americans aged 65 or older in the U.S. comprising approximately 16.0% 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 anticipated 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 anticipated 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 5.5% from 2012 to 2019 and are expected to grow by 3.3% from 2019 to 2024. The number of people aged 65 or older in these service areas grew by 31.2% from 2011 to 2019 and is expected to grow by 15.5% from 2019 to 2024. People aged 65 or older comprised 18.4% of the total population in our service areas in 2019, yet they could comprise 20.6% of the total population in our service areas by 2024.

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

The 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 models.

7

Table of Contents

For example, the Affordable Care Act has encouraged the adoption of new payment models that emphasize cost-effective delivery of care and quality of outcomes. Although the number of patients with health insurance coverage has expanded since 2010, the year the Affordable Care Act was enacted, 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, the increase in the services that can be provided at these locations, and payor policies requiring or promoting treatment in outpatient settings, 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. However, recent changes to Medicare policy affecting the reimbursement methodology for certain items and services provided by off-campus provider-based hospital departments have generally resulted in reduced payment rates for these hospital outpatient settings.

8

Table of Contents

Selected Operating Data

The following table sets forth operating statistics for each of the years presented for our hospitals that are included in our continuing operations. Statistics for 2019 include a full year of operations for 101 hospitals and partial periods for 12 hospitals divested and one hospital acquired during the year reflecting the operations of these hospitals prior to divestiture or after acquisition, as applicable. Statistics for 2018 include a full year of operations for 113 hospitals and partial periods for 11 hospitals divested during the year and three hospitals that ceased operations during the year reflecting the operations of these hospitals prior to divestiture or closure. Statistics for 2017 include a full year of operations for 125 hospitals and partial periods for 30 hospitals divested during the year reflecting the operations of these hospitals prior to divestiture. Statistics for hospitals included in discontinued operations are excluded from all periods presented.

9

Table of Contents

10

Table of Contents

Adjusted EBITDA is not a measurement of financial performance under U.S. 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. The Company believes such adjustments are appropriate as the magnitude and frequency of such items can vary significant significantly and are not related to the assessment of normal operating performance. Additionally, this calculation of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

11

Table of Contents

The following table reflects the reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA, as defined, to net loss attributable to Community Health Systems, Inc. stockholders as derived directly from our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 (in millions):

Sources of Revenue

The following table presents the approximate percentages of net operating revenues by payor source for the periods indicated. The data for the periods presented are not strictly comparable due to the effect that hospital acquisitions and divestitures have had on these statistics. The percentages of net operating revenues for 2017 also include the overall impact of the change in estimate recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017 to increase contractual allowances and record additional provision for bad debts.

12

Table of Contents

As shown above, we receive a substantial portion of our revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Included in Managed Care and other third-party payors is operating revenues from insurance companies with which we have insurance provider contracts, Medicare managed care, insurance companies for which we do not have insurance provider contracts, workers’ compensation carriers and non-patient service revenue, such as rental income and cafeteria sales. In the future, we generally expect the portion of revenues received from the Medicare and Medicaid programs to increase over the long-term due to the general aging of the population and the impacts of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has increased the number of insured patients in states that have expanded Medicaid, which in turn, has reduced the percentage of revenues from self-pay patients. However, it is unclear whether the trend of increased coverage will continue, due in part to the elimination of the financial penalty associated with the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. Further, the Affordable Care Act imposes significant reductions in amounts the government pays Medicare managed care plans. The trend toward increased enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid managed care may adversely affect our operating revenue. An executive order issued in October 2019 seeks to accelerate this shift away from traditional fee-for-service Medicare to Medicare managed care. We may also be impacted by regulatory requirements imposed on insurers, such as minimum medical-loss ratios and specific benefit requirements. Furthermore, in the normal course of business, managed care programs, insurance companies and employers actively negotiate the amounts paid to hospitals. Our relationships with payors may be impacted by price transparency initiatives and out-of-network billing proposals. There can be no assurance that we will retain our existing reimbursement arrangements or that these third-party payors will not attempt to further reduce the rates they pay for our services.

Net operating revenues include amounts estimated by management to be reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid under prospective payment systems and provisions of cost-based reimbursement and other payment methods. In addition, we are reimbursed by non-governmental payors using a variety of payment methodologies. Amounts we receive for the treatment of patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid and non-governmental payors are generally less than our standard billing rates. We account for the differences between the estimated program reimbursement rates and our standard billing rates as contractual allowance adjustments, which we deduct from gross revenues to arrive at net operating revenues. Final settlements under some of these programs are subject to adjustment based on administrative review and audit by third parties. We account for adjustments to previous program reimbursement estimates as contractual allowance adjustments and report them in the periods that such adjustments become known. Contractual allowance adjustments related to final settlements and previous program reimbursement estimates impacted net operating revenues and net loss by an insignificant amount in each of the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017.

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

Payment rates under the Medicaid program vary by state. In addition to the base payment rates for specific claims for services rendered to Medicaid enrollees, states utilize supplemental reimbursement programs to make separate payments that are not specifically tied to an individual’s care, some of which 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. The programs are generally authorized for a specified period of time and require CMS’s approval to be extended. We are unable to predict whether or on what terms CMS will extend the supplemental programs in the states in which we operate. Under these supplemental programs, we recognize revenue and related expenses in the period in which amounts are estimable and collection is reasonably assured. Reimbursement under these programs is reflected in net operating revenues and included as Medicaid revenue in the table above, and fees, taxes or other program related costs are reflected in other operating expenses.

As of December 31, 2019, Florida, Texas and Indiana represented our only areas of significant geographic concentration. Net operating revenues generated by our hospitals in Florida, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 14.3% in 2019 and 2018 and 14.0% in 2017. Net operating revenues generated by our

13

Table of Contents

hospitals in Texas, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 12.2% in 2019, 11.7% in 2018 and 10.9% in 2017. Net operating revenues generated by our hospitals in Indiana, as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, were 13.7% in 2019, 12.5% in 2018 and 11.6% in 2017.

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

Healthcare 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. 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 Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs. Hospitals must meet requirements to be certified as hospitals and qualified to participate in government programs, including 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; building codes; environmental protection; and privacy and security.

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.

Government regulations may change. If that happens, we may have to make changes to 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 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.

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 intended to increase access to health insurance. The most prominent of these efforts, the Affordable Care Act, affects how healthcare services are covered, delivered, and reimbursed. The Affordable Care Act increased health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms and mandated that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain health insurance coverage. However, the future of the Affordable Care Act is uncertain. The law has been subject to legislative and regulatory changes and court challenges, and the presidential administration and certain members of

14

Table of Contents

Congress have stated their intent to repeal or make additional significant changes to, the Affordable Care Act, its implementation or its interpretation. As part of the tax reform legislation enacted in December 2017, effective January 1, 2019, the financial penalty enforcing the individual mandate was eliminated. Additionally, in December 2018, as a result of this change, a federal judge in Texas found the individual mandate unconstitutional and determined the rest of the Affordable Care Act was therefore invalid. In December 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision with respect to the individual mandate, but remanded for further consideration of how this affects the rest of the law. Pending the appeals process, the law remains in place. The elimination of the individual mandate penalty and other changes may impact the number of individuals that elect to obtain public or private health insurance or the scope of such coverage, if purchased. Moreover, final rules issued in 2018 expand the availability of association health plans and allow the sale of short-term, limited-duration health plans, neither of which are required to cover all of the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

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 a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update and reductions to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, payments.

Substantial uncertainty remains regarding the ongoing net effect of the Affordable Care Act due to the possibility of repeal or significant additional changes to the law, clarifications and modifications resulting from executive orders, the rule-making process, the ultimate outcome of court challenges and the development of agency guidance, whether and how many states ultimately decide to expand Medicaid coverage and on what terms, the number of individuals who elect to purchase health insurance coverage and budgetary issues at federal and state levels. The impact on the healthcare industry and timing of any potential repeal of or further changes to the Affordable Care Act and any alternative provisions is unknown. For example, members of Congress have proposed measures that would expand government-sponsored coverage, including single-payor proposals, which could also significantly affect healthcare providers. Other initiatives and proposals, including those aimed at price transparency and out-of-network charges, may impact prices and the relationships between hospitals and insurers. It is difficult to predict the nature and success of future financial or delivery system reforms.

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

15

Table of Contents

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 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,

16

Table of Contents

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. Civil monetary penalties are increased annually based on updates to the consumer price index and were increased under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” This law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to healthcare entities in which they or any of their immediate family members have ownership interests or other financial arrangements. These types of referrals are commonly known as “self referrals.” Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties that are increased annually based on updates to the consumer price index, and exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

There are ownership and compensation arrangement exceptions to the self-referral prohibition. One 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 that interpret the provisions included in the Stark Law.

Another exception to the Stark Law, 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, and the hospital meets certain “grandfathering” requirements imposed by the Affordable Care Act. These requirements prohibit physicians from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital and restrict the ability of physician-owned hospitals from expanding the capacity of their aggregate licensed beds, operating rooms and procedure rooms, beyond the ownership percentage and capacities in place in 2010. The whole hospital exception also contains additional public disclosure requirements. 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.

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. 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 have in recent years increased 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 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

17

Table of Contents

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 for criminal and civil penalties, as well as loss of licensure. Little precedent exists for the interpretation or enforcement of these state laws.

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

Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Laws. Another significant enforcement mechanism used within the healthcare industry is 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. 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 substantial civil penalties for each separate false claim. These civil monetary penalties are adjusted 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.

18

Table of Contents

Corporate Practice of Medicine; Fee-Splitting. Some states have laws that prohibit unlicensed persons or business entities, including corporations, from employing physicians. Some states also have adopted laws that prohibit direct or indirect payments to, or entering into fee-splitting arrangements with, physicians and unlicensed persons or business entities. Possible sanctions for violations of these restrictions include loss of a physician’s license, civil and criminal penalties and rescission of business arrangements. These laws vary from state to state, are often vague and have seldom been interpreted by the courts or regulatory agencies. We structure our arrangements with healthcare providers to comply with the relevant state law. However, we cannot 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, which are 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 acquisition 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, significant capital expenditures and the addition of new services at our facilities may be subject to state laws that require prior approval by state regulatory agencies. These certificate of need, or CON, laws generally require that a state agency determine the public need and give approval prior to the construction or acquisition of facilities, significant capital expenditure or the addition of new services. As of December 31, 2019, we operated 81 hospitals in 15 states that have adopted CON laws. If we fail to obtain necessary state approval, we will not be able to expand our facilities, complete acquisitions or significant capital expenditures 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 provider’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 and code sets 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. 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.

19

Table of Contents

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. Business associates (entities that handle identifiable health-related information on behalf of covered entities) are subject to direct liability for violation of applicable provisions 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 substantial civil penalties per violation. The civil penalties are adjusted 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 and subject us to additional privacy and security restrictions. For example, the Federal Trade Commission uses its consumer protection authority to initiate enforcement actions in response to data breaches. In addition, various states, including California, Nevada and Massachusetts, recently have enacted, and other states are considering, new laws and regulations concerning the privacy and security of consumer and other personal information. To the extent we are subject to such requirements, these laws and regulations often have far-reaching effects, may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and may require us to incur substantial costs and expenses to comply. These laws and regulations often provide for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches, which may increase the likelihood or impact of data breach litigation.

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 has a payment weight assigned to it that is based on the average resources used to treat Medicare patients in that DRG. DRG payments are based on national averages and not on charges or costs specific to a hospital. To better account for severity of illness and resource consumption, CMS uses the Medicare Severity DRG system. Medicare sets discharge base rates (standardization payment amounts), which are adjusted

20

Table of Contents

according to the DRG relative weights and geographic factors. In addition, hospitals may qualify for an “outlier” payment when a patient’s treatment costs are extraordinarily high and exceed a specified regulatory threshold.

The DRG payment rates for inpatient acute services 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 “market basket index” update of 2.9% and 3.0% for each of federal fiscal years 2019 and 2020, respectively, subject to certain reductions. For federal fiscal year 2019, the market basket update was adjusted by the following percentage points: a positive 0.5 adjustment in accordance with MACRA, a 0.8 reduction for the multifactor productivity adjustment, and a 0.75 reduction in accordance with the Affordable Care Act. For federal fiscal year 2020, the market basket was adjusted by the following percentage points: a positive 0.5 adjustment in accordance with MACRA and a 0.4 point reduction for the multifactor productivity adjustment. 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 receive greater reimbursement under CMS’s value-based purchasing program, while hospitals that do not satisfy certain quality performance standards 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 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 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 DSH payment adjustments when their percentage of low income patients exceeds specified regulatory thresholds. A majority of our hospitals qualify to receive these adjustments. CMS also distributes an additional payment to each DSH hospital for its proportion of uncompensated care costs relative to the uncompensated care amount of other DSH hospitals. The uncompensated care amount is hospital-specific and generally includes charity care and non-Medicare and non-reimbursable Medicare bad debt. The Medicare DSH adjustments and uncompensated care payments as a percentage of net operating revenues were 1.19% and 1.27% for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. Hospitals may also qualify for Medicaid DSH payments when they qualify under the state established guidelines. These Medicaid DSH payments as a percentage of net operating revenues were 0.54% and 0.52% for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The Affordable Care Act provides for reductions to the Medicaid DSH payments, but Congress has delayed the implementation of those reductions until 2020.

We also receive Medicare reimbursement for hospital outpatient services through a PPS. Services paid under the hospital outpatient PPS are grouped into ambulatory payment classifications. APC payment rates are generally determined by applying a conversion factor, which CMS updates annually using a market basket. For calendar year 2019, CMS estimated an increase in hospital outpatient PPS payments of 0.6%. This reflected a market basket increase of 2.9%, with a 0.75 percentage point downward adjustment in accordance with the

21

Table of Contents

Affordable Care Act, and a 0.8 percentage point downward productivity adjustment. For calendar year 2020, CMS estimated an increase in hospital outpatient PPS payments of 1.3%, reflecting a market basket increase of 3.0%, with a negative 0.4 percentage point adjustment for multi-factor productivity. An additional 2.0 percentage point reduction to the market basket update applies to hospitals that do not submit required patient quality data. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

In calendar year 2019, CMS began a two-year phase-in of an expanded site-neutral payment policy for off-campus provider-based departments paid under the outpatient PPS. Under the policy, all off-campus provider-based departments are paid the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“MPFS”)-equivalent rate for clinic visits, which is generally lower than the outpatient PPS rate. The MPFS-equivalent rate for calendar year 2020 is 40% of the proposed outpatient PPS rate. Before the expanded policy, the MPFS-equivalent rate did not apply to “excepted” provider-based departments. However, in September 2019, a federal judge invalidated the expansion of the site-neutral payment policy for calendar year 2019. CMS is appealing this decision, but is reprocessing the 2019 claims paid at the lower rates. CMS has announced it will implement the policy in calendar year 2020. Hospitals have also challenged the site-neutral payment policy for calendar year 2020, but the case has not yet been decided.

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. These reductions have been extended through 2029.

Payment under the Medicare program for physician services is based upon the 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. To determine the payment rate for a particular service, the sum of the geographically adjusted RVUs is multiplied by a conversion factor. For calendar year 2020, CMS updated the conversion factor by a budget neutrality adjustment of 0.14%. In federal fiscal year 2017, CMS implemented the Quality Payment Program, or QPP, a payment methodology intended to reward high-quality patient care. Physicians and certain other healthcare clinicians must participate in one of two QPP tracks. Under both tracks, performance data collected each performance year will affect Medicare payments two years later. 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 consolidates components of certain previously established physician incentive programs.

Medicaid. Medicaid is funded jointly by state and federal government. Most state Medicaid payments are made under a PPS or under programs that negotiate payment levels with individual hospitals. In addition to the base payment rates for specific claims for services rendered to Medicaid enrollees, states utilize supplemental reimbursement programs to make separate payments that are not specifically tied to an individual’s care. Supplemental payments may be in the form of Medicaid DSH payments, which are intended to offset a portion of the costs to providers associated with providing care to Medicaid and indigent patients, or non-DSH payments, such as upper payment limit payments, which are intended to address the difference between Medicaid fee-for-service payments and Medicare reimbursement rates. These supplemental reimbursement programs are designed with input from CMS and may be funded with a combination of state and federal resources, including,

22

Table of Contents

in certain instances, fees or taxes levied on the healthcare providers. The programs are generally authorized for a specified period of time and require CMS’s approval to be extended. CMS is considering changes to both types of programs, and we are unable to predict whether or on what terms CMS will extend the supplemental programs in the states in which we operate.

The federal government and many states are considering various strategies to reduce Medicaid expenditures. Many states currently operate, or have applied to CMS to operate, Medicaid programs under waivers to standard Medicaid program requirements. CMS has indicated that it intends to increase state flexibility in the administration of Medicaid programs, including allowing states to condition enrollment on work or other community engagement or to use a block grant funding structure. We can provide no assurance that changes to Medicaid programs or reductions to Medicaid funding will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations.

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

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

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

Commercial Insurance and Managed Care Companies. Our hospitals provide services to individuals covered by private healthcare insurance or by health plans administered by managed care companies. These payors pay our hospitals or in some cases reimburse their policyholders based upon the hospital’s established charges and the coverage provided in the insurance policy. Payors try to limit their costs by negotiating with hospitals and other healthcare providers for discounts to established charges. 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 inpatient stays of less than a particular duration (e.g., 24 hours). Similarly, some payors have prior authorization requirements designed to shift certain procedures to outpatient settings, where payment rates are typically lower. Reductions in payments for services provided by our hospitals to individuals covered by these payors could adversely affect us.

Under the Managed Medicare program, also known as Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage, the federal government contracts with private health plans to provide members with Medicare benefits. The plans may choose to offer supplemental benefits and impose higher premiums and cost-sharing obligations. Similarly, managed Medicaid programs enable states to contract with private entities to handle program responsibilities like care management and claims adjudication. Enrollment in Managed Medicare and managed Medicaid programs has increased in recent years as the federal and state governments seek to control healthcare costs.

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

23

Table of Contents

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 that 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. CMS is transitioning some of its other integrity programs to a consolidated model by engaging Unified Program Integrity Contractors, or UPICs, to perform audits, investigations and other integrity activities.

We maintain policies and procedures to respond to the RAC requests and payment denials. Payment recoveries resulting from RAC reviews and denials are appealable, and we pursue reversal of adverse determinations at appropriate appeal levels. Currently, there are significant delays in the assignment of new Medicare appeals to Administrative Law Judges. According to the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, the average processing time in fiscal year 2019 was nearly four 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 announced various settlement initiatives. 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

24

Table of Contents

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 bundled payment models, including the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced, or BPCI Advanced, initiative, which is expected to run through December 2023. We are participating in BPCI Advanced initiatives in seven of our markets. Participation in bundled payment programs is generally voluntary, but CMS requires hospitals located in certain geographic areas to participate in a mandatory bundled payment program for specified orthopedic procedures, which is scheduled to run through December 2020. CMS has indicated that it is developing more bundled payment models, some of which may be mandatory. We expect value-based purchasing programs, including models that condition reimbursement on patient outcome measures, to become more common with both governmental and non-governmental payors.

Supply Contracts

We purchase 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, 2019, we had a 14.5% 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. The competition among hospitals and other healthcare providers for patients has intensified as patients have become more conscious of rising costs and quality of care in the healthcare decision-making process. Certain 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, payor networks that exclude our providers, 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. Our other hospitals, in selected urban service areas, may face competition from hospitals that are more established than our hospitals. Some of our competitors offer services, including extensive medical research and medical education programs, that 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. Cost-reduction strategies by large employer groups and their affiliates may increase this competition. 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. Recent consolidations of not-for-profit hospitals may intensify competitive pressures.

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

25

Table of Contents

attempt to attract our physicians’ patients to our hospitals by offering quality services and facilities, convenient locations and state-of-the-art equipment.

Trends towards transparency may have a potential impact on our competitive position in ways that we are unable to predict. 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. Currently, hospitals are required to publish online a list of their standard charges for items and services. Beginning in 2021, hospitals will be required to publish additional types of standard charges for all items and services, including discounted cash prices and payor-specific and de-identified negotiated charges, in a publicly accessible online file. Hospitals will also be required to publish a consumer-friendly list of charges for certain “shoppable” services (i.e., services that can be scheduled by a patient in advance) and any associated ancillary services.

Compliance Program

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

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

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

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

26

Table of Contents

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.

On September 25, 2018, we announced a global resolution and settlement agreements ending the U.S. Department of Justice investigation into certain conduct of HMA and its affiliated entities and settling certain qui tam lawsuits that were initiated and pending, and known to us, before our acquisition by merger of HMA in 2014. Under this settlement, we made payments totaling $266 million, including interest, in the fourth quarter of 2018. 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, 2018 and the press release filed therewith on September 25, 2018 for further discussion of this matter and the details of the settlement. Additionally, under the terms of the global settlement, our existing CIA has been amended and extended. The extension began immediately and effectively adds two years to the existing CIA, with the amended CIA now running through 2021.

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

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

27

Table of Contents

Employees and Medical Staff

At December 31, 2019, we had approximately 80,000 employees, including approximately 17,000 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, 2019, certain employees at eight of our hospitals are represented by various labor unions. It is likely that union organizing efforts will take place at additional hospitals in the future. We consider our employee relations to be good and have not experienced work stoppages that have materially, adversely affected our business or results of operations. Our hospitals, like most hospitals, have experienced rising labor costs. In some markets, nurse and medical support personnel availability has become a significant operating issue to healthcare providers. To address this challenge, we have implemented several initiatives to improve retention, recruiting, compensation programs and productivity.

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

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

Professional Liability Claims

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

28

Table of Contents

hospitals. Our policy coverage is $5 million per occurrence with a $100,000 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 Liquidity and 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 Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. As of December 31, 2019, we had approximately $11.5 billion aggregate principal amount of senior secured indebtedness outstanding and approximately $1.9 billion of senior unsecured indebtedness outstanding, and an additional approximately $442 million of borrowing capacity under the ABL Facility (after taking into account borrowing base limitations and approximately $145 million of outstanding letters of credit).

Our substantial leverage could have important consequences, including the following:

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

We and our subsidiaries have the ability to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future, subject to restrictions contained in the ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. The ABL Facility provides for commitments and borrowings of up to approximately $1.0 billion in the aggregate, of which

29

Table of Contents

$273 million was drawn on December 31, 2019. The aggregate amount we may draw under the ABL Facility may not exceed the “borrowing base” (as calculated thereunder) less outstanding letters of credit thereunder, which fluctuates from time to time. As of December 31, 2019, the borrowing base under the ABL Facility was $860 million and the outstanding letters of credit issued under the ABL Facility were $145 million. Aside from the ABL Facility, our ability to incur other additional secured debt (other than secured debt used to refinance existing secured debt) is highly limited by certain of the indentures governing our outstanding notes. If additional indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we currently face related to indebtedness as noted in this section could increase.

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, the borrower under the ABL Facility and issuer of our outstanding notes is a holding company with no direct operations. Its 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 could be subject to legal and contractual restrictions.

Our subsidiaries are permitted under the terms of our indebtedness to incur additional indebtedness that may restrict payments from those subsidiaries to us. The agreements governing the current and future indebtedness of our subsidiaries may not permit those subsidiaries to provide us with sufficient cash to fund payments on our indebtedness when due. Our non-guarantor subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities, and they have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay amounts due under the terms of our indebtedness or to make any funds available to pay those amounts, whether by dividend, distribution, loan or other payment. 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. 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 additional 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. We may find it necessary or prudent to refinance certain of our outstanding indebtedness, the terms of which may not be favorable to us.

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 the ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. For example, the ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes restrict our ability to dispose of certain 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.

30

Table of Contents

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

The ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes contain various covenants that limit our ability to take certain actions, including our ability to:

In addition, the ABL Facility contains restrictive covenants and may, in certain circumstances, require us to maintain a specified financial ratio and satisfy other financial condition tests. Our ability to meet these restrictive covenants and financial ratio and tests (if applicable) may be affected by events beyond our control, and we cannot assure you that we will meet those tests.

Moreover, our ability to incur additional secured debt (other than (i) secured debt to refinance existing secured debt and (ii) indebtedness incurred in the ABL Facility) is highly limited.

A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under the ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the ABL Facility or any of the indentures governing our outstanding notes, all amounts outstanding under the applicable indebtedness may become immediately due and payable and all commitments under the ABL Facility to extend further credit may be terminated. If we were unable to repay those amounts, the holders of such indebtedness could, subject to applicable intercreditor agreements, proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure that indebtedness.

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

Our borrowings under the ABL 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, 2019 was $1.0 billion. For the year ended December 31, 2019, a fluctuation in interest rates of 1% on our variable rate debt under the ABL Facility that is not hedged by interest rate swaps would have resulted in a fluctuation in our interest expense of approximately $3 million.

31

Table of Contents

In addition, certain of our variable rate indebtedness uses London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, as a benchmark for establishing the rate of interest and may be hedged with LIBOR-based interest rate derivatives. LIBOR is the subject of recent national, international and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. These reforms and other pressures may cause LIBOR to be replaced with a new benchmark or to perform differently than in the past. The consequences of these developments cannot be entirely predicted, but could include an increase in the cost of our variable rate indebtedness.

If we are unable to make payments on our indebtedness, we could be in default under the terms of the agreements governing our indebtedness.

If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow and are otherwise unable to obtain funds necessary to meet required payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness, or if we otherwise fail to comply with the various covenants, including financial and operating covenants, in the instruments governing our indebtedness, including covenants in the ABL Facility and the indentures governing our outstanding notes, we could be in default under the terms of the agreements governing such indebtedness. In the event of any default, the holders of such indebtedness could elect to declare all the funds borrowed to be immediately due and payable, together with accrued and unpaid interest; the lenders under the ABL Facility could elect to terminate their commitments thereunder, cease making further loans and direct the applicable collateral agents to institute foreclosure proceedings against our assets; and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. If our operating performance declines, we may in the future need to obtain waivers from the required lenders under the ABL Facility to avoid being in default. If we breach our covenants under the ABL Facility and seek a waiver, we may not be able to obtain a waiver from the required lenders. If this occurs, we would be in default under the ABL Facility, the lenders could exercise their rights, as described above, and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation.

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness that will mature and become due in the near future.

As further described in the Liquidity and 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 Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, we have a substantial amount of indebtedness scheduled to mature in the near future, a significant portion of which will mature in close proximity to each other. As a result, we may not have sufficient cash to repay all amounts owing under such indebtedness and there can be no assurance that we will have the ability to borrow or otherwise raise the amounts necessary to repay all such amounts. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness on favorable terms, or at all, is dependent on (among other things) conditions in the credit and capital markets which are beyond our control.

If we are unable to continue to complete divestitures as previously disclosed, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

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 connection with our divestiture initiative, we have received offers from strategic buyers to buy certain of our assets. After considering these offers, we have divested, and expect to continue to divest, hospitals and non-hospital businesses when we find such offers to be attractive and in line with our operating strategy. However, there is no assurance that contemplated divestitures will be completed or, if they are completed, the aggregate amount of proceeds we will receive, that contemplated divestitures will be completed within our contemplated timeframe, or that contemplated divestitures 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 planned or completed divestitures that reduce our profitability.

32

Table of Contents

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. Divestitures 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.

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 Healthcare, Inc., or HCA, Universal Health Services, Inc., or UHS, 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 financial performance issues. In the past, we have experienced delays in improving the operating margins or effectively integrating the operations of certain acquired hospitals, including some hospitals acquired in connection with the HMA merger. 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 associated with ongoing legal proceedings or 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.

33

Table of Contents

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 will 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. 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 delay or even prevent our ability to acquire hospitals once we return to our acquisition strategy.

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

The healthcare industry is highly competitive among hospitals and other healthcare providers, such as urgent care centers and other outpatient providers and other industry participants, for patients, affiliations with physicians and acquisitions. Changes in licensure or other regulations and industry consolidation could negatively impact our competitive position. For example, in states with CON or similar prior approval requirements, removal of these requirements could remove barriers to entry and increase competition in our service areas. Our hospitals, our competitors, and other healthcare industry participants are increasingly implementing physician alignment strategies, such as acquiring physician practice groups, employing physicians and participating in ACOs or other clinical integration models. Increasing consolidation within the payor industry, vertical integration efforts involving payors and healthcare providers, and cost-reduction strategies by payors, large employer groups and their affiliates may impact our ability to contract with payors on favorable terms and otherwise affect our competitive position.

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 from providers of general acute care services comes from hospitals outside of our primary service areas, typically hospitals in urban areas that provide more complex services. Patients in our primary service areas may travel to other hospitals because of physician referrals, payor networks that exclude our providers or the 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.

At December 31, 2019, 35 of our hospitals competed with more than one other non-affiliated 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

34

Table of Contents

competitors are better able to attract patients with these offerings, we may experience an overall decline in patient volume.

Trends toward 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. Further, every hospital must establish and update annually a public, online listing of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services. Beginning in 2021, hospitals will be required to publish additional types of standard charges for all items and services, including discounted cash prices and payor-specific charges, along with a consumer-friendly list of charges for certain “shoppable” services. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results (or results that are lower than our competitors) on the quality measures or on patient satisfaction surveys, or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, we may attract fewer patients. It is unclear how price transparency requirements and similar initiatives will affect consumer behavior, our relationships with payors, or our ability to set and negotiate practices.

We expect these competitive trends to continue. If we are unable to compete effectively with other hospitals and other healthcare providers, patients 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 2021, with automatic renewal terms of one year unless either party terminates by giving notice of non-renewal. GPOs attempt to obtain favorable pricing on medical supplies with manufacturers and vendors, sometimes by negotiating exclusive supply arrangements in exchange for discounts. To the extent these exclusive supply arrangements are challenged or deemed unenforceable, we could incur higher costs for our medical supplies obtained through HealthTrust. Further, costs of supplies and drugs may continue to increase due to market pressure from pharmaceutical companies and new product releases. Higher costs could continue to adversely impact our operating results. Also, there can be no assurance that our arrangement with HealthTrust will provide the discounts we expect to achieve.

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

At December 31, 2019, we had approximately $4.3 billion of goodwill. We expect to recover the carrying value of this goodwill through our future cash flows. On an ongoing basis, under U.S. GAAP, we evaluate, based on the fair value of our reporting unit, whether the carrying value of our goodwill is impaired when events or changes in circumstances indicate that such carrying value may not be recoverable. U.S. GAAP requires us to test goodwill for impairment at least annually.

During 2017, we early adopted Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2017-04, which allows a company to record a goodwill impairment when the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value determined in step one.

Our most recent goodwill evaluations were performed during the fourth quarter of 2019, with an October 31, 2019 measurement date and during the fourth quarter of 2018, with an October 31, 2018 measurement date, each of which indicated no impairment. However, during the three months ended December 31, 2017, in connection with the preparation of the consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, we identified certain indicators of impairment and performed an interim goodwill impairment evaluation as of November 30, 2017. Those indicators were primarily a further decline in our market capitalization and fair value of our long-term debt during November 2017. We performed an estimated calculation of fair value in step one of the impairment test at November 30, 2017, which indicated that the carrying value of our hospital operations reporting unit exceeded its fair value. As a result of this evaluation

35

Table of Contents

and the early adoption of ASU 2017-04, we recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $1.419 billion to goodwill during the three months ended December 31, 2017. In addition, we also recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $1.395 billion during the year ended December 31, 2016.

While no impairment was indicated in our most recent annual goodwill evaluations as of the October 31, 2019 and October 31, 2018 measurement dates, the reduction in our fair value and the resulting goodwill impairment charges recorded during 2016 and 2017 reduced the carrying value of our hospital operations reporting unit to an amount equal to our estimated fair values as of such prior year measurement dates. This increases the risk that future declines in fair value could result in goodwill impairment. The determination of fair value in step one of our goodwill impairment analysis is based on an estimate of fair value for the hospital operations reporting unit utilizing known and estimated inputs at the evaluation date. Some of those inputs include, but are not limited to, the most recent price of our common stock or fair value of our long-term debt, estimates of future revenue and expense growth, estimated market multiples, expected capital expenditures, income tax rates, and costs of invested capital. Future estimates of fair value could be adversely affected if the actual outcome of one or more of these assumptions changes materially in the future, including further decline in our stock price or fair value of our long-term debt, lower than expected hospital volumes, higher market interest rates or increased operating costs. Such changes impacting the calculation of our fair value could result in a material impairment charge in the future.

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. Additionally, as we continue to rationalize our portfolio of hospitals, we evaluate whether a hospital or a group of hospitals is impaired based on an analysis of the selling price from a definitive agreement compared to the carrying value of the net assets being sold. If the carrying value of our long-lived assets is impaired, we may incur a material non-cash charge to earnings.

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

In recent years, the U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures have introduced, considered or passed a large number of proposals and legislation designed to make major changes in the healthcare system, including changes intended to increase access to health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act is the most prominent of these reform efforts. The law expanded health insurance coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance reforms, mandated that substantially all U.S. citizens maintain health insurance coverage, reduced Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, and promotes value-based purchasing. Court challenges and efforts by the presidential administration and certain members of Congress to repeal or make significant changes to the Affordable Care Act, its implementation and/or its interpretation have cast considerable uncertainty on the future of the law. For example, a presidential executive order directs agencies to minimize “economic and regulatory burdens” of the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, in June 2018, the Department of Labor issued a final rule expanding availability of association health plans, which are not required to adhere to specific Affordable Care Act coverage mandates. Additionally, effective January 2019, the financial penalty for individuals that fail to maintain insurance coverage associated with the individual mandate was eliminated as part of the tax reform legislation that was enacted in December 2017. In December 2018, as a result of this change, a federal judge in Texas found the individual mandate unconstitutional and determined the rest of the Affordable Care Act was

36

Table of Contents

therefore invalid. In December 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision with respect to the individual mandate, but remanded for further consideration of how this affects the rest of the law. The law remains in place pending the appeals process. The elimination of the individual mandate and other changes may impact the number of individuals that elect to obtain public or private health insurance or the scope of such coverage, if purchased.

There is uncertainty regarding whether, when, and how the Affordable Care Act will be further changed, the ultimate outcome of court challenges and how the Affordable Care Act will be interpreted and implemented. Court challenges and changes by Congress or government agencies could eliminate or alter provisions beneficial to us while leaving in place provisions reducing our reimbursement. The repeal or invalidation of or changes to the Affordable Care Act may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and/or liquidity.

There is also uncertainty regarding whether other health reform measures will be adopted, what alternative provisions, if any, will be enacted, the timing and implementation of alternative provisions, and the impact of alternative provisions on providers as well as other healthcare industry participants. For example, CMS administrators have indicated that they intend to grant states additional flexibility in the administration of state Medicaid programs, including expanding the scope of waivers under which states may impose different eligibility or enrollment restrictions or otherwise implementing programs that vary from federal standards. CMS administrators have also signaled interest in changing Medicaid payment models, including allowing states to obtain funding through a block grant program and adopting value-based care models. Other health reform initiatives and proposals, including those aimed at price transparency and out-of-network charges, may impact prices, our competitive position and the relationships between hospitals and insurers. Further, the outcome of the 2020 federal election and its potential impact on health reform efforts is unknown. Some presidential candidates and members of Congress have proposed measures that would expand government-sponsored coverage, including single-payor proposals, and some states are considering similar measures. Other industry participants, such as private payors and large employer groups and their affiliates, may also introduce financial or delivery system reforms. We are unable to predict the nature and success of such initiatives, but they may have an adverse impact on our business.

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 or reduced, our net operating revenues may decline.

In 2019, 38.4% of our net operating revenues, came from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. However, as federal healthcare expenditures continue to increase and state governments continue to face budgetary shortfalls, federal and state governments have made, and continue to make, significant changes in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including reductions in reimbursement levels. For example, on November 18, 2019, CMS proposed the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation, 84 Fed. Reg. 63, 772. If this proposed rule is adopted in its current form, this could have a significant impact on the amounts some of our hospitals receive in Medicaid funding. In addition, CMS may implement changes through new or modified demonstration projects authorized pursuant to Medicaid waivers. In January 2020, CMS announced a demonstration project allowing for a block grant funding model. 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 and emergency room 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 and vertical integration of health insurers with

37

Table of Contents

healthcare providers. In addition, price transparency initiatives may impact our ability to obtain or maintain favorable contract terms. For example, beginning in 2021, hospitals will be required by federal regulation to publish online payor-specific negotiated charges and de-identified minimum and maximum charges.

In 2019, 60.6% of our net operating revenues 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 and reimbursement policies or comply with the terms of our payor contracts, the payments we receive for our services may be reduced. Also, we are increasingly involved in disputes with payors and experience payment denials, both prospectively and retroactively. In addition, individuals have been increasingly enrolling in high-deductible health plans, which tend to have lower reimbursement rates for providers along with higher co-pays and deductibles due from the patient in comparison to traditional health plans. These higher co-pays and deductibles due from patients are subject to increased collection cost and risk. In addition, these high-deductible health plans, sometimes referred to as consumer-directed plans, may even exclude our hospitals and employed physicians from coverage.

The demand for services provided by our hospitals and affiliated providers 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 other 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 and affiliated providers. 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 and other industry participants.

In recent years, a number of health insurers have merged or increased efforts to consolidate with other non-governmental payors. Insurers are also increasingly pursuing alignment initiatives with healthcare providers. Consolidation within the health insurance industry may result in insurers having increased negotiating leverage and competitive advantages, such as greater access to performance and pricing data. 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, including those engaging in consolidation activities, find these models to be financially beneficial. We cannot predict whether we will be able to negotiate favorable terms with payors and otherwise respond effectively to the impact of increased consolidation in the payor industry or vertical integration efforts.

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; privacy and security; debt collection; and communications with patients and consumers. 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.

38

Table of Contents

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. 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.

We could be subject to substantial uninsured liabilities or increased insurance costs as a result of significant legal actions.

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 cannot predict the outcome of current or future legal actions against us or the effect that judgments or settlements in such matters may have on us or on our insurance costs. Additionally, all professional and general liability insurance we purchase is subject to policy limitations. If the aggregate limit of any of our professional and general liability policies is exhausted, in whole or in part, it could deplete or reduce the limits available to pay any other material claims applicable to that policy period. Furthermore, one or more of our insurance carriers could become insolvent and unable to fulfill its or their obligations to defend, pay or reimburse us when those obligations become due. In that case, or if payments of claims exceed our estimates or are not covered by our insurance, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

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

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. 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. On September 25, 2018, the CIA was amended and extended in connection with the settlement of certain qui tam lawsuits related to certain conduct of HMA and its affiliated entities that were initiated and pending, and known to us, before HMA was acquired by merger in January 2014. See our discussion of these matters 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 Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2018 for further discussion of the background of these matters and details of the settlements.

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

39

Table of Contents

$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.

Efforts to repeal or revise the Affordable Care Act have cast considerable uncertainty on the future of the law and its effects on the size of the uninsured population. For example, Congress eliminated, effective January 1, 2019, the financial penalty associated with the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that individuals enroll in an insurance plan. In December 2018, as a result of this change, a federal judge in Texas found the individual mandate unconstitutional and determined that the rest of the Affordable Care Act was therefore invalid. In December 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision with respect to the individual mandate, but remanded for further consideration of how this affects the rest of the law. Pending the appeals process, the law remains in place. In addition, the Medicaid program continues to evolve, both as a result of the Affordable Care At and subsequent legislation and agency initiatives. Changes include the number and identity of states that choose to expand or otherwise modify Medicaid programs and the terms of expansion and other program modifications. Some of these program changes, such as requirements that Medicaid recipients meet certain work requirements, have reduced and may continue to reduce the number of program participants in certain states. These variables, among others, make it difficult to predict the number of uninsured individuals and what percentage of our total revenue will be comprised of self-pay revenues.

We may be adversely affected by the growth in patient responsibility accounts as a result of increases in the adoption of plan structures, including health savings accounts, narrow networks and tiered networks, that shift greater responsibility for care to individuals through greater exclusions and copayment and deductible amounts. Further, our ability to collect patient responsibility accounts may be limited by statutory, regulatory and investigatory initiatives, including private lawsuits directed at hospital charges and collection practices for uninsured and underinsured patients and regulatory restrictions on charges for out-of-network services. 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.

Many of the non-urban communities in which we operate continue to face challenging economic conditions, including higher levels of unemployment than other regions of the United States. 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 similar facilities. These employers often provide income and health insurance for a disproportionately large number of community residents who may depend on our hospitals for

40

Table of Contents

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 satisfy HHS standards, our consolidated results of operations could be adversely affected, and we may be adversely affected by changing and more burdensome interoperability requirements.

Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and other laws, eligible hospitals 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. Eligible healthcare professionals are also subject to positive or negative payment adjustments based, in part, on their use of EHR technology. Thus, if our hospitals and employed professionals are unable to properly adopt, maintain, and utilize certified EHR systems, we could be subject to penalties and lawsuits that may have an adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

The federal government is also promoting the efficient exchange of health care information to improve health care. The 21^st Century Cures Act prohibits information blocking by health care providers and certain other entities, which is defined as engaging in activities that are likely to interfere with, prevent or materially discourage access, exchange or use of electronic health information, subject to limited exceptions. Initiatives related to health care technology and interoperability may require changes to our operations, impose new and complex obligations on us, affect our relationships with providers, vendors and other third parties and require investments in infrastructure. We may be subject to penalties for failure to comply.

Our operations could be significantly impacted by interruptions or restrictions in access to our information systems.

Our operations depend heavily on effective information systems to process clinical, operational and financial information. Information systems require an ongoing commitment of significant resources to maintain and

41

Table of Contents

enhance existing systems and to develop new systems in order to keep pace with continual changes in information technology. We also sometimes rely on third-party providers of financial, clinical, patient accounting and network information services and, as a result, we face operational challenges in maintaining multiple provider platforms and facilitating the interface of such systems with one another. We rely on these third-party providers to have appropriate controls to protect confidential information. We do not control the information systems of third-party providers, and in some cases we may have difficulty accessing information archived on third-party systems.

Our networks and information systems are also subject to disruption due to events such as a major earthquake, fire, telecommunications failure, ransomware or terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events. If the information systems on which we rely fail or are interrupted or if our access to these systems is limited in the future, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under license or technology agreements with third parties, we may be required to pay damages and we could lose license rights that are critical to our business.

We license certain intellectual property, including technologies and software from third parties, that is important to our business, and in the future we may enter into additional agreements that provide us with licenses to valuable intellectual property or technology. If we fail to comply with any of the obligations under our license agreements, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Termination by the licensor would cause us to lose valuable rights, and could prevent us from selling our solutions and services, or adversely impact our ability to commercialize future solutions and services. Our business would suffer if any current or future licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed intellectual property are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Any of the foregoing could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

A cyber-attack or security breach could result in the compromise of our facilities, confidential data or critical data systems and give rise to potential harm to patients, 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 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, equipment and medical devices 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 government investigations by various State Attorneys General and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, 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. In the definitive agreements we enter into in connection with the divestiture of hospitals, we routinely agree to provide transition services to the buyer, including access to our legacy information systems, for a defined transition period. By providing access to our information systems to non-employees, we are exposed to cyber-attacks or security breaches that originate outside of our processes and

42

Table of Contents

practices designed to prevent such threats from occurring. In addition, we may be at increased risk because we outsource certain services or functions to, or have systems that interface with, third parties. Some of these third parties may store or have access to our data and may not have effective controls, processes, or practices to protect our information from attack, damage, or unauthorized access. A breach or attack affecting any of these third parties could harm our business.

Cyber-attacks or security breaches could impact the integrity, availability or privacy of protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws or disrupt our information technology systems, devices or business, including our ability to provide various healthcare services. For example, medical devices that connect to hospital networks or the internet may be vulnerable to cybersecurity incidents, which may impact patient safety. 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. As a result, cybersecurity and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, process and practices designed to protect our information systems from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. 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, but we still might not be able to anticipate or prevent certain attack methods. If we are subject to cyber-attacks or security breaches in the future, this could result in harm to patients; business interruptions and delays; the loss, misappropriation, corruption or unauthorized access of data; litigation and potential liability under privacy, security, breach notification and consumer protection laws or other applicable laws; reputational damage and federal and state governmental inquiries, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

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

If a pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease including the recent outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019, or other public health crisis were to affect our markets, our business could be adversely affected. Any such 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. In particular, while it is uncertain the extent to which the coronavirus may impact our business, given that a portion of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies used at our facilities are sourced from China, in the event that the coronavirus outbreak, or any actions taken by the Chinese government or other governmental authorities in connection therewith, were to disrupt the supply of these pharmaceuticals and/or medical supplies, then our business could be adversely affected. In addition, although we have disaster plans in place and operate pursuant to infectious disease protocols, the potential impact of a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease with respect to our markets or our facilities is difficult to predict and could adversely impact our business.

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

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. Although we employ some physicians, physicians are often not employees at our healthcare facilities at which they practice. 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. In

43

Table of Contents

addition, we may face increased challenges in this area as the physician population reaches retirement age, especially if there is a shortage of physicians willing and able to provide comparable services. Moreover, 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 healthcare facilities 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 healthcare facilities, 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 could also 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.

There is a trend toward value-based purchasing of healthcare services 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 hospital acquired conditions, or 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.

HHS has 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. An ACO is a care coordination model intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. In bundled

44

Table of Contents

payment models, providers receive one payment for services provided to patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care, accepting accountability for costs and quality of care. Providers may receive supplemental Medicare payments or owe repayments to CMS depending on whether spending exceeds or falls below a specified spending target and whether certain quality standards are met. Currently, participation in Medicare bundled payment programs is voluntary, except for hospitals located in certain geographic areas with respect to specified orthopedic procedures. CMS has indicated that it is developing more voluntary and mandated bundled payment models.

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. It is unclear whether these and other alternative payment models will successfully coordinate care and reduce costs or whether they will decrease aggregate reimbursement. While we believe we are adapting our business strategies to compete in a value-based reimbursement environment, we are unable at this time to predict how this trend will affect our results of operations. If we perform at a level below the outcomes demonstrated by our competitors, are unable to meet or exceed the quality performance standards under any applicable value-based purchasing program, or otherwise fail to effectively provide or coordinate the efficient delivery of quality healthcare services, our reputation in the industry may be negatively impacted, we may receive reduced reimbursement amounts and we may owe repayments to payors, causing our revenues to decline.

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, Indiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi. 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. The Texas Healthcare Transformation and Quality Improvement Program, or the Texas Waiver Program, which provides funding for uncompensated care and delivery system reform initiatives, is operated under a waiver granted pursuant to Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. In December 2017, CMS approved an extension of this waiver through September 30, 2022. In accordance with this extension, Texas has submitted a plan to CMS for approval that outlines the state’s transition away from funding for its Delivery System Reform Incentive payment program, which currently provides support to hospitals and other providers to reform healthcare delivery systems. We cannot guarantee that revenues recognized from the program will not decrease or predict whether the Texas Waiver Program will be further extended or changed.

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,

45

Table of Contents

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, 2019, the following table shows its location, the date of its acquisition or lease inception and the number of licensed beds:

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 the ABL 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, 2019. Information on licensed beds was provided by the majority owner and manager of each joint venture. A subsidiary of HCA 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) an inquiry regarding sleep labs at two Louisiana hospitals (one formerly owned), (b) a subpoena related to certain services provided by a formerly-employed physician to Medicaid beneficiaries at one of our New Mexico hospitals, (c) an inquiry regarding certain services performed by one of our affiliated emergency services companies in Pennsylvania, (d) a civil investigative demand related to call coverage services provided by a cardiology group at one of our Tennessee hospitals; and (e) a civil investigative demand related to charges for certain emergency department services at our four New Mexico 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 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

49

Table of Contents

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 Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Shareholder Litigation

2011 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 was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. We filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24, 2018. We also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018. The District Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on July 26, 2019. We filed a petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s class certification order in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 9, 2019, and that petition was denied on October 23, 2019. On January 21, 2020, the Company and the Plaintiff filed a stipulation of settlement indicating to the District Court that the parties had reached agreement on the principal terms of a settlement for $53 million. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to the District Court’s final approval. We recorded a liability of $53 million at December 31, 2019, based on the proposed settlement agreement.

Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron. This purported federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 30, 2019. It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January 21, 2020. The deadline for the Company’s response to the consolidated class complaint is March 20, 2020. We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

Padilla Derivative Litigation. Four purported shareholder derivative cases have been filed in two District Courts relating to the factual allegations in the Padilla litigation; namely, Faisal Hussain v. Wayne T. Smith, et al, filed August 12, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Roger Trombley v.

50

Table of Contents

Wayne T. Smith, et al, filed August 20, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; Susheel Tanjavoor v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed August 29, 2019, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. John A. Clerico, et al, filed October 30, 2019, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. All four seek relief derivatively and on behalf of Community Health Systems, Inc. against certain Company officers and directors based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other acts related to certain Company disclosures in 2017 and 2018 regarding the Company’s adoption of Accounting Standards Update 2014-09, which the Company adopted effective January 1, 2018. All four cases have been stayed by agreement.

Section 220 Demand. On September 19, 2019, the Company received a demand from Kevin Aronson, a Company shareholder, purporting to demand inspection of certain Company books and records pursuant to Title 8, Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law Code. The alleged grounds for Mr. Aronson’s demand are similar to the allegations in both the Padilla and Padilla derivative litigation. The Company has provided a response to Mr. Aronson’s demand.

Other Government Investigations

Florida LIP Program CIDs – On September 14, 2017, our hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida received a CID from the United States Department of Justice for information concerning its historic participation in the Florida Low Income Pool Program. The Low Income Pool Program, or LIP, is a funding pool to support healthcare providers that provide uncompensated care to Florida residents who are uninsured or underinsured. The CID sought documentation related to agreements between the hospital and Pinellas County. On June 13, 2019, an additional ten of our affiliated hospitals in Florida received CIDs related to the same subject matter, along with two CIDs addressed to our affiliated management company and the parent company. 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 are awaiting its decision. 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. On October 15, 2019, the Administrative Review Board released an order to show cause requiring Becker to file a brief to show cause why the Administrative Review Board should not remand the previous administrative decision for a new hearing before a new law judge. The appeal before the Administrative Review Board is still pending. We continue to vigorously defend these actions.

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

51

Table of Contents

this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign “Advanced Persistent Threat” group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass our security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or clinical information. We worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and 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 have offered identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack.

All class actions and litigation filed related to the data breach have been resolved. We are still responding to two government investigations related to the 2014 cyber-attack. The first is being conducted by various State Attorneys General, and the second is being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. We are cooperating fully with both investigations.

Empire Health Foundation v. CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., CHS Washington Holdings, LLC, Spokane Washington Hospital Company, LLC, Spokane Valley Washington Hospital Company, LLC. This suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 12, 2017 by Empire Health Foundation claiming Deaconess and Valley Hospitals failed to abide by charity care obligations allegedly existing in the 2008 Asset Purchase Agreement between Empire Health System and Company affiliates. The court granted in part and denied in part the hospitals’ motion to dismiss on October 11, 2017. All parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions on February 27, 2019 and July 9, 2019. We settled this matter during the three months ended September 30, 2019 for $22 million (and recorded a liability equal to the settlement amount as of September 30, 2019) and the settlement was paid during the three months ended December 31, 2019.

Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30^th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on August 3, 2016, claiming our formerly affiliated Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The court has certified a class and denied our motion for summary judgment. We appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decisions on March 7, 2019. We filed an application for writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May 29, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion for approval of notice of class action was granted on October 24, 2019. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3^rd Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on September 7, 2016, claiming our affiliated Ruston, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. Our motion for summary judgment is pending, as is plaintiff’s motion for class certification. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta. This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities laws. The District

52

Table of Contents

Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss on April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018. We moved to dismiss the additional claims in the plaintiffs’ September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the court granted our motion to dismiss the additional claims. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on that same date. On April 12, 2019, we filed a petition for permission to appeal the court’s order granting class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was denied on July 31, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court denied on August 2, 2019. The trial for this matter is set for July 7, 2020. We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

R2 Investments v Quorum Health Corporation; Community Health Systems, Inc.; Wayne T. Smith; W. Larry Cash; Thomas D. Miller; Michael J. Culotta; John A. Clerico; James S. Ely, III; John A. Fry; William Norris Jennings; Julia B. North; H. Mitchell Watson, Jr.; H. James Williams. This case was pending in the Circuit Court for Williamson County, Tennessee and was served on October 26, 2017. The plaintiff alleged common law fraud and violation of Tennessee securities fraud statutes in connection with its purchase of QHC stock and QHC senior secured notes. The court granted in part and denied in part the director defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss on May 11, 2018. The Company settled and paid this matter during the three months ended December 31, 2019.

Steadfast Insurance Company, et al v. Community Health Systems, Inc., CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPSC, LLC and Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC. This case is filed in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware and involve suits by four excess liability insurers seeking a declaration that a $73 million judgment rendered against Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC in Anne Sperling, et al v. Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC is not a covered loss as defined by the policies at issue. The Steadfast complaint was served on November 30, 2018. On December 13, 2018, Admiral Insurance Company, Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd, and Illinois Union Insurance Company moved to intervene in the suit as petitioners. The Company has initiated counterclaims against each insurer, including for bad faith against Steadfast. The judgment against Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC, which is the subject of this litigation and which was rendered on September 5, 2018, in First Judicial Court of the State of New Mexico, is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico. Trial of this matter is set for December 7, 2020. We believe the claims in the Steadfast litigation are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation, and Principal Global Investors, LLC. This purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other marketplace alternatives. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 18, 2019, which is pending. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

Qui Tam Matters Where the Government Declined Intervention

U.S. and the State of Mississippi ex rel. W. Blake Vanderlan, M.D. v. Jackson HMA, LLC d/b/a Central Mississippi Medical Center and Merit Health Central. By order filed on August 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ordered the unsealing of this qui tam suit. The unsealing revealed that on August 31, 2017 the United States had declined to intervene in the allegations that certain alleged EMTALA violations at the hospital resulted in a violation of the False Claims Act. Both the hospital and the United States have filed motions to dismiss the litigation, and those motions are pending. We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

53

Table of Contents

U.S. ex rel. Derek Lewis and Joey Neiman v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Medhost, Inc., et al. By order filed on March 14, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered the unsealing of this qui tam suit. The order revealed that the United States had declined to intervene in the action. The complaint alleges that Community Health Systems, Inc. and its affiliated hospitals (CHS Hospitals) violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims for EHR Meaningful Use incentive payments that they knew or should have known were false. The allegations regarding falsity generally relate to the CHS Hospitals’ use of certain software products sold to them by co-defendant, Medhost, Inc. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on July 26, 2019. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 24, 2019, which is pending. We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

U.S. ex rel. Maur v. Elie Hage-Korban, M.D., Delta Clinics, PLC d/b/a The Heart and Vascular Center of West Tennessee. Community Health Systems, Inc., Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC d/b/a/ Tennova Healthcare, Jackson Hospital Corporation d/b/a/ Regional Jackson, and Dyersburg Hospital Company, LLC, d/b/ Dyersburg Regional Medical Center. By order filed on April 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ordered the unsealing of this qui tam lawsuit. The order revealed that the United States had declined to intervene in the action. The complaint alleges the defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims for payment related to certain cardiac procedures performed by defendant Dr. Elie Hage-Korban at two hospitals formerly affiliated with the Company. Dr. Hage-Korban was not employed by either hospital or their affiliates. The plaintiff amended his complaint on July 24, 2019. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 30, 2019, which is pending. We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

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 and Sarbanes-Oxley independence requirements, the Audit and Compliance Committee is comprised entirely of individuals who are independent of our management, and all four 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 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 and which was amended and extended in September 2018.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

54

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 18, 2020, there were approximately 197 holders of record of our common stock.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph sets forth the cumulative return of our common stock during the five year period ended December 31, 2019, 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

We are a holding company which operates through our subsidiaries. The ABL 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.

The ABL Facility and the indentures governing each series of our outstanding notes restrict our subsidiaries from, among other matters, paying dividends and making distributions to us, which thereby limits our ability to

55

Table of Contents

pay dividends and/or repurchase stock. As of December 31, 2019, under the most restrictive test in these agreements (and subject to certain exceptions), we have approximately $200 million of capacity to pay permitted dividends and/or repurchase shares of stock or make other restricted payments.

The following table contains information about our purchases of common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2019.

56

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

57

Table of Contents

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

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

Executive Overview

We are one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. We provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. 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. As of December 31, 2019, we owned or leased 102 hospitals, comprised of 100 general acute care hospitals and two stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. For the hospitals that we own and operate, we are paid for our services by governmental agencies, private insurers and directly by the patients we serve.

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 connection with our announced divestiture initiative, we have received offers from strategic buyers to buy certain of our assets. After considering these offers, we have divested and expect to continue to divest, hospitals and non-hospital businesses when we find such offers to be attractive and in line with our operating strategy.

Completed Divestiture and Acquisition Activity

During 2019, we completed the divestiture of 12 hospitals, including two hospitals the divestitures of which closed effective January 1, 2019 (for these hospitals, we received the net proceeds at a preliminary closing on December 31, 2018). These 12 hospitals represented annual net operating revenues in 2018 of approximately $1.1 billion and, excluding the net proceeds for the two hospitals that preliminarily closed on December 31, 2018, we received total net proceeds of approximately $335 million in connection with the disposition of these hospitals. In addition, we completed the divestiture of three hospitals on January 1, 2020 (discussed below) for which we received net proceeds of approximately $240 million at a preliminary closing on December 31, 2019.

During 2018, we completed the divestiture of 11 hospitals. These 11 hospitals represented annual net operating revenues in 2017 of approximately $950 million and, including the net proceeds for the two additional hospitals that preliminarily closed on December 31, 2018 noted above, we received total net proceeds of approximately $405 million in connection with the disposition of these hospitals.

During 2017, we completed the divestiture of 30 hospitals included in continuing operations. These 30 hospitals represented annual net operating revenues in 2016 of approximately $3.4 billion, and we received total net proceeds of approximately $1.7 billion in connection with the disposition of these hospitals.

The following table provides a summary of hospitals included in continuing operations that we divested during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017: