HCA Healthcare, Inc. - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-K

 

 

(Mark One)

☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

Or

 

☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 1-11239

 

 

HCA Healthcare, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

Delaware		27-3865930
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
One Park Plaza Nashville, Tennessee (Address of Principal Executive Offices)		37203 (Zip Code)

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

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of Each Class		Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value		New York Stock Exchange

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

 

 

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or 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.

 

Large accelerated filer		☒		Accelerated filer		☐
Non-accelerated filer		☐  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company		☐
Emerging growth company		☐

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  ☒

As of January 31, 2018, there were 349,903,700 outstanding shares of the Registrant’s common stock. As of June 30, 2017, the aggregate market value of the common stock held by nonaffiliates was approximately $25.351 billion. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, Hercules Holding II and the Registrant’s directors and executive officers have been deemed to be affiliates.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy materials for its 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

 

 

 

INDEX

 

				Page Reference
Part I
Item 1.		Business			3
Item 1A.		Risk Factors			31
Item 1B.		Unresolved Staff Comments			45
Item 2.		Properties			46
Item 3.		Legal Proceedings			46
Item 4.		Mine Safety Disclosures			47
Part II
Item 5.		Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			48
Item 6.		Selected Financial Data			50
Item 7.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			52
Item 7A.		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			75
Item 8.		Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			75
Item 9.		Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			75
Item 9A.		Controls and Procedures			75
Item 9B.		Other Information			77
Part III
Item 10.		Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			77
Item 11.		Executive Compensation			77
Item 12.		Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			77
Item 13.		Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			78
Item 14.		Principal Accountant Fees and Services			78
Part IV
Item 15.		Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules			79
Item 16.		Form 10-K Summary			91
		Signatures			92

 

2

PART I

 

Item 1.

Business

General

HCA Healthcare, Inc. is one of the leading health care services companies in the United States. At December 31, 2017, we operated 179 hospitals, comprised of 175 general, acute care hospitals; three psychiatric hospitals; and one rehabilitation hospital. In addition, we operated 120 freestanding surgery centers. Our facilities are located in 20 states and England.

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

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

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol “HCA”). Through our predecessors, we commenced operations in 1968. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in October 2010. Our principal executive offices are located at One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, and our telephone number is (615) 344-9551.

Available Information

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

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

 

3

Business Strategy

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

 

•

grow our presence in existing markets;

 

•

achieve industry-leading performance in clinical and satisfaction measures;

 

•

recruit and employ physicians to meet the need for high quality health services;

 

•

continue to leverage our scale and market positions to enhance profitability; and

 

•

pursue a disciplined development strategy.

Health Care Facilities

We currently own, manage or operate hospitals, freestanding surgery centers, freestanding emergency care facilities, urgent care facilities, walk-in clinics, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology therapy centers, comprehensive rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, physician practices and various other facilities.

At December 31, 2017, we owned and operated 175 general, acute care hospitals with 46,226 licensed beds. Most of our general, acute care hospitals provide medical and surgical services, including inpatient care, intensive care, cardiac care, diagnostic services and emergency services. The general, acute care hospitals also provide outpatient services such as outpatient surgery, laboratory, radiology, respiratory therapy, cardiology and physical therapy. Each hospital has an organized medical staff and a local board of trustees or governing board, made up of members of the local community.

At December 31, 2017, we operated three psychiatric hospitals with 412 licensed beds. Our psychiatric hospitals provide therapeutic programs including child, adolescent and adult psychiatric care, adolescent and adult alcohol and drug abuse treatment and counseling.

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

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

Sources of Revenue

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

 

4

We receive payments for patient services from the federal government under the Medicare program, state governments under their respective Medicaid or similar programs, managed care plans (including plans offered through the American Health Benefit Exchanges (“Exchanges”)), private insurers and directly from patients. Our revenues from third-party payers and other (including uninsured patients) for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 are summarized in the following table (dollars in millions):

 

		Years Ended December 31,
		2017				Ratio				2016				Ratio				2015				Ratio
Medicare		$	9,483				21.7	%		$	8,895				21.4	%		$	8,654				21.8	%
Managed Medicare			4,788				11.0				4,355				10.5				4,133				10.4
Medicaid			1,631				3.7				1,597				3.8				1,705				4.3
Managed Medicaid			2,349				5.4				2,478				6.0				2,234				5.6
Managed care and other insurers			24,813				56.9				23,441				56.5				21,882				55.2
International (managed care and other insurers)			1,097				2.5				1,195				2.9				1,295				3.3
Other			3,492				8.0				2,786				6.7				3,688				9.3
Revenues before provision for doubtful accounts			47,653				109.2				44,747				107.8				43,591				109.9
Provision for doubtful accounts			(4,039	)			(9.2	)			(3,257	)			(7.8	)			(3,913	)			(9.9	)
Revenues		$	43,614				100.0	%		$	41,490				100.0	%		$	39,678				100.0	%

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

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

Medicare

In addition to the reimbursement reductions and adjustments discussed below, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “BCA”) requires automatic spending reductions to reduce the federal deficit, including Medicare spending reductions of up to 2% per fiscal year, with a uniform percentage reduction across all Medicare programs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) began imposing a 2% reduction on Medicare claims on April 1, 2013. These reductions have been extended through 2027.

 

5

Inpatient Acute Care

Under the Medicare program, we receive reimbursement under a prospective payment system (“PPS”) for general, acute care hospital inpatient services. Under the hospital inpatient PPS, fixed payment amounts per inpatient discharge are established based on the patient’s assigned Medicare severity diagnosis-related group (“MS-DRG”). MS-DRGs classify treatments for illnesses according to the estimated intensity of hospital resources necessary to furnish care for each principal diagnosis. MS-DRG weights represent the average resources for a given MS-DRG relative to the average resources for all MS-DRGs. MS-DRG payments are adjusted for area wage differentials. Hospitals, other than those defined as “new,” receive PPS reimbursement for inpatient capital costs based on MS-DRG weights multiplied by a geographically adjusted federal rate. When the cost to treat certain patients falls well outside the normal distribution, providers typically receive additional “outlier” payments. These payments are financed by offsetting reductions in the inpatient PPS rates. A high-cost outlier threshold is set annually at a level that will result in estimated outlier payments equaling 5.1% of total inpatient PPS payments for the fiscal year.

MS-DRG rates are updated, and MS-DRG weights are recalibrated, using cost-relative weights each federal fiscal year (which begins October 1). The index used to update the MS-DRG rates (the “market basket”) gives consideration to the inflation experienced by hospitals and entities outside the health care industry in purchasing goods and services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Health Reform Law”), provides for annual decreases to the market basket, including reductions of 0.75 percentage point for federal fiscal years 2018 and 2019. For each federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity. A decrease in payment rates or an increase in rates that is below the increase in our costs may adversely affect our results of operations.

For federal fiscal year 2017, CMS increased the MS-DRG rate by 0.95%. This increase reflected a 2.7% market basket increase adjusted by the following percentage points: 0.75 reduction required by the Health Reform Law, a negative 0.3 productivity adjustment, and a prospective reduction of 1.5 for documentation and coding that was required under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It also reflects a positive adjustment to the market basket update of approximately 0.8 percentage point to remove the effects of prior adjustments intended to offset the estimated increase in inpatient PPS expenditures resulting from the Medicare program’s “two midnight rule.” Under the two midnight rule, services provided to Medicare beneficiaries are only payable as inpatient hospital services when there is a reasonable expectation that the hospital care is medically necessary and will be required across two midnights, absent unusual circumstances. For federal fiscal year 2018, CMS increased the MS-DRG rate by approximately 1.2%. This increase reflects a market basket update of 2.7%, adjusted by the following percentage points: 0.75 reduction required by the Health Reform Law, a negative 0.6 productivity adjustment, a further reduction of 0.6 to remove the effects of prior adjustments related to the two midnight rule, and a positive 0.46 adjustment in accordance with the 21st Century Cures Act. Additional adjustments may apply, depending on patient-specific or hospital-specific factors. Under the post-acute care transfer policy, for example, Medicare reimbursement rates are reduced when an inpatient hospital discharges a patient in a specified MS-DRG to certain post-acute care settings. Under the budget bill enacted in February 2018, hospice will be added as a setting covered by the policy effective October 1, 2018.

CMS has implemented, or is implementing, a number of programs and requirements intended to transform Medicare from a passive payer to an active purchaser of quality goods and services. For example, hospitals that do not successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program are subject to an additional 0.25% reduction of the market basket update. Hospitals that do not demonstrate meaningful use of electronic health records (“EHRs”) are subject to an additional 0.75% reduction of the market basket update.

Medicare does not allow an inpatient hospital discharge to be assigned to a higher paying MS-DRG if certain designated hospital acquired conditions (“HACs”) were not present on admission and the identified HAC is the only condition resulting in the assignment of the higher paying MS-DRG. In this situation, the case is paid

 

6

as though the secondary diagnosis was not present. There are currently 14 categories of conditions on the list of HACs. Pursuant to the Health Reform Law, the 25% of hospitals with the worst risk-adjusted HAC rates in the designated performance period receive a 1% reduction in their inpatient PPS Medicare payments. CMS has also established three National Coverage Determinations that prohibit Medicare reimbursement for erroneous surgical procedures performed on an inpatient or outpatient basis.

The Health Reform Law also provides for reduced payments to hospitals based on readmission rates. Each federal fiscal year inpatient payments are reduced if a hospital experiences “excess” readmissions within the 30-day time period from the date of discharge for conditions designated by CMS. For federal fiscal year 2018, CMS has designated seven conditions, including heart attack, pneumonia and total hip arthroplasty. Hospitals with what CMS defines as excess readmissions for these conditions receive reduced payments for all inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excess readmission standard. The amount by which payments are reduced is determined by comparing the hospital’s performance for each condition using three years of discharge data to a risk-adjusted national average, subject to a cap established by CMS. The reduction in payments to hospitals with excess readmissions can be up to 3% of a hospital’s base payments. Each hospital’s performance is publicly reported by CMS.

The Health Reform Law additionally establishes a hospital value-based purchasing program to further link payments to quality and efficiency. For federal fiscal year 2017 and subsequent years, CMS reduces the inpatient PPS payment amount for all discharges by 2.00%. The total amount collected from these reductions is pooled and used to fund payments to reward hospitals that meet certain quality performance standards established by CMS. CMS scores each hospital based on achievement (relative to other hospitals) and improvement ranges (relative to the hospital’s own past performance) for each applicable performance standard. Because the Health Reform Law provides that the pool will be fully distributed, hospitals that meet or exceed the quality performance standards receive greater reimbursement under the value-based purchasing program than they would have otherwise. Hospitals that do not achieve the necessary quality performance receive reduced Medicare inpatient hospital payments. Hospitals are scored on a number of individual measures that are categorized into four domains: clinical care; efficiency and cost reduction; safety and patient and caregiver experience of care. CMS estimates that $1.9 billion will be available to hospitals as incentive payments in federal fiscal year 2018 under the value-based purchasing program.

Outpatient

CMS reimburses hospital outpatient services (and certain Medicare Part B services furnished to hospital inpatients who have no Part A coverage) on a PPS basis. CMS uses fee schedules to pay for physical, occupational and speech therapies, durable medical equipment, clinical diagnostic laboratory services, nonimplantable orthotics and prosthetics, freestanding surgery center services and services provided by independent diagnostic testing facilities. In addition, as required by statute, certain items and services furnished by off-campus provider-based departments, subject to certain exceptions, are not covered as outpatient department services under the outpatient PPS, but are reimbursed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“Physician Fee Schedule”), subject to adjustments as specified by CMS.

Hospital outpatient services paid under PPS are classified into groups called ambulatory payment classifications (“APCs”). Services for each APC are similar clinically and in terms of the resources they require. A payment rate is established for each APC. Depending on the services provided, a hospital may be paid for more than one APC for a patient visit. The APC payment rates are updated for each calendar year. The Health Reform Law provides for annual reductions of 0.75 percentage point to the market basket update in calendar years 2018 and 2019. For each calendar year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment based on the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity. For calendar year 2017, CMS increased APC payment rates by an estimated 1.7%. The change reflected a market basket increase of 2.7% with a negative 0.3 percentage point productivity adjustment and the negative 0.75 percentage point adjustment required by the Health Reform Law, along with other payment adjustments. For calendar year 2018, CMS increased APC payment rates by an

 

7

estimated 1.4%. This increase reflects a market basket increase of 2.7% adjusted by the following percentage points: a positive 0.6 productivity adjustment and negative 0.75 adjustment required by the Health Reform Law, along with other policy changes. CMS requires hospitals to submit quality data relating to outpatient care to avoid receiving a 2.0 percentage point reduction to the market basket update under the outpatient PPS.

Rehabilitation

CMS reimburses inpatient rehabilitation facilities (“IRFs”) on a PPS basis. Under the IRF PPS, patients are classified into case mix groups based upon impairment, age, comorbidities (additional diseases or disorders from which the patient suffers) and functional capability. IRFs are paid a predetermined amount per discharge that reflects the patient’s case mix group and is adjusted for area wage levels, low-income patients, rural areas and high-cost outliers. The Health Reform Law provides for reductions to the market basket update, including annual reductions of 0.75 percentage point in federal fiscal years 2018 and 2019. For each federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment based on the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity. For federal fiscal year 2017, CMS increased inpatient rehabilitation payment rates by approximately 1.9%, which reflects an increase of 2.7% to the IRF-specific market basket with a negative 0.3 percentage point productivity adjustment and the 0.75 percentage point reduction required by the Health Reform Law, among other payment adjustments. For federal fiscal year 2018, CMS increased inpatient rehabilitation payment rates by an estimated 0.9%. This reflects an increase factor of 1.0%, the figure required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (“MACRA”), with adjustments related to outlier threshold results. In addition, CMS requires IRFs to report quality measures to avoid receiving a reduction of 2 percentage points to the market basket update.

In order to qualify for classification as an IRF, at least 60% of a facility’s inpatients during the most recent 12-month CMS-defined review period must have required intensive rehabilitation services for one or more of 13 specified conditions. IRFs must also meet additional coverage criteria, including patient selection and care requirements relating to pre-admission screenings, post-admission evaluations, ongoing coordination of care and involvement of rehabilitation physicians. A facility that fails to meet the 60% threshold, or other criteria to be classified as an IRF, will be paid under either the acute care hospital inpatient or outpatient PPS, which generally provide for lower payment amounts. As of December 31, 2017, we had one rehabilitation hospital and 58 hospital rehabilitation units.

Psychiatric

Inpatient hospital services furnished in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units of general, acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals are reimbursed on a PPS basis. The inpatient psychiatric facility (“IPF”) PPS is based upon a per diem payment, with adjustments to account for certain patient and facility characteristics. The IPF PPS contains an “outlier” policy for extraordinarily costly cases and an adjustment to a facility’s base payment if it maintains a full-service emergency department. CMS has established the IPF PPS payment rate in a manner intended to be budget neutral. The Health Reform Law provides for reductions to the market basket update, including reductions of 0.75 percentage point in federal fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020. For each payment year, the Health Reform Law provides for the annual market basket update to be further reduced by a productivity adjustment based on the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity. For federal fiscal year 2017, CMS increased inpatient psychiatric payment rates by approximately 2.2%, which reflects a 2.8% IPF market basket update, reduced by a 0.3 percentage point productivity adjustment and by 0.2 percentage point as required by the Health Reform Law, among other payment adjustments. For federal fiscal year 2018, CMS increased inpatient psychiatric payment rates by an estimated 1.0%, which reflects a 2.6% IPF market basket update with a negative 0.6 percentage point productivity adjustment, a negative 0.75 percentage point adjustment as required by the Health Reform Law, and other policy changes. Inpatient psychiatric facilities are required to report quality measures to CMS to avoid receiving a 2.0 percentage point reduction to the market basket update. As of December 31, 2017, we had three psychiatric hospitals and 55 hospital psychiatric units.

 

8

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

CMS reimburses ASCs using a predetermined fee schedule. Reimbursements for ASC overhead costs are limited to no more than the overhead costs paid to hospital outpatient departments under the Medicare hospital outpatient PPS for the same procedure. If CMS determines that a procedure is commonly performed in a physician’s office, the ASC reimbursement for that procedure is limited to the reimbursement allowable under the Physician Fee Schedule, with limited exceptions. All surgical procedures, other than those that pose a significant safety risk or generally require an overnight stay, are payable as ASC procedures. From time to time, CMS considers expanding the services that may be performed in ASCs, which may result in more Medicare procedures that historically have been performed in hospitals being moved to ASCs, reducing surgical volume in our hospitals. Also, more Medicare procedures that historically have been performed in ASCs may be moved to physicians’ offices. Commercial third-party payers may adopt similar policies. For each federal fiscal year, the Health Reform Law provides for an annual reduction to the ASC payment system by a productivity adjustment based on the BLS 10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity. For calendar year 2017, CMS increased ASC payments by 1.9%, which reflects a consumer price index update of 2.2% and a negative 0.3 percentage point productivity adjustment. For calendar year 2018, CMS increased ASC payment rates by 1.2%, which reflects a consumer price index update of 1.7%, less a 0.5 percentage point productivity adjustment. In addition, CMS has established a quality reporting program for ASCs under which ASCs that fail to report on specified quality measures receive a 2.0 percentage point reduction to the consumer price index update.

Physician Services

Physician services are reimbursed under the Physician Fee Schedule system, under which CMS has assigned a national relative value unit (“RVU”) to most medical procedures and services that reflects the various resources required by a physician to provide the services, relative to all other services. Each RVU is calculated based on a combination of work required in terms of time and intensity of effort for the service, practice expense (overhead) attributable to the service and malpractice insurance expense attributable to the service. These three elements are each modified by a geographic adjustment factor to account for local practice costs and are then aggregated. While RVUs for various services may change in a given year, any alterations are required by statute to be virtually budget neutral, such that total payments made under the Physician Fee Schedule may not differ by more than $20 million from what payments would have been if adjustments were not made. CMS annually reviews resource inputs for select services as part of the potentially misvalued code initiative. Congress set targets through 2018 for annual reductions in Physician Fee Schedule expenditures resulting from adjustments to relative values of misvalued codes. Under MACRA, the Physician Fee Schedule reimbursement rate increases 0.5% for calendar year 2018.

In addition, MACRA required the establishment of the Quality Payment Program (“QPP”), a payment methodology intended to reward high-quality patient care. Beginning in 2017, physicians and certain other health care clinicians are required to participate in of one of two QPP tracks. Under both tracks, performance data collected in 2017 will affect Medicare payments in 2019, and performance data collected in 2018 will affect Medicare payments in 2020. CMS expects to transition increasing financial risk to providers as the QPP evolves. The Advanced Alternative Payment Model (“APM”) track makes incentive payments available for participation in specific innovative payment models approved by CMS. Providers may earn a 5% Medicare incentive payment between 2019 and 2024 and will be exempt from the reporting requirements and payment adjustments imposed under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (“MIPS”) if the provider has sufficient participation (based on percentage of payments or patients) in an Advanced APM. Alternatively, providers may participate in the MIPS track. Providers electing this option may receive payment incentives or be subject to payment reductions of up to 5% of the provider’s Medicare payments based on their performance with respect to clinical quality, resource use, clinical improvement activities, and meaningful use of EHRs. The adjustment percentage will increase incrementally to 9% by 2022. MIPS consolidates components of three previously established physician incentive programs: the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier, and the Medicare EHR Incentive Program.

 

9

Other

Under PPS, the payment rates are adjusted for area differences in wage levels by a factor (“wage index”) reflecting the relative wage level in the geographic area compared to the national average wage level and taking into account occupational mix. The redistributive impact of wage index changes is not anticipated to have a material financial impact for 2018.

Medicare reimburses hospitals for a portion (65%) of bad debts resulting from deductible and coinsurance amounts that are uncollectable from Medicare beneficiaries.

CMS has implemented contractor reform whereby CMS competitively bids the Medicare fiscal intermediary and Medicare carrier functions to Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”), which are geographically assigned across 12 jurisdictions to service both Part A and Part B providers. While chain providers had the option of having all hospitals use one home office MAC, we chose to use the MACs assigned to the geographic areas in which our hospitals are located. 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.

CMS contracts with third parties to promote the integrity of the Medicare program through reviews of quality concerns and detections and corrections of improper payments. Quality Improvement Organizations (“QIOs”), for example, are groups of physicians and other health care 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 (“RAC”) program, CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program. The compensation for the RACs is based on their review of claims submitted to Medicare for billing compliance, including correct coding and medical necessity, and the amount of overpayments and underpayments they identify. 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. CMS has implemented the RAC program on a permanent, nationwide basis and expanded the RAC program to the Managed Medicare program and Medicare Part D.

We have established policies and procedures to respond to the RAC requests and payment denials. Payment recoveries resulting from RAC reviews and denials are appealable through administrative and judicial processes, and we pursue reversal of adverse determinations at appropriate appeal levels. We incur additional costs related to responding to RAC requests and denials, including costs associated with responding to requests for records and pursuing the reversal of payment denials and losses associated with overpayments that are not reversed upon appeal. Currently, there are significant delays in the assignment of new Medicare appeals to Administrative Law Judges. Depending upon changes to and 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.

Managed Medicare

Under the Managed Medicare program (also known as Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage), the federal government contracts with private health insurers to provide members with Medicare Part A, Part B and Part D benefits. Managed Medicare plans can be structured as HMOs, PPOs or private fee-for-service plans. In addition to covering Part A and Part B benefits, the health insurers may choose to offer supplemental benefits and impose higher premiums and plan costs on beneficiaries. CMS makes fee payment adjustments based on service benchmarks and quality ratings and publishes star ratings to assist beneficiaries with plan selection. Enrollment in managed Medicare plans is increasing, with more than one-third of all Medicare enrollees projected to be in such a plan in 2018.

 

10

Medicaid

Medicaid programs are funded jointly by the federal government and the states and are administered by states under approved plans. Most state Medicaid program payments are made under a PPS or are based on negotiated payment levels with individual hospitals. Medicaid reimbursement is often less than a hospital’s cost of services. The Health Reform Law, as enacted, requires states to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals under age 65 with incomes effectively at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. However, states may opt out of the expansion without losing existing federal Medicaid funding. A number of states, including Texas and Florida, have opted out of the Medicaid expansion. Some states use, or have applied to use, waivers granted by CMS to implement expansion, impose different eligibility or enrollment restrictions, or otherwise implement programs that vary from federal standards. The presidential administration and a number of members of Congress have indicated their intent to increase state flexibility in the administration of Medicaid programs, including allowing states to condition enrollment on work or other community engagement.

Because most states must operate with balanced budgets and because the Medicaid program is often the state’s largest program, states can be expected to adopt or consider adopting legislation designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures. Budgetary pressures have, in recent years, resulted and likely will continue to result in decreased spending, or decreased spending growth, for Medicaid programs in many states. Certain states in which we operate have adopted broad-based provider taxes to fund the non-federal share of Medicaid programs. Many states have also adopted, or are considering, legislation designed to reduce coverage, enroll Medicaid recipients in managed care programs and/or impose additional taxes on hospitals to help finance or expand the states’ Medicaid systems. However, the Health Reform Law requires states to at least maintain Medicaid eligibility standards for children established prior to the enactment of the law until October 1, 2019.

Federal funds under the Medicaid program may not be used to reimburse providers for medical assistance provided to treat certain provider-preventable conditions. Each state Medicaid program must deny payments to providers for the treatment of health care-acquired conditions designated by CMS as well as other provider-preventable conditions that may be designated by the state.

Congress has expanded the federal government’s involvement in fighting fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid program through the Medicaid Integrity Program. CMS employs private contractors, referred to as Medicaid Integrity Contractors (“MICs”), to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. In addition to MICs, several other contractors and state Medicaid agencies have increased their review activities. The Health Reform Law increased federal funding for the Medicaid Integrity Program and expanded the RAC program’s scope to include Medicaid claims. Most states have implemented RAC programs, which vary by state in design and operation.

Managed Medicaid

Enrollment in managed Medicaid plans has increased in recent years, as state governments seek to control the cost of Medicaid programs. Managed Medicaid programs enable states to contract with one or more entities for patient enrollment, care management and claims adjudication. The states usually do not relinquish program responsibilities for financing, eligibility criteria and core benefit plan design. We generally contract directly with one or more of the designated entities, usually a managed care organization. The provisions of these programs are state-specific. Many states direct managed care plans to pass through supplemental payments to designated providers, independent of services rendered, to ensure consistent funding of providers that serve large numbers of low-income patients. However, in an effort to more closely tie funds to delivery and outcomes, CMS began limiting these “pass-through payments” to managed Medicaid plans in 2016 and will ultimately prohibit such payments by 2027.

Accountable Care Organizations and Bundled Payment Initiatives

An Accountable Care Organization (“ACO”) is a network of providers and suppliers that work together to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to attempt to achieve high quality and efficient delivery

 

11

of services. Promoting accountability and coordination of care, ACOs are intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. ACOs that achieve quality performance standards established by HHS are eligible to share in a portion of the amounts saved by the Medicare program. There are several types of ACO programs, including the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”), which was established pursuant to the Health Reform Law, and the Next Generation ACO Model.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) 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 health care that create savings under the Medicare and Medicaid programs while improving quality of care. For example, providers participating in bundled payment initiatives agree to receive one payment for services provided to Medicare patients for certain medical conditions or episodes of care, accepting accountability for costs and quality of care. By rewarding providers for increasing quality and reducing costs and penalizing providers if costs exceed a set amount, these models are intended to lead to higher quality, more coordinated care at a lower cost to the Medicare program. Hospitals may receive supplemental Medicare payments or owe repayments to CMS depending on whether overall CMS spending per episode exceeds or falls below a target specified by CMS and whether quality standards are met. The CMMI has implemented a voluntary bundled payment program known as the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (“BPCI”) initiative. Participation in bundled payment programs is generally voluntary, but CMS requires hospitals in selected geographic areas to participate in bundling programs for specified orthopedic procedures.

HHS continues to focus on shifting from traditional fee-for-service reimbursement models to alternative payment models that tie reimbursement to quality and/or value, including bundled payment programs. Several private third-party payers have expressed their intent to increasingly rely on such reimbursement models, which may increasingly shift financial risk to providers.

Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments

In addition to making payments for services provided directly to beneficiaries, Medicare makes additional payments to hospitals that treat a disproportionately large number of low-income patients (Medicaid and Medicare patients eligible to receive Supplemental Security Income). Disproportionate Share Hospital (“DSH”) payments are determined annually based on certain statistical information required by HHS and are paid as a percentage addition to MS-DRG payments.

The Health Reform Law reduced Medicare DSH payments to 25% of the amount they otherwise would have been absent the law. The remaining 75% of the amount that would otherwise be paid under Medicare DSH is effectively pooled, and this pool is adjusted each year by a formula that reflects changes in the national level of uninsured who are under 65 years of age. Thus, the greater the level of coverage for the previously uninsured nationally, the more the Medicare DSH payment pool will be reduced. Each DSH hospital is paid, out of the DSH payment pool, an amount allocated based upon its estimated cost of providing uncompensated care.

Hospitals that provide care to a disproportionately high number of low-income patients may receive Medicaid DSH payments. The federal government distributes federal Medicaid DSH funds to each state based on a statutory formula. The states then distribute the DSH funding among qualifying hospitals. States have broad discretion to define which hospitals qualify for Medicaid DSH payments and the amount of such payments. The Health Reform Law and subsequent legislation provide for reductions to the Medicaid DSH hospital program. However, Congress has delayed the implementation of these reductions until 2020. Under the budget bill signed into law in February 2018, Medicaid DSH payments will be reduced by $4 billion in 2020 and by $8 billion per year from 2021 through 2025.

TRICARE

TRICARE is the Department of Defense’s health care program for members of the armed forces. For inpatient services, TRICARE reimburses hospitals based on a DRG system modeled on the Medicare inpatient

 

12

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

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

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

Managed Care and Other Discounted Plans

Most of our hospitals offer discounts from established charges to certain large group purchasers of health care services, including managed care plans and private health insurers. Admissions reimbursed by commercial managed care and other insurers were 28%, 29% and 30% of our total admissions for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Managed care contracts are typically negotiated for terms between one and three years. While we generally received contracted annual average increases of 4% to 5% from managed care payers during 2017, there can be no assurance that we will continue to receive increases in the future. Further, it is not clear what impact, if any, health reform efforts at the federal and state levels, consolidation within the third-party payer industry and vertical integration among third party payers and health care providers will have on our ability to negotiate reimbursement rates.

Uninsured and Self-Pay Patients

Self-pay revenues are derived from providing health care services to patients without health insurance coverage and from the patient responsibility portion of payments for our health care services that are not covered by an individual’s health plan. Collection of amounts due from individuals is typically more difficult than collection of amounts due from government health care programs or private third-party payers. Any increases in uninsured individuals, changes to the payer mix or greater adoption of health plan structures that result in higher patient responsibility amounts could increase amounts due from individuals.

A high percentage of our uninsured patients are initially admitted through our emergency rooms. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 85% of our admissions of uninsured patients occurred through our emergency rooms. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”) requires any hospital that participates in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every person who presents to the hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the individual is suffering from an emergency medical condition, to either stabilize that condition or make an appropriate transfer of the individual to a facility that can handle the condition. The obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of an individual’s ability to pay for treatment. In addition, health insurers are required to reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to enrollees without prior authorization and without regard to whether a participating provider contract is in place. The financial impact of the obligation to screen for and stabilize emergency medical conditions has been offset, in part, by provisions of the Health Reform Law that decrease the number of uninsured individuals. However, in 2017, Congress eliminated the financial penalty associated with the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. It is difficult to predict the impact of this change, but it may result in fewer individuals electing to purchase health insurance.

 

13

Hospital Utilization

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

The following table sets forth certain operating statistics for our health care facilities. Health care facility operations are subject to certain seasonal fluctuations, including decreases in patient utilization during holiday periods and increases in the cold weather months.

 

		Years Ended December 31,
		2017				2016				2015				2014				2013
Number of hospitals at end of period			179				170				168				166				165
Number of freestanding outpatient surgery centers at end of period			120				118				116				113				115
Number of licensed beds at end of period(a)			46,738				44,290				43,771				43,356				42,896
Weighted average licensed beds(b)			45,380				44,077				43,620				43,132				42,133
Admissions(c)			1,936,613				1,891,831				1,868,789				1,795,312				1,744,126
Equivalent admissions(d)			3,286,432				3,191,519				3,122,746				2,958,674				2,844,670
Average length of stay (days)(e)			4.9				4.9				4.9				4.8				4.8
Average daily census(f)			26,000				25,340				25,084				23,835				22,853
Occupancy rate(g)			57	%			58	%			58	%			55	%			54	%
Emergency room visits(h)			8,624,137				8,378,340				8,050,159				7,450,748				6,968,115
Outpatient surgeries(i)			935,307				932,213				909,386				891,633				881,883
Inpatient surgeries(j)			546,228				537,306				529,900				518,881				508,793

 

(a)	Licensed beds are those beds for which a facility has been granted approval to operate from the applicable state licensing agency.

(b)	Represents the average number of licensed beds, weighted based on periods owned.

(c)	Represents the total number of patients admitted to our hospitals and is used by management and certain investors as a general measure of inpatient volume.

(d)

Equivalent admissions are used by management and certain investors as a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume. Equivalent admissions are computed by multiplying admissions (inpatient volume) by the sum of gross inpatient revenue and gross outpatient revenue and then dividing the resulting amount by gross inpatient revenue. The equivalent admissions computation “equates” outpatient revenue to the volume measure (admissions) used to measure inpatient volume, resulting in a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume.

(e)	Represents the average number of days admitted patients stay in our hospitals.

(f)	Represents the average number of patients in our hospital beds each day.

(g)	Represents the percentage of hospital licensed beds occupied by patients. Both average daily census and occupancy rate provide measures of the utilization of inpatient rooms.

(h)	Represents the number of patients treated in our emergency rooms.

(i)	Represents the number of surgeries performed on patients who were not admitted to our hospitals. Pain management and endoscopy procedures are not included in outpatient surgeries.

(j)	Represents the number of surgeries performed on patients who have been admitted to our hospitals. Pain management and endoscopy procedures are not included in inpatient surgeries.

 

14

Competition

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

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

Our strategies are designed to ensure our hospitals are competitive. We believe our hospitals compete within local communities on the basis of many factors, including the quality of care, ability to attract and retain quality physicians, skilled clinical personnel and other health care professionals, location, breadth of services, technology offered, quality and condition of the facilities and prices charged. Hospitals must make public a list of their standard charges for items and services or their policies for providing a list of such charges in response to an inquiry. We have increased our focus on operating outpatient services with improved accessibility and more convenient service for patients and increased predictability and efficiency for physicians.

Two of the most significant factors to the competitive position of a hospital are the number and quality of physicians affiliated with or employed by the hospital. Although physicians may at any time terminate their relationship with a hospital we operate, our hospitals seek to retain physicians with varied specialties on the hospitals’ medical staffs and to attract other qualified physicians. We believe physicians refer patients to a hospital on the basis of the quality and scope of services it renders to patients and physicians, the quality of physicians on the medical staff, the location of the hospital and the quality of the hospital’s facilities, equipment and employees. Accordingly, we strive to maintain and provide quality facilities, equipment, employees and services for physicians and patients. Our hospitals face competition from competitors that are implementing physician alignment strategies, such as employing physicians, acquiring physician practice groups and participating in ACOs or other clinical integration models.

Another major factor in the competitive position of our hospitals is our ability to negotiate service contracts with group purchasers of health care services. Managed care plans attempt to direct and control the use of hospital services and obtain discounts from hospitals’ established gross charges. Similarly, employers and traditional health insurers continue to attempt to contain costs through negotiations with hospitals for managed care programs and discounts from established gross charges. Generally, hospitals compete for service contracts with group purchasers of health care services on the basis of price, market reputation, geographic location, quality and range of services, quality of the medical staff and convenience. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our contracts with third-party payers and enter into new contracts on favorable terms. Other health care providers may impact our ability to enter into contracts with third-party payers or negotiate increases in our reimbursement and other favorable terms and conditions. For example, some of our competitors may negotiate exclusivity provisions with managed care plans or otherwise restrict the ability of managed care companies to contract with us. Increasing vertical integration efforts involving third-party payers and health care providers may increase these challenges. Moreover, the trend toward consolidation among private third-party payers tends to increase payer bargaining power over fee structures. In addition, health reform

 

15

efforts, such as the Health Reform Law’s creation of the Exchanges and limitations on rescissions of coverage and pre-existing condition exclusions, may lead to private third-party payers increasingly demanding reduced fees or being unwilling to negotiate reimbursement increases. Most of the health plans offered through the Exchanges provide for narrow networks that restrict the number of participating providers or tiered networks that impose significantly higher cost sharing obligations on patients that obtain services from providers in a disfavored tier. These trends may continue regardless of potential repeal or replacement of, or changes to, the Health Reform Law. The importance of obtaining contracts with group purchasers of health care services varies from community to community, depending on the market strength of such organizations.

State certificate of need (“CON”) laws, which place limitations on a health care facility’s ability to expand services and facilities, make capital expenditures and otherwise make changes in operations, may also have the effect of restricting competition. We currently operate health care facilities in a number of states with CON laws or that require other types of approvals for the establishment or expansion of certain facility types or services. Before issuing a CON or other approval, these states consider the need for additional or expanded health care facilities or services. In those states that do not require state approval or that set relatively high levels of expenditures before they become reviewable by state authorities, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. See Item 1, “Business — Regulation and Other Factors.”

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

Admissions, average lengths of stay and reimbursement amounts continue to be negatively affected by third-party payer pre-admission authorization requirements, utilization review and pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Increased competition, admission constraints and third-party payer pressures are expected to continue. To meet these challenges, we intend to expand and update our facilities or acquire or construct new facilities where appropriate, to enhance the provision of a comprehensive array of outpatient services, offer market competitive pricing to group purchasers of health care services, upgrade facilities and equipment and offer new or expanded programs and services.

Regulation and Other Factors

Licensure, Certification and Accreditation

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

 

16

Certificates of Need

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

State Rate Review

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

Federal Health Care Program Regulations

Participation in any federal health care program, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, is heavily regulated by statute and regulation. If a hospital fails to substantially comply with the numerous conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs or performs certain prohibited acts, the hospital’s participation in the federal health care programs may be terminated, or civil and/or criminal penalties may be imposed. Civil monetary penalties are adjusted annually based on updates to the consumer price index and were recently increased under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

Anti-kickback Statute

A section of the Social Security Act known as the “Anti-kickback Statute” prohibits providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration with the intent of generating referrals or orders for services or items covered by a federal health care program. Courts have interpreted this statute broadly and held that there is a violation of the Anti-kickback Statute if just one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals, even if there are other lawful purposes. Furthermore, the Health Reform Law provides that knowledge of the law or the intent to violate the law is not required. Violations of the Anti-kickback Statute may be punished by criminal fines of up to $100,000 per violation, imprisonment, substantial civil monetary penalties per violation that are subject to annual adjustment based on updates to the consumer price index and damages of up to three times the total amount of the remuneration and/or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, submission of a claim for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute may be subject to additional penalties under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) as a false or fraudulent claim.

The OIG, among other regulatory agencies, is responsible for identifying and eliminating fraud, abuse and waste. The OIG carries out this mission through a nationwide program of audits, investigations and inspections. The OIG provides guidance to the industry through various methods including advisory opinions and “Special Fraud Alerts.” These Special Fraud Alerts do not have the force of law, but identify features of arrangements or transactions that the government believes may cause the arrangements or transactions to violate the Anti-kickback Statute or other federal health care laws. The OIG has identified several incentive arrangements that constitute suspect practices, including: (a) payment of any incentive by a hospital each time a physician refers a patient to the hospital, (b) the use of free or significantly discounted office space or equipment in facilities usually located close to the hospital, (c) provision of free or significantly discounted billing, nursing or other staff

 

17

services, (d) free training for a physician’s office staff in areas such as management techniques and laboratory techniques, (e) guarantees which provide, if the physician’s income fails to reach a predetermined level, the hospital will pay any portion of the remainder, (f) low-interest or interest-free loans, or loans which may be forgiven if a physician refers patients to the hospital, (g) payment of the costs of a physician’s travel and expenses for conferences, (h) coverage on the hospital’s group health insurance plans at an inappropriately low cost to the physician, (i) payment for services (which may include consultations at the hospital) which require few, if any, substantive duties by the physician, (j) purchasing goods or services from physicians at prices in excess of their fair market value, (k) rental of space in physician offices, at other than fair market value terms, by persons or entities to which physicians refer, and (l) physician-owned entities (frequently referred to as physician-owned distributorships or PODs) that derive revenue from selling, or arranging for the sale of, implantable medical devices ordered by their physician-owners for use on procedures that physician-owners perform on their own patients at hospitals or ASCs. The OIG has encouraged persons having information about hospitals who offer the above types of incentives to physicians to report such information to the OIG.

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

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

As authorized by Congress, the OIG has published safe harbor regulations that outline categories of activities deemed protected from prosecution under the Anti-kickback Statute. Currently, there are statutory exceptions and safe harbors for various activities, including the following: certain investment interests, space rental, equipment rental, practitioner recruitment, personnel services and management contracts, sale of practice, referral services, warranties, discounts, employees, group purchasing organizations, waiver of beneficiary coinsurance and deductible amounts, managed care arrangements, obstetrical malpractice insurance subsidies, investments in group practices, freestanding surgery centers, ambulance replenishing, and referral agreements for specialty services.

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

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

Although we believe our arrangements with physicians and other referral sources and referral recipients have been structured to comply with current law and available interpretations, there can be no assurance

 

18

regulatory authorities enforcing these laws will determine these financial arrangements comply with the Anti-kickback Statute or other applicable laws. An adverse determination could subject us to liabilities under the Social Security Act and other laws, including criminal penalties, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs.

Stark Law

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” The Stark Law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to entities with which they or any of their immediate family members have a financial relationship, if these entities provide certain “designated health services” reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid unless an exception applies. The Stark Law also prohibits entities that provide designated health services reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid from billing the Medicare and Medicaid programs for any items or services that result from a prohibited referral and requires the entities to refund amounts received for items or services provided pursuant to the prohibited referral on a timely basis. “Designated health services” include inpatient and outpatient hospital services, clinical laboratory services and radiology services. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, substantial civil monetary penalties per claim submitted and exclusion from the federal health care programs. Failure to refund amounts received as a result of a prohibited referral on a timely basis may constitute a false or fraudulent claim and may result in civil penalties and additional penalties under the FCA. The statute also provides for a penalty for a circumvention scheme. These penalties are updated annually based on changes to the consumer price index.

There are exceptions to the self-referral prohibition for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases and recruitment agreements. Unlike safe harbors under the Anti-kickback Statute with which compliance is voluntary, a financial relationship must comply with every requirement of a Stark Law exception or the arrangement is in violation of the Stark Law. Although there is an exception for a physician’s ownership interest in an entire hospital, the Health Reform Law prohibits physician-owned hospitals established after December 31, 2010 from billing for Medicare or Medicaid patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid. While the Health Reform Law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

Through a series of rulemakings, CMS has issued final regulations implementing the Stark Law. While these regulations were intended to clarify the requirements of the exceptions to the Stark Law, it is unclear how the government will interpret many of these exceptions for enforcement purposes. Further, we do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of the Stark Law and its implementing regulations. We attempt to structure our relationships to meet an exception to the Stark Law, but the regulations implementing the exceptions are detailed and complex, and we cannot assure that every relationship complies fully with the Stark Law.

Similar State Laws

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

Other Fraud and Abuse Provisions

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for health care fraud offenses that apply to all health

 

19

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

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

The Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Laws

We are subject to state and federal laws that govern the submission of claims for reimbursement and prohibit the making of false claims or statements. One of the most prominent of these laws is the FCA, which may be enforced by the federal government directly or by a qui tam plaintiff, or whistleblower, on the government’s behalf. The government may use the FCA to prosecute Medicare and other government program fraud in areas such as coding errors, billing for services not provided and submitting false cost reports. In addition, the FCA covers payments made in connection with the Exchanges created under the Health Reform Law, if those payments include any federal funds. When a private party brings a qui tam action under the FCA, the defendant is not made aware of the lawsuit until the government commences its own investigation or makes a determination whether it will intervene. If a defendant is determined by a court of law to be liable under the FCA, the defendant may be required to pay three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus substantial mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim. These penalties are updated annually based on changes to the consumer price index.

There are many potential bases for liability under the FCA. Liability often arises when an entity knowingly submits a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The FCA defines the term “knowingly” broadly. Though simple negligence will not give rise to liability under the FCA, submitting a claim with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity constitutes a “knowing” submission under the FCA and, therefore, may create liability. Submission of claims for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. Whistleblowers and the federal government have taken the position, and some courts have held, that providers who allegedly have violated other statutes, such as the Stark Law, have thereby submitted false claims under the FCA. False claims under the FCA also include the knowing

 

20

and improper failure to report and refund amounts owed to the government in a timely manner following identification of 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.

Every entity that receives at least $5 million annually in Medicaid payments must have written policies for all employees, contractors or agents, providing detailed information about false claims, false statements and whistleblower protections under certain federal laws, including the FCA, and similar state laws. In addition, federal law provides an incentive to states to enact false claims laws comparable to the FCA. A number of states in which we operate have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions under which a private party may file a civil lawsuit in state court. We have adopted and distributed policies pertaining to the FCA and relevant state laws.

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy and Security Requirements

The Administrative Simplification Provisions of HIPAA and implementing regulations require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards and code sets for certain health care claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. In addition, HIPAA requires that each provider use a National Provider Identifier. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the health care industry. HHS is in the process of adopting standards for additional electronic transactions and establishing operating rules to promote uniformity in the implementation of each standardized electronic transaction.

The privacy and security regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA extensively regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, known as “protected health information,” and require covered entities, including health plans and most health care providers, to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the security of such information. Certain provisions of the security and privacy regulations apply to business associates (entities that handle protected health information on behalf of covered entities), and business associates are subject to direct liability for violation of these provisions. 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.

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 a covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to HHS and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. HHS is required to publish on its website a list of all covered entities that report a breach involving more than 500 individuals. 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. These civil penalties are updated annually based on updates to the consumer price index. HHS enforces the regulations and performs 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 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. We enforce a HIPAA compliance plan, which we believe complies with the HIPAA privacy and security regulations and under which a HIPAA compliance group monitors our compliance. The HIPAA privacy regulations and security regulations have and will continue to impose significant costs on our facilities in order to comply with these standards.

 

21

There are numerous other laws and legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing privacy and security concerns. Our facilities remain subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties. For example, the Federal Trade Commission uses its consumer protection authority to initiate enforcement actions in response to data breaches.

EMTALA

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

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

Corporate Practice of Medicine/Fee Splitting

Some of the states in which we operate have laws prohibiting corporations and other entities from employing physicians, practicing medicine for a profit and making certain direct and indirect payments to, or entering into fee-splitting arrangements with, health care providers designed to induce or encourage the referral of patients to, or the recommendation of, particular providers for medical products and services. Possible sanctions for violation of these restrictions include loss of license and civil and criminal penalties. In addition, agreements between the corporation and the physician may be considered void and unenforceable. These statutes vary from state to state, are often vague and have seldom been interpreted by the courts or regulatory agencies.

Health Care Industry Investigations

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

Our substantial Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental billings result in heightened scrutiny of our operations. We continue to monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards.

 

22

Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigations or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with our or industry practices.

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

Both federal and state government agencies have increased their focus on and coordination of civil and criminal enforcement efforts in the health care area. The OIG and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have, from time to time, established national enforcement initiatives, targeting all hospital providers that focus on specific billing practices or other suspected areas of abuse. The Health Reform Law includes additional federal funding of $350 million over 10 years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse, including $10 million in federal fiscal year 2018. In addition, governmental agencies and their agents, such as MACs, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, may conduct audits of our health care operations. Private third-party payers may conduct similar post-payment audits, and we also perform internal audits and monitoring.

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

Health Care Reform

The health care industry is subject to changing political, regulatory, and other influences, along with various scientific and technological initiatives. In recent years, the U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures have passed a large number of laws and regulations intended to effect major change within the U.S. health care system, including the Health Reform Law. The Health Reform Law affects how health care services are covered, delivered and reimbursed through expanded health insurance coverage, reduced growth in Medicare program spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments, and the establishment of programs that tie reimbursement to quality and integration. However, there is uncertainty regarding the future of the Health Reform Law. The presidential administration and a number of members of Congress have expressed their intent to repeal or make significant changes to the Health Reform Law, its implementation or interpretation. In 2017, Congress eliminated the penalty associated with the individual mandate to maintain health insurance, effective January 1, 2019. Further, the President of the United States signed an executive order that directs agencies to minimize “economic and regulatory burdens” of the Health Reform Law, which may result in additional changes in how the law is implemented.

As currently structured, the Health Reform Law expands coverage through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance and other reforms. Expansion in public program coverage has been driven primarily by expanding the categories of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage and permitting individuals with relatively higher incomes to qualify. A number of states, including Texas and Florida, have opted out of the Medicaid expansion provisions, which they may do without losing federal funding. For states that have not participated in the Medicaid expansion, the maximum income level required for individuals and families to qualify for Medicaid varies widely from state to state. Some states are using waivers granted by CMS to expand their Medicaid programs, impose different eligibility or enrollment restrictions, or otherwise implement programs that vary from federal standards.

 

23

The expansion of health coverage through the private sector as a result of the Health Reform Law has been driven by new requirements applicable to health insurers, employers and individuals. For example, health insurers are prohibited from imposing annual coverage limits, dropping coverage, excluding persons based upon pre-existing conditions or denying coverage for any individual who is willing to pay the premiums for such coverage. Large employers are required to provide health insurance benefits to their full time employees or pay a penalty if an employee obtains government-subsidized coverage through an Exchange. Although individuals are required to maintain health insurance for a minimum defined set of benefits, elimination of the penalty associated with this mandate may impact the number of individuals who elect to purchase health insurance.

Health insurers participating in an Exchange must offer a set of minimum benefits, as defined by HHS, and may offer more benefits. For individuals and families below 400% of the federal poverty level, the cost of obtaining health insurance through the Exchanges is subsidized by the federal government. However, several health insurers have limited or ended their participation in these marketplaces, creating uncertainty regarding the long-term viability of the Exchanges.

As discussed in Item 1, “Business — Sources of Revenue,” the Health Reform Law provides for spending reductions for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. It also increasingly ties payment for services to quality outcomes, provides for the creation of ACOs and creates incentives and other initiatives to better coordinate patient care across settings and over time.

The Health Reform Law also makes several significant changes to health care fraud and abuse laws, provides additional enforcement tools to the government, increases cooperation between agencies by establishing mechanisms for the sharing of information and enhances criminal and administrative penalties for non-compliance. For example, the Health Reform Law tightens up the rules for returning overpayments made by governmental health programs and expands FCA liability to include failure to timely repay identified overpayments. The Health Reform Law also prohibits newly created physician-owned hospitals from billing for Medicare patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. While the law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

The Health Reform Law has had a net positive effect on the Company to date, before considering the impact of Medicare reductions that began in 2010, and it is expected that the law, as presently implemented, will continue to have a meaningful contribution to the Company’s results of operations. However, the Company could be affected by efforts to change, repeal or replace the Health Reform Law and the potential instability of the Exchanges, as discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

General Economic and Demographic Factors

The health care industry is impacted by the overall United States economy. Budget deficits at federal, state and local government entities have had a negative impact on spending for many health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant payer sources for our hospitals. We anticipate that the federal deficit, the growing magnitude of Medicare expenditures and the aging of the United States population will continue to place pressure on government health care programs. Other risks we face during periods of economic weakness and high unemployment include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, increased patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective and nonemergency health care procedures (including delaying surgical procedures), potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations, increased adoption of health plan structures that shift financial responsibility to patients and further difficulties in collecting patient receivables for copayment and deductible amounts.

 

24

Compliance Program

We maintain a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. The program is intended to monitor and raise awareness of various regulatory issues among employees and to emphasize the importance of complying with governmental laws and regulations. As part of the ethics and compliance program, we provide annual ethics and compliance training to our employees and encourage all employees to report any violations to their supervisor, an ethics and compliance officer or a toll-free telephone ethics line.

Antitrust Laws

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

Environmental Matters

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

Insurance

As is typical in the health care industry, we are subject to claims and legal actions by patients in the ordinary course of business. Subject, in most cases, to a $15 million per occurrence self-insured retention, our facilities are insured by our 100% owned insurance subsidiary for losses up to $50 million per occurrence. The insurance subsidiary has obtained reinsurance for professional liability risks generally above a retention level of $25 million per occurrence. We also maintain professional liability insurance with unrelated commercial carriers for losses in excess of amounts insured by our insurance subsidiary.

We purchase, from unrelated insurance companies, coverage for cyber security incidents, directors and officers liability and property loss in amounts we believe are adequate. The cyber security and directors and officers liability coverage each include a $5 million corporate deductible. In addition, we will continue to purchase coverage for our directors and officers on an ongoing basis. The property coverage includes varying deductibles depending on the cause of the property damage. These deductibles range from 2% to 5% of the affected property values for certain flood and wind and earthquake related incidents.

Employees and Medical Staffs

At December 31, 2017, we had approximately 253,000 employees, including approximately 63,000 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, 2017, certain employees at 39 of our domestic hospitals are represented by various labor unions. While no elections are expected in 2018, it is possible additional hospitals may unionize in the future. We consider our employee relations to be good and have not experienced work stoppages that have materially, adversely affected our business or results of operations. Our hospitals, like most hospitals, have experienced rising labor costs. In some markets, nurse and medical support personnel availability has become a significant operating issue to health care providers. To address this challenge, we have implemented several initiatives to improve retention, recruiting, compensation programs and productivity.

 

25

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. Recent changes by the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) in 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 materially. In addition, the states in which we operate could adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or could reduce mandatory nurse-staffing ratios already in place. State-mandated nurse-staffing ratios could significantly affect labor costs, and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit patient admissions in order to meet the required ratios.

 

26

Executive Officers of the Registrant

As of February 1, 2018, our executive officers were as follows:

 

Name		Age		Position(s)
R. Milton Johnson		61		Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Victor L. Campbell		71		Senior Vice President
Ravi S. Chari, M.D.		52		Senior Vice President — Clinical Excellence
Michael S. Cuffe, M.D.		52		President — Physician Services Group
Jane D. Englebright		60		Senior Vice President and Chief Nursing Officer
Jon M. Foster		56		President — American Group
Charles J. Hall		64		President — National Group
Samuel N. Hazen		57		President and Chief Operating Officer
A. Bruce Moore, Jr.		57		President — Service Line and Operations Integration
Sandra L. Morgan		55		Senior Vice President — Provider Relations
J. William B. Morrow		47		Senior Vice President — Finance and Treasurer
P. Martin Paslick		58		Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Jonathan B. Perlin, M.D.		56		President — Clinical Services Group and Chief Medical Officer
Deborah M. Reiner		56		Senior Vice President — Marketing and Communications
William B. Rutherford		54		Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Joseph A. Sowell, III		61		Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer
Joseph N. Steakley		63		Senior Vice President — Internal Audit Services
John M. Steele		62		Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer
Kathryn A. Torres		54		Senior Vice President — Payer Contracting and Alignment
Robert A. Waterman		64		Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Christopher F. Wyatt		40		Senior Vice President and Controller
Alan R. Yuspeh		68		Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer

R. Milton Johnson was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer effective December 31, 2014. Mr. Johnson served as President and Chief Executive Officer from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 and has been a director of the Company since December 2009. Mr. Johnson previously served the Company as President and Chief Financial Officer from February 2011 through December 2013 and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from July 2004 to February 2011. Prior to that time, he served as Senior Vice President and Controller from July 1999 until July 2004 and as Vice President and Controller of the Company from November 1998 to July 1999. From April 1995 to October 1998, Mr. Johnson served as Vice President — Tax of the Company. Prior to that time, Mr. Johnson served as Director of Tax for Healthtrust, Inc. — The Hospital Company from September 1987 to April 1995.

Victor L. Campbell has served as Senior Vice President of the Company since February 1994. He is responsible for government and investor relations. Prior to that time, Mr. Campbell served as HCA-Hospital Corporation of America’s Vice President for Investor, Corporate and Government Relations. Mr. Campbell joined HCA-Hospital Corporation of America in 1972. Mr. Campbell serves on the board of the Coalition to Protect America’s Health Care, as a member of the American Hospital Association’s President’s Forum, and on the board of trustees of the Federation of American Hospitals.

Dr. Ravi S. Chari was appointed Senior Vice President — Clinical Excellence in January 2015. Prior to that time, Dr. Chari served as Vice President — Clinical Excellence from September 2011 to January 2015 and Chief Medical Officer of HCA’s TriStar Division from October 2010 to September 2011. He served as Chief Medical Officer at Centennial Medical Center from September 2008 to October 2010 and also served as interim Chief Operating Officer of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Centers for the TriStar Division from October 2009 to March 2010. Dr. Chari has also served as Clinical Professor of Surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine since November 2008 and previously served as Professor of Surgery from 2005 to 2008 and Associate Professor from 2001 to 2005.

 

27

Dr. Michael S. Cuffe has served as President — Physician Services Group since October 2011. From October 2011 to January 2015, Dr. Cuffe also served as a Vice President of the Company. Prior to that time, Dr. Cuffe served Duke University Health System as Vice President for Ambulatory Services and Chief Medical Officer from March 2011 to October 2011 and Vice President Medical Affairs from June 2005 to March 2011. He also served Duke University School of Medicine as Vice Dean for Medical Affairs from June 2008 to March 2011, Deputy Chair of the Department of Medicine from August 2009 to August 2010 and Associate Professor of Medicine from March 2005 to October 2011. Prior that time, Dr. Cuffe served in various leadership roles with the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center and Duke University School of Medicine.

Dr. Jane D. Englebright was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Nursing Officer in January 2015. Dr. Englebright previously served as Vice President and Chief Nursing Officer from 2007 to January 2015. Dr. Englebright joined HCA in 1992 as a critical care nurse at Lewisville Medical Center in Texas and became Chief Nursing Officer of HCA’s San Antonio Community Hospital in 1996. Dr. Englebright currently serves as the At-Large Nursing Representative to The Joint Commission’s Board of Commissioners.

Jon M. Foster was appointed President — American Group in January 2013. Prior to that, Mr. Foster served as President — Southwest Group from February 2011 to January 2013 and as Division President for the Central and West Texas Division from January 2006 to February 2011. Mr. Foster joined HCA in March 2001 as President and CEO of St. David’s HealthCare in Austin, Texas and served in that position until February 2011. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Foster served in various executive capacities within the Baptist Health System, Knoxville, Tennessee and The Methodist Hospital System in Houston, Texas.

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

Samuel N. Hazen was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer in November 2016. Prior to that time, he had served as Chief Operating Officer since January 2015. Mr. Hazen served as President — Operations of the Company from February 2011 to January 2015. Mr. Hazen served as President — Western Group from July 2001 to February 2011 and as Chief Financial Officer — Western Group of the Company from August 1995 to July 2001. Mr. Hazen served as Chief Financial Officer — North Texas Division of the Company from February 1994 to July 1995. Prior to that time, Mr. Hazen served in various hospital and regional Chief Financial Officer positions with Humana Inc. and Galen Health Care, Inc.

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

Sandra L. Morgan was appointed Senior Vice President — Provider Relations in January 2015. Prior to that time, she served as Vice President — National Sales from April 2008 to January 2015. From 2000 to 2008, Ms. Morgan served in various capacities with Pfizer Inc., including Vice President of Managed Care for the Customer Business Unit from 2005 to 2008.

J. William B. Morrow was appointed Senior Vice President — Finance and Treasurer in February 2017. Mr. Morrow served as Vice President — Finance and Treasurer from July 2016 through January 31, 2017.

 

28

From 2011 to 2016, Mr. Morrow served the Company as Vice President — Development/Special Assets. Mr. Morrow served as a partner in the law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis from 2006 to October 2011. Prior to becoming a partner, Mr. Morrow was an associate at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis and at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

P. Martin Paslick was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the Company in June 2012. Prior to that time, he served as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Information Technology & Services from March 2010 to May 2012 and Vice President — Information Technology & Services Field Operations from September 2006 to February 2010. From January 1998 to September 2006, he served in various Vice President roles in the Company’s Information Technology & Services department. Mr. Paslick joined the Company in 1985.

Dr. Jonathan B. Perlin was appointed President — Clinical Services Group and Chief Medical Officer in November 2007. Dr. Perlin had served as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President — Quality of the Company from August 2006 to November 2007. Prior to joining the Company, Dr. Perlin served as Under Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs since April 2004. Dr. Perlin joined the Veterans Health Administration in November 1999 where he served in various capacities, including as Deputy Under Secretary for Health from July 2002 to April 2004, and as Chief Quality and Performance Officer from November 1999 to September 2002. He also served as Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs from July 2014 to September 2014 and as Chairman for the American Hospital Association in 2015.

Deborah M. Reiner was appointed Senior Vice President — Marketing and Communications in October 2017. Prior to that time, she served as Vice President of Marketing and Customer Relationship Management from August 2017 to October 2017 and Vice President of Customer Relationship Management from January 2012 to August 2017. Ms. Reiner joined the Company in 2000 and served in various roles with the Company’s Mountain Division from 2000 to 2012.

William B. Rutherford has served as the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since January 2014. Mr. Rutherford previously served as Chief Operating Officer of the Company’s Clinical and Physician Services Group from January 2011 to January 2014 and Chief Financial Officer of the Company’s Outpatient Services Group from November 2008 to January 2011. Prior to that time, Mr. Rutherford was employed by Summit Consulting Group of Tennessee from July 2007 to November 2008 and was Chief Operating Officer of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. from March 2006 to June 2007. Mr. Rutherford also previously served in various positions with the Company from 1986 to 2005, including Chief Financial Officer of what was then the Company’s Eastern Group, Director of Internal Audit and Director of Operations Support.

Joseph A. Sowell, III was appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer of the Company in December 2009. From 1987 to 1996 and again from 1999 to 2009, Mr. Sowell was a partner at the law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis where he specialized in the areas of health care law, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity financing, tax law and general corporate law. He also co-managed the firm’s corporate and commercial transactions practice. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Sowell served as the head of development, and later as the Chief Operating Officer of Arcon Healthcare.

Joseph N. Steakley has served as Senior Vice President — Internal Audit Services of the Company since July 1999. Mr. Steakley served as Vice President — Internal Audit Services from November 1997 to July 1999. From October 1989 until October 1997, Mr. Steakley was a partner with Ernst & Young LLP.

John M. Steele has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer since July 2017. Prior to that time, he served as Senior Vice President — Human Resources of the Company from November 2003 to July 2017. Mr. Steele served as Vice President — Compensation and Recruitment of the Company from November 1997 to October 2003. From March 1995 to November 1997, Mr. Steele served as Assistant Vice President — Recruitment.

 

29

Kathryn A. Torres was appointed Senior Vice President — Payer Contracting and Alignment (formerly Senior Vice President — Employer and Payer Engagement) in July 2016. Ms. Torres joined HCA in 1993 and served in various capacities, including as Vice President of Employer and Payer Engagement and Vice President — Strategy.

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

Christopher F. Wyatt was appointed Senior Vice President and Controller in April 2016. Prior to that time, Mr. Wyatt served the Company as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer — IT&S from January 2013 to April 2016 and Chief Financial Officer — Clinical Services Group from October 2010 until January 2013. From 2000 to 2010, Mr. Wyatt served in various capacities with Ernst & Young LLP.

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

 

30

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

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

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

We are highly leveraged. As of December 31, 2017, our total indebtedness was $33.058 billion. As of December 31, 2017, we had availability of $1.977 billion under our senior secured revolving credit facility and $70 million under our asset-based revolving credit facility, after giving effect to letters of credit and borrowing base limitations. Our high degree of leverage could have important consequences, including:

 

•

increasing our vulnerability to downturns or adverse changes in general economic, industry or competitive conditions and adverse changes in government regulations;

 

•

requiring a substantial portion of cash flows from operations to be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness, therefore reducing our ability to use our cash flows to fund our operations, capital expenditures and future business opportunities;

 

•

exposing us to the risk of increased interest rates as certain of our unhedged borrowings are at variable rates of interest;

 

•

limiting our ability to make strategic acquisitions or causing us to make nonstrategic divestitures;

 

•

limiting our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, share repurchases, dividends, product or service line development, debt service requirements, acquisitions and general corporate or other purposes; and

 

•

limiting our ability to adjust to changing market conditions and placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors who are less highly leveraged.

 

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

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

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

In addition, we conduct our operations through our subsidiaries. Accordingly, repayment of our indebtedness is dependent on the generation of cash flows by our subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash available to us by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Our subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be

 

31

permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity, and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries.

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

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

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

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

 

•

incur additional indebtedness or issue certain preferred shares;

 

•

pay dividends on, repurchase or make distributions in respect of our capital stock or make other restricted payments;

 

•

make certain investments;

 

•

sell or transfer assets;

 

•

create liens;

 

•

consolidate, merge, sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets; and

 

•

enter into certain transactions with our affiliates.

Under our asset-based revolving credit facility, availability is subject to a borrowing base of 85% of eligible accounts receivable less customary reserves, with any reduction in the borrowing base commensurately reducing our ability to access this facility as a source of liquidity. In addition, under the asset-based revolving credit facility, when (and for as long as) the combined availability under our asset-based revolving credit facility and our senior secured revolving credit facility is less than a specified amount for a certain period of time or, if a payment or bankruptcy event of default has occurred and is continuing, funds deposited into any of our depository accounts will be transferred on a daily basis into a blocked account with the administrative agent and applied to prepay loans under the asset-based revolving credit facility and to collateralize letters of credit issued thereunder.

Under our senior secured credit facilities, we are required to satisfy and maintain specified financial ratios. Our ability to meet those financial ratios can be affected by events beyond our control, and there can be no assurance we will continue to meet those ratios. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under both the cash flow credit facility and the asset-based revolving credit facility. Upon the occurrence of an

 

32

event of default under these senior secured credit facilities, the lenders thereunder could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the senior secured credit facilities to be immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit, which would also result in an event of default under a significant portion of our outstanding indebtedness. If we were unable to repay those amounts, the lenders under the senior secured credit facilities could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness. We have pledged a significant portion of our assets under our senior secured credit facilities and that collateral is also pledged as collateral under our first lien notes. If any of the lenders under the senior secured credit facilities accelerate the repayment of borrowings, there can be no assurance there will be sufficient assets to repay the senior secured credit facilities, the first lien notes and our other indebtedness.

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

The health care business is highly competitive, and competition among hospitals and other health care providers for patients has intensified in recent years. Generally, other hospitals in the communities we serve provide services similar to those offered by our hospitals. In addition, CMS publicizes on its Hospital Compare website performance data related to quality measures and data on patient satisfaction surveys hospitals submit in connection with their Medicare reimbursement. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Additional quality measures and future trends toward clinical transparency may have an unanticipated impact on our competitive position and patient volumes. Further, every hospital must establish and update annually a public listing of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results (or results that are lower than our competitors) on these quality measures or on patient satisfaction surveys or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, our patient volumes could decline.

In addition, the number of freestanding specialty hospitals, surgery centers, emergency departments, urgent care centers and diagnostic and imaging centers in the geographic areas in which we operate has increased. As a result, most of our hospitals operate in a highly competitive environment, which may put pressure on our pricing as high margin services transition to outpatient facilities and may also place pressure on the Company’s strategy for volume growth. Some of the facilities that compete with our hospitals are physician-owned or are owned by governmental agencies or not-for-profit corporations supported by endowments, charitable contributions and/or tax revenues and can finance capital expenditures and operations on a tax-exempt basis. Recent consolidations of not-for-profit hospital entities may intensify this competitive pressure. There is also increasing consolidation in the third-party payer industry, including vertical integration efforts among third-party payers and health care providers. Health care industry participants are increasingly implementing physician alignment strategies, such as employing physicians, acquiring physician practice groups and participating in ACOs or other clinical integration models. Other industry participants, such as large employer groups and their affiliates, may intensify competitive pressure and affect the industry in ways that are difficult to predict.

Our hospitals compete with specialty hospitals and with both our own and unaffiliated freestanding surgery centers for market share in certain high margin services and for quality physicians and personnel. If ASCs are better able to compete in this environment than our hospitals, our hospitals may experience a decline in patient volume, and we may experience a decrease in margin, even if those patients use our ASCs. In states that do not require a CON or other type of approval for the purchase, construction or expansion of health care facilities or services, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. Further, if our competitors are better able to attract patients, make capital expenditures and maintain modern and technologically upgraded facilities and equipment, recruit physicians, expand services or obtain favorable third-party payer contracts at their facilities than our hospitals and ASCs, we may experience an overall decline in patient volume. See Item 1, “Business — Competition.”

 

33

A deterioration in the collectability of uninsured and patient due accounts could adversely affect our results of operations.

The primary collection risks for our accounts receivable relate to the uninsured patient accounts and patient accounts for which the primary third-party payer has paid the amounts covered by the applicable agreement, but patient responsibility amounts (exclusions, deductibles and copayments) remain outstanding. The provision for doubtful accounts relates primarily to amounts due directly from patients. Medicare reimburses hospitals for 65% of eligible Medicare bad debts. To be eligible for reimbursement, the amounts claimed must meet certain criteria, including that the debt is related to unpaid deductible or coinsurance amounts and that the hospital first attempted to collect the fees from the Medicare beneficiary.

The amount of the provision for doubtful accounts is based upon management’s assessment of historical write-offs and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal and state governmental and private employer health care coverage, the rate of growth in uninsured patient admissions and other collection indicators. At December 31, 2017, our allowance for doubtful accounts represented 100% of the $5.488 billion patient due accounts receivable balance. The sum of the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care increased from $18.287 billion for 2015 to $20.455 billion for 2016 and to $23.420 billion for 2017.

Any increase in the amount or deterioration in the collectability of uninsured accounts receivable will adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations. Our facilities may experience growth in bad debts, uninsured discounts and charity care as a result of a number of factors, including conditions impacting the overall economy and high unemployment. In 2017, Congress eliminated the financial penalty associated with the Health Reform Law’s individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019, which may result in fewer individuals electing to purchase health insurance. The presidential administration and a number of members of Congress continue to make other efforts to repeal or significantly change the Health Reform Law. Even if the Health Reform Law remains in effect, we will continue to experience collectability issues and provide uninsured discounts and charity care for individuals residing in states that choose not to implement the Medicaid expansion, for undocumented aliens who are not permitted to enroll in an Exchange or government health care programs and for certain others who may not have insurance coverage. Further, some patients may choose to enroll in lower cost Medicaid plans or other health insurance plans with lower reimbursement levels. We may also be adversely affected by the growth in patient responsibility accounts as a result of increases in the adoption of health plan structures that shift greater responsibility for care to individuals through greater exclusions and copayment and deductible amounts.

Changes in government health care programs may adversely affect our revenues.

A significant portion of our patient volume is derived from government health care programs, principally Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, we derived 41.8% of our revenues from the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 2017. Changes in government health care programs may reduce the reimbursement we receive and could adversely affect our business and results of operations. The Health Reform Law has made significant changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and future health reform efforts or efforts to repeal or significantly change the Health Reform Law may impact these programs.

In recent years, legislative and regulatory changes have resulted in limitations on and, in some cases, reductions in levels of payments to health care providers for certain services under the Medicare program. Congress has established automatic spending reductions that extend through 2027. However, the percentage reduction for Medicare may not be more than 2% for a fiscal year, with a uniform percentage reduction across all Medicare programs. We are unable to predict what other deficit reduction initiatives may be proposed by Congress. These reductions are in addition to reductions mandated by the Health Reform Law, which provides for material reductions in the growth of Medicare program spending, including reductions in Medicare market basket updates and Medicare DSH funding. Further, from time to time, CMS revises the reimbursement systems used to reimburse health care providers, including changes to the MS-DRG system and other payment systems,

 

34

which may result in reduced Medicare payments. For example, under a site neutrality policy, certain items and services provided by off-campus provider-based departments that were formerly paid under the outpatient PPS are now paid under the Physician Fee Schedule, subject to certain exceptions.

Because most states must operate with balanced budgets and because the Medicaid program is often a state’s largest program, some states have enacted or may consider enacting legislation designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures. Further, many states have also adopted, or are considering, legislation designed to reduce coverage, enroll Medicaid recipients in managed care programs and/or impose additional taxes on hospitals to help finance or expand the states’ Medicaid systems. Periods of economic weakness may increase the budgetary pressures on many states, and these budgetary pressures may result in decreased spending, or decreased spending growth, for Medicaid programs and CHIP in many states. Some states that provide Medicaid supplemental payments are reviewing these programs or have filed waiver requests with CMS to replace these programs, and CMS has performed and continues to perform compliance reviews of some states’ programs, which could result in Medicaid supplemental payments being reduced or eliminated. For example, in December 2017, CMS announced that it will phase out funding for Designated State Health Programs under certain types of Medicaid waivers. Further, legislation and administrative actions at the federal level may significantly alter the funding for, or structure of, the Medicaid program. For example, from time to time, Congress considers proposals to restructure the Medicaid program to involve block grants that would be administered by the states.

In some cases, private third-party payers rely on all or portions of Medicare payment systems to determine payment rates. Changes to government health care programs that reduce payments under these programs may negatively impact payments from private third-party payers.

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

Our results of operations may be adversely affected by health care reform efforts, particularly efforts to repeal, replace or otherwise significantly change the Health Reform Law. We are unable to predict what, if any, and when such changes will be made in the future.

The Health Reform Law represents a significant shift in the way health care services are delivered, covered, and reimbursed. Although it reduced our Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, the Health Reform Law also reduced the number of uninsured patients to whom we provide health care services, primarily through the Exchanges and Medicaid expansion. However, many insurers have exited the Exchanges in the markets served by the Company. To the extent some markets lack a sufficient number of health insurers participating in the Exchanges, it could threaten the continued viability of the Exchanges in those markets.

In addition, the presidential administration and a number of members of Congress continue to attempt to repeal, amend or replace the law, or make significant changes to its implementation. In 2017, Congress eliminated the financial penalty associated with the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. It is difficult to predict the impact of this change, but it may result in fewer individuals electing to purchase health insurance. Further, the President of the United States has also signed an executive order that directs agencies to minimize “economic and regulatory burdens” of the Health Reform Law, which may result in additional changes in how the law is implemented. CMS has indicated that it intends to increase flexibility in state Medicaid programs, including by expanding the scope of waivers under which states may implement Medicaid expansion provisions, impose different eligibility or enrollment restrictions, or otherwise implement programs that vary from federal standards. There is uncertainty regarding whether, when, and how the Health Reform Law may be further changed. Changes by Congress or government agencies could eliminate or alter provisions beneficial to us, and it is difficult to predict the impact of changes on other health care industry participants. Government efforts to repeal or change the Health Reform Law may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources, and liquidity.

 

35

If our volume of patients with private health insurance coverage declines or we are unable to retain and negotiate favorable contracts with private third-party payers, including managed care plans, our revenues may be reduced.

Private third-party payers, including HMOs, PPOs and other managed care plans, typically reimburse health care providers at a higher rate than Medicare, Medicaid or other government health care programs. Reimbursement rates are set forth by contract when our facilities are in-network, and payers utilize plan structures to encourage or require the use of in-network providers. Revenues derived from private third-party payers (domestic only) accounted for 56.9%, 56.5% and 55.2% of our revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As a result, our ability to maintain or increase patient volumes covered by private third-party payers and to maintain and obtain favorable contracts with private third-party payers significantly affects the revenues and operating results of our facilities.

Private third-party payers, including managed care plans, continue to demand discounted fee structures, and the trend toward consolidation among payers tends to increase their bargaining power over fee structures. Payers may utilize plan structures such as narrow networks and tiered networks that limit beneficiary provider choices or impose significantly higher cost sharing obligations when care is obtained from providers in a disfavored tier. Other health care providers may impact our ability to enter into managed care contracts or negotiate increases in our reimbursement and other favorable terms and conditions. For example, some of our competitors may negotiate exclusivity provisions with managed care plans or otherwise restrict the ability of managed care plans to contract with us. In addition to increasing negotiating leverage of private third-party payers, alignment efforts between third-party payers and health care providers may also result in other competitive advantages, such as greater access to performance and pricing data. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our third-party payer contracts and enter into new contracts on terms favorable to us. Cost-reduction strategies by large employer groups and their affiliates may also limit our ability to negotiate favorable terms in our contracts and otherwise intensify competitive pressure. It is not clear what impact, if any, future health reform efforts or the repeal of, or changes to, the Health Reform Law will have on our ability to negotiate reimbursement increases and participate in third-party payer networks on favorable terms. If we are unable to retain and negotiate favorable contracts with third-party payers or experience reductions in payment increases or amounts received from third-party payers, our revenues may be reduced.

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

The success of our hospitals depends in part on the number and quality of the physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals, the admitting and utilization practices of those 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 of the hospitals at which they practice, and, in many of the markets we serve, most physicians have admitting privileges at other hospitals in addition to our hospitals. Such physicians may terminate their affiliation with our hospitals at any time. 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. If we are unable to provide adequate support personnel or technologically advanced equipment and hospital facilities that meet the needs of those physicians and their patients, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities, admissions may decrease and our operating performance may decline.

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

Our operations are dependent on the efforts, abilities and experience of our management and medical support personnel, such as nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians, as well as our physicians. We compete with other health care providers in recruiting and retaining qualified management and support personnel responsible for the daily operations of each of our hospitals, including nurses and other nonphysician health care professionals. In some markets, the availability of nurses and other medical support personnel has been a

 

36

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

We may be unable to attract, hire, and retain a highly qualified and diverse workforce, including key management.

The talents and efforts of our employees, particularly our key management, are vital to our success. Our management team has significant industry experience and would be difficult to replace. In addition, institutional knowledge may be lost in any potential managerial transition. We may be unable to retain them or to attract other highly qualified employees, particularly if we do not offer employment terms that are competitive with the rest of the labor market. Failure to attract, hire, develop, motivate, and retain highly qualified and diverse employee talent, or failure to develop and implement an adequate succession plan for the management team, could disrupt our operations and adversely affect our business and our future success.

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

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

 

•

billing and coding for services and properly handling overpayments;

 

•

appropriateness and classification of level of care provided, including proper classification of inpatient admissions, observation services and outpatient care;

 

•

relationships with physicians and other referral sources and referral recipients;

 

•

necessity and adequacy of medical care;

 

•

quality of medical equipment and services;

 

•

qualifications of medical and support personnel;

 

•

confidentiality, maintenance, data breach, identity theft and security issues associated with health-related and personal information and medical records;

 

•

screening, stabilization and transfer of individuals who have emergency medical conditions;

 

•

licensure, certification and enrollment with government programs;

 

•

hospital rate or budget review;

 

•

debt collection;

 

37

•

communications with patients and consumers;

 

•

preparing and filing of cost reports;

 

•

operating policies and procedures;

 

•

activities regarding competitors;

 

•

addition of facilities and services; and

 

•

environmental protection.

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

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

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

We also operate health care facilities in the United Kingdom and have operations and commercial relationships with companies in other foreign jurisdictions and, as a result, are subject to certain U.S. and foreign laws applicable to businesses generally, including anti-corruption laws. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act regulates U.S. companies in their dealings with foreign officials, prohibiting bribes and similar practices, and requires that they maintain records that fairly and accurately reflect transactions and appropriate internal accounting controls. In addition, the United Kingdom Bribery Act has wide jurisdiction over certain activities that affect the United Kingdom.

A variety of state, national, foreign and international laws and regulations apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, security, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data. Many foreign data privacy regulations (including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which becomes effective in the European Union on May 25, 2018) are more stringent than those in the United States. These laws and regulations are rapidly evolving and changing, and could have an adverse effect on our operations. Companies’ obligations and requirements under these laws and regulations are subject to uncertainty in how they may be interpreted by government authorities and regulators. The costs of compliance with, and the other burdens imposed by, these and other laws or regulatory actions may increase our operational costs, result in interruptions or delays in the availability of systems and/or result in a patient volume decline. In the case of non-compliance with a material provision of the GDPR (such as non-adherence to the core principles of processing personal data), regulators

 

38

have the authority to levy a fine in an amount that is up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover in the prior year. If it is determined that non-compliance is related to a non-material provision (such as failure to comply with technical measures), regulators may impose a fine in an amount that is up to the greater of €10 million or 2% of the global annual turnover from the prior year. These administrative fines are discretionary and based, in each case, on a multi-factored approach. We may also face audits or investigations by one or more domestic or foreign government agencies relating to our compliance with these regulations. An adverse outcome under any such investigation or audit could result in liability, result in adverse publicity, and adversely affect our business.

We engage in consumer debt collection for HCA-affiliated hospitals and certain non-affiliated hospitals. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act restrict the methods that companies may use to contact and seek payment from consumer debtors regarding past due accounts. Many states impose additional requirements on debt collection practices, and some of those requirements may be more stringent than the federal requirements.

If we fail to comply with these or other applicable laws and regulations, we could be subject to liabilities, including civil penalties, the loss of our licenses to operate one or more facilities, exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs and criminal penalties.

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

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

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

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

CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency fee basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program. The Health Reform Law expanded the RAC program’s scope to include managed Medicare plans and Medicaid claims. RAC denials are appealable; however, there are currently significant delays in the assignment of new Medicare appeals to Administrative Law

 

39

Judges, which negatively impacts our ability to appeal RAC payment denials. In addition, CMS employs MICs to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments, and state Medicaid agencies and other contractors have increased their review activities.

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

Changes to physician utilization practices and treatment methodologies, third-party payer controls designed to reduce inpatient services or surgical procedures and other factors outside our control that impact demand for medical services may reduce our revenues.

Controls imposed by Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid and private third-party payers designed to reduce admissions, intensity of services, surgical volumes and lengths of stay, in some instances referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Utilization review entails the review of the admission and course of treatment of a patient by third-party payers. The Medicare program also issues national or local coverage determinations that restrict the circumstances under which Medicare pays for certain services. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by third-party payers preadmission authorization requirements, coverage restrictions, utilization review and by pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. Additionally, trends in physician treatment protocols and managed care health plan design, such as health plans that shift increased costs and accountability for care to patients, could reduce our surgical volumes and admissions in favor of lower intensity and lower cost treatment methodologies.

Volume, admission and case-mix trends may be impacted by other factors beyond our control, such as changes in volume of certain high acuity services, variations in the prevalence and severity of outbreaks of influenza and other illnesses and medical conditions, seasonal and severe weather conditions, changes in treatment regimens and medical technology and other advances. These factors may reduce the demand for services we offer and decrease the reimbursement that we receive. Significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed, cost controls, changes to physician utilization practices, treatment methodologies, reimbursement rates and fees and other factors beyond our control could have a material, adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Our overall business results may suffer during periods of general economic weakness.

Budget deficits at federal, state and local government entities have had a negative impact on spending, and may continue to negatively impact spending, for health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant third-party payer sources for our hospitals. We anticipate that the federal deficit, the growing magnitude of Medicare expenditures and the aging of the United States population will continue to place pressure on government health care programs. Other risks we face during periods of economic weakness and high unemployment include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, increased patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective and nonemergency health care procedures (including delaying surgical procedures), potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations, increased adoption of health plan structures that shift financial responsibility to patients and further difficulties in collecting patient receivables for copayment and deductible receivables.

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

There is a trend in the health care industry toward value-based purchasing of health care services. These value-based purchasing programs include both public reporting of quality data and preventable adverse events tied to the quality and efficiency of care provided by facilities. Governmental programs including Medicare currently require hospitals to report certain quality data to receive full reimbursement updates. In addition,

 

40

Medicare does not reimburse for care related to certain preventable adverse events (also called “never events”). The Health Reform Law also prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical assistance provided to treat HACs. The 25% of hospitals with the worst risk-adjusted HAC rates in the designated performance period receive a 1% reduction in their inpatient PPS Medicare payments.

Hospitals with excess readmission rates for conditions designated by HHS will receive a reduction in their inpatient PPS operating Medicare payments for all Medicare inpatient discharges, not just discharges relating to the conditions subject to the excess readmission standard. The reduction in payments to hospitals with excess readmissions can be up to 3% of a hospital’s base payments.

HHS has implemented a value-based purchasing program for inpatient hospital services that reduces inpatient hospital payments for all discharges by 2% in federal fiscal year 2017 and for subsequent years. HHS pools the amount collected from these reductions to fund payments to reward hospitals that meet or exceed certain quality performance standards established by HHS. HHS estimates that $1.9 billion in value-based incentive payments will be available to hospitals in federal fiscal year 2018 based on achievement (relative to other hospitals) and improvement (relative to the hospital’s own past performance). Hospitals that meet or exceed the quality performance standards will receive greater reimbursement under the value-based purchasing program than they would have otherwise.

CMS has developed several alternative payment models that are intended to reduce costs and improve quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. Examples of alternative payment models include bundled payment models in which, depending on whether overall CMS spending per episode exceeds or falls below a target specified by CMS and whether quality standards are met, hospitals may receive supplemental Medicare payments or owe repayments to CMS. Generally, participation in bundled payment programs is voluntary, but CMS requires hospitals in selected markets to participate in a bundled payment initiative for orthopedic services. Participation in mandatory or voluntary demonstration projects, particularly demonstrations with the potential to affect payment, may negatively impact our results of operations.

Many large private third-party payers currently require hospitals to report quality data, and several private third-party payers do not reimburse hospitals for certain preventable adverse events. Further, we have implemented a policy pursuant to which we do not bill patients or third-party payers for fees or expenses incurred due to certain preventable adverse events.

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. CMS has announced aggressive goals for adopting alternative payment models, which may include additional bundled payment programs, and private third-party payers may also transition away from fee-for-service payment models. We are unable at this time to predict our future payments or whether we will be subject to payment reductions under these programs or how this trend will affect our results of operations, but it could negatively impact our revenues.

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

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

 

•

accounting and financial reporting;

 

•

billing and collecting accounts;

 

•

coding and compliance;

 

•

clinical systems;

 

•

medical records and document storage;

 

41

•

inventory management;

 

•

negotiating, pricing and administering managed care contracts and supply contracts; and

 

•

monitoring quality of care and collecting data on quality measures necessary for full Medicare payment updates.

Information systems may be vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, human acts and natural disasters. We have taken precautionary measures to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information systems. Nevertheless, we may experience system failures. The occurrence of any system failure could result in interruptions, delays, the loss or corruption of data and cessations or interruptions in the availability of systems, all of which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations and harm our business reputation.

A cybersecurity incident could result in the compromise of a facility, 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, or other common law theories, subject us to litigation and foreign, federal and state governmental inquiries, damage our reputation, and otherwise be disruptive to our business.

We, independently and through third-party vendors, collect and store on our networks sensitive information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personally identifiable information of our patients and employees. In addition, we have made significant investments in technology to adopt and utilize EHR and to become meaningful users of health information technology. The secure maintenance of this information and technology is critical to our business operations. We have implemented multiple layers of security measures to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of this data and the systems and devices that store and transmit such data. We utilize current security technologies, and our defenses are monitored and routinely tested internally and by external parties. Despite these efforts, threats from malicious persons and groups, new vulnerabilities and advanced new attacks against information systems create risk of cybersecurity incidents. We are regularly the target of attempted cybersecurity and other threats that could have a security impact. There can be no assurance that we or our third-party vendors will not be subject to cybersecurity incidents that bypass our security measures, impact the integrity, availability or privacy of personal health information or other data subject to privacy laws or disrupt our information systems, devices or business, including our ability to provide various health care services. As a result, cybersecurity, physical security and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our facilities, information systems and data from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. 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 cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The occurrence of any of these events could result in (i) harm to patients; (ii) business interruptions and delays; (iii) the loss, misappropriation, corruption or unauthorized access of data; (iv) litigation and potential liability under privacy, security and consumer protection laws or other applicable laws; (v) reputational damage and (vi) foreign, federal and state governmental inquiries, any of which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations and harm our business reputation.

If we fail to continue to demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record systems, our operations could be adversely affected.

Eligible hospitals and eligible professionals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology in an applicable prior reporting period are subject to reduced payments from Medicare. Failure to continue to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

The emergence and effects related to a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease could adversely affect our operations.

If a pandemic, epidemic, outbreak of an infectious disease or other public health crisis were to occur in an area in which we operate, our operations could be adversely affected. Such a crisis could diminish the public trust

 

42

in health care facilities, especially hospitals that fail to accurately or timely diagnose, or are treating (or have treated) patients affected by infectious diseases. If any of our facilities were involved, or perceived as being involved, in treating patients from such an infectious disease, patients might cancel elective procedures or fail to seek needed care at our facilities. Further, a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak might adversely affect our operations 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. We have disaster plans in place and operate pursuant to infectious disease protocols, but the potential emergence of a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak is difficult to predict and could adversely affect our operations.

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

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

We may encounter difficulty acquiring hospitals and other health care businesses, encounter challenges integrating the operations of acquired hospitals and other health care businesses and become liable for unknown or contingent liabilities as a result of acquisitions.

A component of our business strategy is acquiring hospitals and other health care businesses. We may encounter difficulty acquiring new facilities or other businesses as a result of competition from other purchasers that may be willing to pay purchase prices that are higher than we believe are reasonable. Some states require CONs in order to acquire a hospital or other facility or to expand facilities or services. In addition, the acquisition of health care facilities often involves licensure approvals or reviews and complex change of ownership processes for Medicare and other payers. Further, many states have laws that restrict the conversion or sale of not-for-profit hospitals to for-profit entities. These laws may require prior approval from the state attorney general, advance notification of the attorney general or other regulators and community involvement. Attorneys general in states without specific requirements may exercise broad discretionary authority over transactions involving the sale of not-for-profits under their general obligations to protect the use of charitable assets. These conversion legislative and administrative efforts often focus on the appropriate valuation of the assets divested and the use of the proceeds of the sale by the non-profit seller and may include consideration of commitments for capital improvements and charity care by the purchaser. Also, the increasingly challenging regulatory and enforcement environment may negatively impact our ability to acquire health care businesses if they are found to have material unresolved compliance issues, such as repayment obligations. Resolving compliance issues as well as completion of oversight, review or approval processes could seriously delay or even prevent our ability to acquire hospitals or other businesses and increase our acquisition costs.

We may be unable to timely and effectively integrate hospitals and other businesses that we acquire with our ongoing operations, or we may experience delays implementing operating procedures and systems. Hospitals and other health care businesses that we acquire may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including liabilities for failure to comply with health care and other laws and regulations, medical and general professional liabilities, workers’ compensation liabilities and tax liabilities. Although we typically exclude significant liabilities from our acquisition transactions and seek indemnification from the sellers for these matters, we could experience difficulty enforcing those obligations, experience liability in excess of any indemnification obtained or otherwise incur material liabilities for the pre-acquisition conduct of acquired businesses. Such liabilities and related legal or other costs could harm our business and results of operations.

 

43

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

We operated 179 hospitals at December 31, 2017, and 91 of those hospitals are located in Florida and Texas. Our Florida and Texas facilities’ combined revenues represented approximately 48% of our consolidated revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017. This concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive conditions and changes in those states. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, environmental or competitive conditions in those states could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business results.

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

We may be subject to liabilities from claims by taxing authorities.

We are subject to examination by federal, state and foreign taxing authorities. Management believes HCA Healthcare, Inc., its predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates properly reported taxable income and paid taxes in accordance with applicable laws and agreements established with the IRS, state and foreign taxing authorities and final resolution of any disputes will not have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. However, if payments due upon final resolution of any issues exceed our recorded estimates, such resolutions could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

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

We are subject to litigation relating to our business practices, including claims and legal actions by patients and others in the ordinary course of business alleging malpractice, product liability or other legal theories. Many of these actions seek large sums of money as damages and involve significant defense costs. We insure a portion of our professional liability risks through a 100% owned subsidiary. Management believes our reserves for self-insured retentions and insurance coverage are sufficient to cover insured claims arising out of the operation of our facilities. Our 100% owned liability insurance subsidiary has entered into certain reinsurance contracts; however, the subsidiary remains liable to the extent that the reinsurers do not meet their obligations under the reinsurance contracts. If payments for claims exceed actuarially determined estimates, are not covered by insurance, or reinsurers, if any, fail to meet their obligations, our results of operations and financial position could be adversely affected.

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

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in market values of securities. The investment securities of our 100% owned insurance subsidiaries were $472 million at December 31, 2017. These investments are carried at fair value, with changes in unrealized gains and losses being recorded as adjustments to other comprehensive income. At December 31, 2017, we had a net unrealized gain of $10 million on the insurance subsidiaries’ investment securities.

We are exposed to market risk related to market illiquidity. Investment securities of our 100% owned insurance subsidiaries could be impaired by the inability to access the capital markets. Should the 100% owned insurance subsidiaries require significant amounts of cash in excess of normal cash requirements to pay claims and other expenses on short notice, we may have difficulty selling these investments in a timely manner or be forced to sell them at a price less than what we might otherwise have been able to in a normal market environment. We may be required to recognize other-than-temporary impairments on long-term investments in future periods should issuers default on interest payments or should the fair market valuations of the securities deteriorate due to ratings downgrades or other issue specific factors.

We are also exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates, and we periodically enter into interest rate swap agreements to manage our exposure to these fluctuations. Our interest rate swap agreements involve the exchange of fixed and variable rate interest payments between two parties, based on common

 

44

notional principal amounts and maturity dates. The notional amounts of the swap agreements represent balances used to calculate the exchange of cash flows and are not our assets or liabilities.

There can be no assurance that we will continue to pay dividends.

In January 2018, the Board of Directors initiated a cash dividend program under which the Company expects to pay a regular quarterly cash dividend. The Board declared the first quarterly cash dividend of $0.35 per share of common stock to be paid to stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 1, 2018, with a payment date of March 30, 2018. The declaration, amount and timing of such dividends are subject to capital availability and determinations by our Board of Directors that cash dividends are in the best interest of our stockholders and are in compliance with all respective laws and our agreements applicable to the declaration and payment of cash dividends. Our ability to pay dividends will depend upon, among other factors, our cash flows from operations, our available capital and potential future capital requirements for strategic transactions, including acquisitions, debt service requirements, share repurchases and investing in our existing markets as well as our results of operations, financial condition and other factors beyond our control that our Board of Directors may deem relevant. A reduction in or elimination of our dividend payments could have a negative effect on our stock price.

Uncertainties in the interpretation and application of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could materially affect our tax obligations and effective tax rate.

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted on December 22, 2017. The Tax Act significantly revises U.S. corporate income taxes, including lowering the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018 and imposing a mandatory one-time transition tax on undistributed foreign earnings. Due to the complexity and uncertainty regarding numerous provisions of the Tax Act, we have not completed our accounting for its effects. However, we have made reasonable estimates and recorded provisional amounts in our financial statements as of December 31, 2017.

As we complete our analysis of the Tax Act, collect and prepare necessary data, and interpret any additional guidance issued by federal and state taxing authorities or other standard-setting bodies, we may make adjustments to the provisional amounts and record additional amounts for those federal, state, and foreign tax assets and liabilities for which we were unable to make reasonable estimates as of December 31, 2017. Any adjustments or additional amounts recorded may materially impact our provision for income taxes and effective tax rate in the periods in which they are made.

Certain of our investors may continue to have influence over us.

On November 17, 2006, HCA Inc. was acquired by a private investor group, including affiliates of HCA founder, Dr. Thomas F. Frist, Jr. and certain other investors. Through their investment in Hercules Holding II and other holdings, certain of the Frist-affiliated investors continue to hold a significant interest in our outstanding common stock (approximately 20% as of January 31, 2018). In addition, pursuant to a shareholders agreement we entered into with Hercules Holding II and the Frist-affiliated investors, certain representatives of these investors have the continued right to nominate certain of the members of our Board of Directors. As a result, certain of these investors potentially have the ability to influence our decisions to enter into corporate transactions (and the terms thereof) and prevent changes in the composition of our Board of Directors and any transaction that requires stockholder approval.

 

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

 

45

Item 2.

Properties

The following table lists, by state, the number of hospitals (general, acute care, psychiatric and rehabilitation) directly or indirectly owned and operated by us as of December 31, 2017:

 

State		Hospitals				Beds
Alaska			1				250
California			5				1,838
Colorado			7				2,411
Florida			45				11,980
Georgia			8				1,847
Idaho			2				468
Indiana			1				278
Kansas			4				1,374
Kentucky			2				384
Louisiana			4				1,066
Mississippi			1				130
Missouri			5				1,014
Nevada			3				1,217
New Hampshire			2				295
Oklahoma			2				756
South Carolina			3				867
Tennessee			13				2,450
Texas			46				12,980
Utah			8				1,011
Virginia			11				3,271
International
England			6				851
			179				46,738

In addition to the hospitals listed in the above table, we directly or indirectly operate 120 freestanding surgery centers. We also operate medical office buildings in conjunction with some of our hospitals. These office buildings are primarily occupied by physicians who practice at our hospitals. Fourteen of our general, acute care hospitals and two of our other properties have been mortgaged to support our obligations under our senior secured cash flow credit facility and first lien secured notes.

We maintain our headquarters in approximately 2,300,000 square feet of space in the Nashville, Tennessee area. In addition to the headquarters in Nashville, we maintain regional service centers related to our shared services initiatives. These service centers are located in markets in which we operate hospitals.

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

 

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. We are also subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for personal injuries or wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges. In certain of these actions the claimants may seek

 

46

punitive damages against us which may not be covered by insurance. We are also subject to claims by various taxing authorities for additional taxes and related interest and penalties. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims or legal and regulatory proceedings could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Government Investigations, Claims and Litigation

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

 

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

 

47

PART II

 

Item 5.

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

During November 2016 and October 2017, our Board of Directors authorized share repurchase programs, each for up to $2 billion of our outstanding common stock. Repurchases made during the fourth quarter of 2017, as detailed below, were made pursuant to the $2 billion November 2016 (which was completed during the quarter) and the $2 billion October 2017 share repurchase authorizations and were made in the open market.

The following table provides certain information with respect to our repurchases of common stock from October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (dollars in millions, except per share amounts).

 

Period		Total Number of Shares Purchased				Average Price Paid per Share				Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs				Approximate Dollar Value of Shares That May Yet Be Purchased Under Publicly Announced Plans or Programs
October 1, 2017 through October 31, 2017			2,953,476			$	77.40				2,953,476			$	2,150
November 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017			2,264,878			$	76.74				2,264,878			$	1,976
December 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017			2,026,500			$	85.83				2,026,500			$	1,802
Total for Fourth Quarter 2017			7,244,854			$	79.55				7,244,854			$	1,802

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (symbol “HCA”). There were no dividends or distributions declared during 2017 or 2016. On January 30, 2018, our Board of Directors initiated and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.35 per share on our common stock payable on March 30, 2018 to stockholders of record on March 1, 2018. Future declarations of quarterly dividends and the establishment of future record and payment dates are subject to the final determination of our Board of Directors. Our ability to declare future dividends may also from time to time be limited by the terms of our debt agreements.

The table below sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices per share reported on the NYSE for our common stock.

 

		Sales Price
		High				Low
2017
First Quarter		$	91.03			$	73.52
Second Quarter			89.80				81.10
Third Quarter			87.99				75.56
Fourth Quarter			90.29				71.18
2016
First Quarter		$	79.00			$	60.07
Second Quarter			83.69				73.82
Third Quarter			81.79				73.24
Fourth Quarter			82.37				67.00

At the close of business on February 9, 2018, there were approximately 340 holders of record of our common stock.

 

48

STOCK PERFORMANCE GRAPH

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

Among HCA Healthcare, Inc., the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Health Care Index

 

 

 

		12/31/2012				12/31/2013				12/31/2014				12/31/2015				12/31/2016				12/31/2017
HCA Healthcare, Inc.			100.00				158.14				243.25				224.16				245.34				291.15
S&P 500			100.00				132.39				150.51				152.59				170.84				208.14
S&P Health Care			100.00				141.46				177.30				189.52				184.42				225.13

The graph shows the cumulative total return to our stockholders beginning as of December 31, 2012 through December 31, 2017, in comparison to the cumulative returns of the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Health Care Index. The graph assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2012 in our common stock and in each index with the subsequent reinvestment of dividends. The stock performance shown on the graph represents historical stock performance and is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

 

49

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

 

		2017				2016				2015				2014				2013
Summary of Operations:
Revenues before provision for doubtful accounts		$	47,653			$	44,747			$	43,591			$	40,087			$	38,040
Provision for doubtful accounts			4,039				3,257				3,913				3,169				3,858
Revenues			43,614				41,490				39,678				36,918				34,182
Salaries and benefits			20,059				18,897				18,115				16,641				15,646
Supplies			7,316				6,933				6,638				6,262				5,970
Other operating expenses			8,051				7,496				7,056				6,630				6,021
Equity in earnings of affiliates			(45	)			(54	)			(46	)			(43	)			(29	)
Depreciation and amortization			2,131				1,966				1,904				1,820				1,753
Interest expense			1,690				1,707				1,665				1,743				1,848
Losses (gains) on sales of facilities			(8	)			(23	)			5				(29	)			10
Losses on retirement of debt			39				4				135				335				17
Legal claim costs (benefits)			—				(246	)			249				78				—
			39,233				36,680				35,721				33,437				31,236
Income before income taxes			4,381				4,810				3,957				3,481				2,946
Provision for income taxes			1,638				1,378				1,261				1,108				950
Net income			2,743				3,432				2,696				2,373				1,996
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			527				542				567				498				440
Net income attributable to HCA Healthcare, Inc.		$	2,216			$	2,890			$	2,129			$	1,875			$	1,556
Per common share data:
Basic earnings per share		$	6.12			$	7.53			$	5.14			$	4.30			$	3.50
Diluted earnings per share		$	5.95			$	7.30			$	4.99			$	4.16			$	3.37
Financial Position:
Assets		$	36,593			$	33,758			$	32,744			$	30,980			$	28,594
Working capital			3,819				3,252				3,716				3,450				2,342
Long-term debt, net, including amounts due within one year			33,058				31,376				30,488				29,426				28,139
Noncontrolling interests			1,811				1,669				1,553				1,396				1,342
Stockholders’ deficit			(4,995	)			(5,633	)			(6,046	)			(6,498	)			(6,928	)
Cash Flow Data:
Cash provided by operating activities		$	5,426			$	5,653			$	4,734			$	4,448			$	3,680
Cash used in investing activities			(4,279	)			(3,240	)			(2,583	)			(2,918	)			(2,346	)
Purchase of property and equipment			(3,015	)			(2,760	)			(2,375	)			(2,176	)			(1,943	)
Cash used in financing activities			(1,061	)			(2,508	)			(1,976	)			(1,378	)			(1,625	)

 

50

		2017				2016				2015				2014				2013
Operating Data:
Number of hospitals at end of period			179				170				168				166				165
Number of freestanding outpatient surgical centers at end of period			120				118				116				113				115
Number of licensed beds at end of period(a)			46,738				44,290				43,771				43,356				42,896
Weighted average licensed beds(b)			45,380				44,077				43,620				43,132				42,133
Admissions(c)			1,936,613				1,891,831				1,868,789				1,795,312				1,744,126
Equivalent admissions(d)			3,286,432				3,191,519				3,122,746				2,958,674				2,844,670
Average length of stay (days)(e)			4.9				4.9				4.9				4.8				4.8
Average daily census(f)			26,000				25,340				25,084				23,835				22,853
Occupancy(g)			57	%			58	%			58	%			55	%			54	%
Emergency room visits(h)			8,624,137				8,378,340				8,050,159				7,450,748				6,968,115
Outpatient surgeries(i)			935,307				932,213				909,386				891,633				881,883
Inpatient surgeries(j)			546,228				537,306				529,900				518,881				508,793
Days revenues in accounts receivable(k)			52				50				53				54				54
Outpatient revenues as a % of patient revenues(l)			38	%			38	%			40	%			38	%			38	%

 

(a)	Licensed beds are those beds for which a facility has been granted approval to operate from the applicable state licensing agency.

(b)	Represents the average number of licensed beds, weighted based on periods owned.

(c)	Represents the total number of patients admitted to our hospitals and is used by management and certain investors as a general measure of inpatient volume.

(d)

Equivalent admissions are used by management and certain investors as a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume. Equivalent admissions are computed by multiplying admissions (inpatient volume) by the sum of gross inpatient revenue and gross outpatient revenue and then dividing the resulting amount by gross inpatient revenue. The equivalent admissions computation “equates” outpatient revenue to the volume measure (admissions) used to measure inpatient volume, resulting in a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume.

(e)	Represents the average number of days admitted patients stay in our hospitals.

(f)	Represents the average number of patients in our hospital beds each day.

(g)	Represents the percentage of hospital licensed beds occupied by patients. Both average daily census and occupancy rate provide measures of the utilization of inpatient rooms.

(h)	Represents the number of patients treated in our emergency rooms.

(i)	Represents the number of surgeries performed on patients who were not admitted to our hospitals. Pain management and endoscopy procedures are not included in outpatient surgeries.

(j)	Represents the number of surgeries performed on patients who have been admitted to our hospitals. Pain management and endoscopy procedures are not included in inpatient surgeries.

(k)

Revenues per day is calculated by dividing the revenues for the fourth quarter of each year by the days in the period. Days revenues in accounts receivable is then calculated as accounts receivable, net of the allowance for doubtful accounts, at the end of the period divided by revenues per day. “Revenues” used in this computation are net of the provision for doubtful accounts.

(l)	Represents the percentage of patient revenues related to patients who are not admitted to our hospitals.

 

51

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

Item 7.

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

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

Forward-Looking Statements

This annual report on Form 10-K includes certain disclosures which contain “forward-looking statements.” Forward-looking statements include statements regarding expected share-based compensation expense, expected capital expenditures, expected dividends, expected net claim payments and all other statements that do not relate solely to historical or current facts, and can be identified by the use of words like “may,” “believe,” “will,” “expect,” “project,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “initiative” or “continue.” These forward-looking statements are based on our current plans and expectations and are subject to a number of known and unknown uncertainties and risks, many of which are beyond our control, which could significantly affect current plans and expectations and our future financial position and results of operations. These factors include, but are not limited to (1) the impact of our substantial indebtedness and the ability to refinance such indebtedness on acceptable terms, (2) the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Health Reform Law”), including the effects of any repeal of, or changes to, the Health Reform Law or changes to its implementation, the possible enactment of additional federal or state health care reforms and possible changes to other federal, state or local laws or regulations affecting the health care industry, (3) the effects related to the continued implementation of the sequestration spending reductions required under the Budget Control Act of 2011, and related legislation extending these reductions, and the potential for future deficit reduction legislation that may alter these spending reductions, which include cuts to Medicare payments, or create additional spending reductions, (4) increases in the amount and risk of collectability of uninsured accounts and deductibles and copayment amounts for insured accounts, (5) the ability to achieve operating and financial targets, and attain expected levels of patient volumes and control the costs of providing services, (6) possible changes in Medicare, Medicaid and other state programs, including Medicaid supplemental payment programs or Medicaid waiver programs, that may impact reimbursements to health care providers and insurers and the size of the uninsured or underinsured population, (7) the highly competitive nature of the health care business, (8) changes in service mix, revenue mix and surgical volumes, including potential declines in the population covered under third-party payer agreements, the ability to enter into and renew third-party payer provider agreements on acceptable terms and the impact of consumer-driven health plans and physician utilization trends and practices, (9) the efforts of health insurers, health care providers, large employer groups and others to contain health care costs, (10) the outcome of our continuing efforts to monitor, maintain and comply with appropriate laws, regulations, policies and procedures, (11) increases in wages and the ability to attract and retain qualified management and personnel, including affiliated physicians, nurses and medical and technical support personnel, (12) the availability and terms of capital to fund the expansion of our business and improvements to our existing facilities, (13) changes in accounting practices, (14) changes in general economic conditions nationally and regionally in our markets, (15) the emergence and effects related to infectious diseases, (16) future divestitures which may result in charges and possible impairments of long-lived assets, (17) changes in business strategy or development plans, (18) delays in receiving payments for services provided, (19) the outcome of pending and any future tax audits, disputes and litigation associated with our tax positions, (20) potential adverse impact of known and unknown government investigations, litigation and other claims that may be made against us, (21) the impact of potential cybersecurity incidents or security breaches, (22) our ongoing ability to demonstrate meaningful use of

 

52

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  (continued)

Forward-Looking Statements  (continued)

 

certified electronic health record (“EHR”) technology, (23) the impact of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, or similar events beyond our control, (24) changes in interpretations, assumptions and expectations regarding the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including additional guidance that may be issued by federal and state taxing authorities or other standard-setting bodies, and (25) other risk factors described in this annual report on Form 10-K. As a consequence, current plans, anticipated actions and future financial position and results of operations may differ from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of HCA. You are cautioned not to unduly rely on such forward-looking statements when evaluating the information presented in this report.

2017 Operations Summary

Net income attributable to HCA Healthcare, Inc. totaled $2.216 billion, or $5.95 per diluted share, for 2017, compared to $2.890 billion, or $7.30 per diluted share, for 2016. The 2017 results include additional expenses and losses of revenues estimated at approximately $140 million, or $0.24 per diluted share, associated with the impact of hurricanes Harvey and Irma on our Texas, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina facilities and an increase in provision for income taxes of $301 million, or $0.81 per diluted share, related to the remeasurement of our deferred tax assets and liabilities due to the enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The amount associated with the hurricanes is prior to any insurance recoveries which we may receive. The 2017 results also include net gains on sales of facilities of $8 million, or $0.01 per diluted share, and losses on retirement of debt of $39 million, or $0.06 per diluted share. The 2016 results include net gains on sales of facilities of $23 million, or $0.05 per diluted share, losses on retirement of debt of $4 million, or $0.01 per diluted share, and legal claim benefits of $246 million, or $0.39 per diluted share. Our provisions for income taxes for 2017 and 2016 included tax benefits of $82 million, or $0.22 per diluted share, and $162 million, or $0.41 per diluted share, respectively, related to employee equity award settlements. Our provision for income taxes for 2016 also included tax benefits of $51 million, or $0.13 per diluted share, primarily related to the resolution of federal income tax issues for our 2011 and 2012 tax years. All “per diluted share” disclosures are based upon amounts net of the applicable income taxes. Shares used for diluted earnings per share were 372.221 million shares and 395.851 million shares for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. During 2017 and 2016, we repurchased 25.092 million and 36.325 million shares, respectively, of our common stock.

Revenues increased to $43.614 billion for 2017 from $41.490 billion for 2016. Revenues increased 5.1% and 3.8%, respectively, on a consolidated basis and on a same facility basis for 2017, compared to 2016. The consolidated revenues increase can be attributed to the combined impact of a 2.1% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 3.0% increase in equivalent admissions. The same facility revenues increase resulted from a 2.2% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.5% increase in same facility equivalent admissions.

During 2017, consolidated admissions increased 2.4% and same facility admissions increased 1.1%, compared to 2016. Inpatient surgical volumes increased 1.7% on a consolidated basis and increased 0.3% on a same facility basis during 2017, compared to 2016. Outpatient surgical volumes increased 0.3% on a consolidated basis and declined 1.3% on a same facility basis during 2017, compared to 2016. Emergency room visits increased 2.9% on a consolidated basis and increased 1.4% on a same facility basis during 2017, compared to 2016.

For 2017, the provision for doubtful accounts increased $782 million, compared to 2016. The self-pay revenue deductions for charity care and uninsured discounts increased $710 million and $1.473 billion, respectively, for 2017, compared to 2016. The sum of the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts

 

53

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  (continued)

2017 Operations Summary  (continued)

 

and charity care, as a percentage of the sum of revenues, the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care, was 34.9% for 2017, compared to 33.0% for 2016. Same facility uninsured admissions increased 5.9% and same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 2.4% for 2017, compared to 2016. Same facility uninsured admissions increased 3.8% and same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 4.5% for 2016, compared to 2015.

Interest expense totaled $1.690 billion for 2017, compared to $1.707 billion for 2016. The $17 million decline in interest expense for 2017 was due to the decline in the average interest rate.

Cash flows from operating activities declined $227 million, from $5.653 billion for 2016 to $5.426 billion for 2017. The decline in cash flows from operating activities was primarily related to the net impact of the decline of net income of $689 million, offset by positive changes related to depreciation and amortization of $165 million and income taxes of $310 million.

Business Strategy

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

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

Achieve Industry-Leading Performance in Clinical and Satisfaction Measures. Achieving high levels of patient safety, patient satisfaction and clinical quality are central goals of our business model. To achieve these goals, we have implemented a number of initiatives including infection reduction initiatives, hospitalist programs, advanced health information technology and evidence-based medicine programs. We routinely analyze operational practices from our best-performing hospitals to identify ways to implement organization-wide performance improvements and reduce clinical variation. We believe these initiatives will continue to improve patient care, help us achieve cost efficiencies, grow our revenues and favorably position us in an environment where our constituents are increasingly focused on quality, efficacy and efficiency.

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

 

54

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Business Strategy (continued)

 

Continue to Leverage Our Scale and Market Positions to Enhance Profitability. We believe there is significant opportunity to continue to grow the profitability of our company by fully leveraging the scale and scope of our franchise. We are currently investing in initiatives such as additional care navigators, clinical data exchange and centralized patient transfer operations, which will enable us to improve coordination of care and patient retention across our markets. We believe our centrally managed business processes and ability to leverage cost-saving practices across our extensive network will enable us to continue to manage costs effectively. We continue to invest in our Parallon subsidiary group to leverage key components of our support infrastructure, including revenue cycle management, health care group purchasing, supply chain management and staffing functions.

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

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

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

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

Revenues

Revenues are recorded during the period the health care services are provided, based upon the estimated amounts due from payers. Estimates of contractual allowances under managed care health plans are based upon the payment terms specified in the related contractual agreements. Laws and regulations governing the Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to interpretation. The estimated reimbursement amounts are made on a payer-specific basis and are recorded based on the best information available regarding management’s interpretation of the applicable laws, regulations and contract terms. Management continually reviews the contractual estimation process to consider and incorporate updates to laws and regulations and the frequent changes in managed care contractual terms resulting from contract renegotiations and renewals. We have invested significant resources to refine and improve our billing systems and the information system data used to make contractual allowance estimates. We have developed standardized calculation processes and related employee training programs to improve the utility of our patient accounting systems.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”) requires any hospital participating in the Medicare program to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination of every person who presents to the

 

55

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (continued)

Revenues (continued)

 

hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the individual is suffering from an emergency medical condition, to either stabilize the condition or make an appropriate transfer of the individual to a facility able to handle the condition. The obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of an individual’s ability to pay for treatment. Federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to EMTALA, require, and our commitment to providing quality patient care encourages, the provision of services to patients who are financially unable to pay for the health care services they receive.

We do not pursue collection of amounts related to patients who meet our guidelines to qualify for charity care; therefore, these amounts are not reported in revenues. We provide discounts from our gross charges to uninsured amounts related to patients who do not qualify for Medicaid or charity care. After the discounts are applied, we are still unable to collect a significant portion of uninsured patients’ accounts, and we record significant provisions for doubtful accounts (based upon our historical collection experience) related to uninsured patients in the period the services are provided.

Due to the complexities involved in the classification and documentation of health care services authorized and provided, the estimation of revenues earned and the related reimbursement are often subject to interpretations that could result in payments that are different from our estimates. Adjustments to estimated Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement amounts and disproportionate-share funds, which resulted in net increases to revenues, related primarily to cost reports filed during the respective year were $41 million, $31 million and $48 million in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The adjustments to estimated reimbursement amounts, which resulted in net increases to revenues, related primarily to cost reports filed during previous years were $56 million, $90 million and $85 million in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We expect adjustments during the next 12 months related to Medicare and Medicaid cost report filings and settlements will result in increases to revenues generally similar to the amounts recorded during these years.

Provision for Doubtful Accounts and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

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

The amount of the provision for doubtful accounts is based upon management’s assessment of historical writeoffs and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal, state, and private

 

56

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (continued)

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

 

employer health care coverage and other collection indicators. Management relies on the results of detailed reviews of historical writeoffs and recoveries at facilities that represent a majority of our revenues and accounts receivable (the “hindsight analysis”) as a primary source of information in estimating the collectibility of our accounts receivable. We perform the hindsight analysis quarterly, utilizing rolling twelve-months accounts receivable collection and writeoff data. We believe our quarterly updates to the estimated allowance for doubtful accounts at each of our hospital facilities provide reasonable valuations of our accounts receivable. These routine, quarterly changes in estimates have not resulted in material adjustments to our allowance for doubtful accounts, provision for doubtful accounts or period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the allowance for doubtful accounts represented 100% of the $5.488 billion and 98% of the $5.116 billion, respectively, patient due accounts receivable balance. The patient due accounts receivable balance represents the estimated uninsured portion of our accounts receivable. The estimated uninsured portion of Medicaid pending and uninsured discount pending accounts is included in our patient due accounts receivable balance.

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

 

		2017				2016				2015
Charity care		$	4,861			$	4,151			$	3,682
Uninsured discounts			14,520				13,047				10,692
Provision for doubtful accounts			4,039				3,257				3,913
Totals		$	23,420			$	20,455			$	18,287

A summary of the estimated cost of total uncompensated care for the years ended December 31, follows (dollars in millions):

 

		2017				2016				2015
Patient care costs (salaries and benefits, supplies, other operating expenses and depreciation and amortization)		$	37,557			$	35,304			$	33,760
Cost-to-charges ratio (patient care costs as percentage of gross patient charges)			12.9	%			13.5	%			14.5	%
Total uncompensated care		$	23,420			$	20,455			$	18,287
Multiply by the cost-to-charges ratio			12.9	%			13.5	%			14.5	%
Estimated cost of total uncompensated care		$	3,021			$	2,761			$	2,652

The sum of the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care, as a percentage of the sum of revenues, the provision for doubtful accounts, uninsured discounts and charity care was 34.9% for 2017, 33.0% for 2016 and 31.5% for 2015. Days revenues in accounts receivable were 52 days, 50 days and 53 days at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Management expects a continuation of the challenges related to the collection of the patient due accounts. Adverse changes in the percentage of our patients having adequate health care coverage, increases in patient responsibility amounts under certain health care coverages, general

 

57

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (continued)

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

 

economic conditions, patient accounting service center operations, payer mix, or trends in federal, state, and private employer health care coverage could affect the collection of accounts receivable, cash flows and results of operations.

The approximate breakdown of accounts receivable by payer classification as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 is set forth in the following table:

 

		% of Accounts Receivable
		Under 91 Days				91 — 180 Days				Over 180 Days
Accounts receivable aging at December 31, 2017:
Medicare and Medicaid			11	%			1	%			1	%
Managed care and other insurers			31				5				5
Uninsured			19				6				21
Total			61	%			12	%			27	%
Accounts receivable aging at December 31, 2016:
Medicare and Medicaid			11	%			1	%			1	%
Managed care and other insurers			30				5				5
Uninsured			17				7				23
Total			58	%			13	%			29	%

Professional Liability Claims

We, along with virtually all health care providers, operate in an environment with professional liability risks. Our facilities are insured by our 100% owned insurance subsidiary for losses up to $50 million per occurrence, subject to a $15 million per occurrence self-insured retention. The insurance subsidiary has obtained reinsurance for professional liability risks generally above a retention level of $25 million per occurrence. We purchase excess insurance on a claims-made basis for losses in excess of $50 million per occurrence. Provisions for losses related to professional liability risks were $466 million, $430 million and $344 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Reserves for professional liability risks represent the estimated ultimate cost of all reported and unreported losses incurred through the respective consolidated balance sheet dates. The estimated ultimate cost includes estimates of direct expenses and fees paid to outside counsel and experts, but does not include the general overhead costs of our insurance subsidiary or corporate office. Individual case reserves are established based upon the particular circumstances of each reported claim and represent our estimates of the future costs that will be paid on reported claims. Case reserves are reduced as claim payments are made and are adjusted upward or downward as our estimates regarding the amounts of future losses are revised. Once the case reserves for known claims are determined, information is stratified by loss layers and retentions, accident years, reported years, and geographic location of our hospitals. Several actuarial methods are employed to utilize this data to produce estimates of ultimate losses and reserves for incurred but not reported claims, including: paid and incurred extrapolation methods utilizing paid and incurred loss development to estimate ultimate losses; frequency and severity methods utilizing paid and incurred claims development to estimate ultimate average frequency (number

 

58

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (continued)

Professional Liability Claims (continued)

 

of claims) and ultimate average severity (cost per claim); and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods which add expected development to actual paid or incurred experience to estimate ultimate losses. These methods use our company-specific historical claims data and other information. Company-specific claim reporting and payment data collected over an approximate 20-year period is used in our reserve estimation process. This company-specific data includes information regarding our business, including historical paid losses and loss adjustment expenses, historical and current case loss reserves, actual and projected hospital statistical data, professional liability retentions for each policy year, geographic information and other data.

Reserves and provisions for professional liability risks are based upon actuarially determined estimates. The estimated reserve ranges, net of amounts receivable under reinsurance contracts, were $1.456 billion to $1.743 billion at December 31, 2017 and $1.358 billion to $1.625 billion at December 31, 2016. Our estimated reserves for professional liability claims may change significantly if future claims differ from expected trends. We perform sensitivity analyses which model the volatility of key actuarial assumptions and monitor our reserves for adequacy relative to all our assumptions in the aggregate. Based on our analysis, we believe the estimated professional liability reserve ranges represent the reasonably likely outcomes for ultimate losses. We consider the number and severity of claims to be the most significant assumptions in estimating reserves for professional liabilities. A 2.5% change in the expected frequency trend could be reasonably likely and would increase the reserve estimate by $30 million or reduce the reserve estimate by $29 million. A 2.5% change in the expected claim severity trend could be reasonably likely and would increase the reserve estimate by $106 million or reduce the reserve estimate by $98 million. We believe adequate reserves have been recorded for our professional liability claims; however, due to the complexity of the claims, the extended period of time to resolve the claims and the wide range of potential outcomes, our ultimate liability for professional liability claims could change by more than the estimated sensitivity amounts and could change materially from our current estimates.

The reserves for professional liability risks cover approximately 2,500 and 2,700 individual claims at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and estimates for unreported potential claims. The time period required to resolve these claims can vary depending upon the jurisdiction and whether the claim is settled or litigated. The average time period between the occurrence and final resolution for our professional liability claims is approximately four years, although the facts and circumstances of each individual claim can result in an occurrence-to-resolution timeframe that varies from this average. The estimation of the timing of payments beyond a year can vary significantly.

Reserves for professional liability risks were $1.627 billion and $1.539 billion at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The current portion of these reserves, $429 million and $391 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, is included in “other accrued expenses.” Obligations covered by reinsurance and excess insurance contracts are included in the reserves for professional liability risks, as we remain liable to the extent reinsurers and excess insurance carriers do not meet their obligations. Reserves for professional liability risks (net of $24 million and $45 million receivable under reinsurance and excess insurance contracts at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively) were $1.603 billion and $1.494 billion at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The estimated total net reserves for professional liability risks at December 31, 2017 and 2016 are comprised of $751 million and $830 million, respectively, of case reserves for known claims and $852 million and $664 million, respectively, of reserves for incurred but not reported claims.

 

59

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (continued)

Professional Liability Claims (continued)

 

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

 

		2017				2016				2015
Net reserves for professional liability claims, January 1		$	1,494			$	1,421			$	1,382
Provision for current year claims			467				428				408
Unfavorable (favorable) development related to prior years’ claims			(1	)			2				(64	)
Total provision			466				430				344
Payments for current year claims			7				9				7
Payments for prior years’ claims			350				348				298
Total claim payments			357				357				305
Net reserves for professional liability claims, December 31		$	1,603			$	1,494			$	1,421

Income Taxes

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

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

Results of Operations

Revenue/Volume Trends

Our revenues depend upon inpatient occupancy levels, the ancillary services and therapy programs ordered by physicians and provided to patients, the volume of outpatient procedures and the charge and negotiated payment rates for such services. Gross charges typically do not reflect what our facilities are actually paid. Our facilities have entered into agreements with third-party payers, including government programs and managed care health plans, under which the facilities are paid based upon the cost of providing services, predetermined rates per diagnosis, fixed per diem rates or discounts from gross charges. We do not pursue collection of amounts related to patients who meet our guidelines to qualify for charity care; therefore, they are not reported in revenues. We provide discounts to uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid or charity care.

 

60

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Results of Operations (continued)

Revenue/Volume Trends (continued)

 

Revenues increased 5.1% to $43.614 billion for 2017 from $41.490 billion for 2016 and increased 4.6% for 2016 from $39.678 billion for 2015. The increase in revenues in 2017 can be attributed to the combined impact of a 2.1% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 3.0% increase in equivalent admissions compared to the prior year. The increase in revenues in 2016 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 2.3% increase in revenue per equivalent admission and a 2.2% increase in equivalent admissions compared to the prior year.

Same facility revenues increased 3.8% for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 and increased 4.1% for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. The 3.8% increase for 2017 can be primarily attributed to the combined impact of a 2.2% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.5% increase in same facility equivalent admissions. The 4.1% increase for 2016 can be attributed to the combined impact of a 2.2% increase in same facility revenue per equivalent admission and a 1.9% increase in same facility equivalent admissions.

Consolidated admissions increased 2.4% during 2017 compared to 2016 and increased 1.2% during 2016 compared to 2015. Consolidated surgeries increased 0.8% during 2017 compared to 2016 and increased 2.1% during 2016 compared to 2015. Consolidated emergency room visits increased 2.9% during 2017 compared to 2016 and increased 4.1% during 2016 compared to 2015.

Same facility admissions increased 1.1% during 2017 compared to 2016 and during 2016 compared to 2015. Same facility surgeries declined 0.7% during 2017 compared to 2016 and increased 1.3% during 2016 compared to 2015. Same facility emergency room visits increased 1.4% during 2017 compared to 2016 and increased 3.8% during 2016 compared to 2015.

Same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 2.4% and same facility uninsured admissions increased 5.9% during 2017 compared to 2016. Same facility uninsured emergency room visits increased 4.5% and same facility uninsured admissions increased 3.8% during 2016 compared to 2015.

The approximate percentages of our admissions related to Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid, managed care and other insurers, and the uninsured for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 are set forth below.

 

		Years Ended December 31,
		2017				2016				2015
Medicare			30	%			31	%			30	%
Managed Medicare			16				15				15
Medicaid			6				6				6
Managed Medicaid			12				12				12
Managed care and other insurers			28				29				30
Uninsured			8				7				7
			100	%			100	%			100	%

 

61

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (continued)

Results of Operations (continued)

Revenue/Volume Trends (continued)

 

The approximate percentages of our inpatient revenues, before provision for doubtful accounts, related to Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid, managed care plans and other insurers, and the uninsured for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 are set forth below.

 

		Years Ended December 31,
		2017				2016				2015
Medicare			27	%			28	%			28	%
Managed Medicare			12				12				12
Medicaid			5				5				6
Managed Medicaid			6				6				5
Managed care and other insurers			48				49				47
Uninsured			2				—				2
			100	%			100	%			100	%

At December 31, 2017, we owned and operated 45 hospitals and 32 surgery centers in the state of Florida. Our Florida facilities’ revenues totaled $10.168 billion, $9.522 billion and $9.059 billion for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. At December 31, 2017, we owned and operated 46 hospitals and 27 surgery centers in the state of Texas. Our Texas facilities’ revenues totaled $10.634 billion, $9.898 billion and $9.517 billion for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. During 2017, 2016 and 2015, 56% of our admissions and 48%, 47% and 47%, respectively, of our revenues were generated by our Florida and Texas facilities. Uninsured admissions in Florida and Texas represented 70%, 69% and 68% of our uninsured admissions during 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

We receive a significant portion of our revenues from government health programs, principally Medicare and Medicaid, which are highly regulated and subject to frequent and substantial changes. In December 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced that it will phase out federal matching funds for Designated State Health Programs under waivers granted under section 1115 of the Social Security Act due to concerns that the funds were not used as an integral part of Medicaid demonstrations focused on delivery system reform or coverage reform.

Texas currently operates its Healthcare Transformation and Quality Improvement Program pursuant to a Medicaid waiver (the “Texas Waiver Program”). In December 2017, CMS approved an extension of this waiver through September 30, 2022, but indicated that it will phase out some of the federal funding. As currently structured, the Texas Waiver Program includes two primary components: an uncompensated care component and a Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (“DSRIP”) component. Initiatives under the DSRIP program are designed to provide incentive payments to hospitals and other providers for their investments in delivery system reforms that increase access to health care, improve the quality of care and enhance the health of patients and families they serve. CMS will provide level DSRIP funding for two years, decreased funding for the following two years, and no DSRIP funding beginning October 1, 2021. In addition, the disbursement methodology for uncompensated care pool funding will be revised to align with federal policies. Beginning October 1, 2019, Texas will not receive any federal financial participation for uncompensated care pool payments until CMS approves revised uncompensated care protocol policies for the state that will govern how hospitals’ uncompensated care entitlement is calculated and the size of the statewide uncompensated care pool. Based on the waiver renewal terms, we expect the statewide uncompensated care pool size will ultimately be reduced, but

 

62

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  (continued)

Results of Operations  (continued)

Revenue/Volume Trends  (continued)

 

it is presently unclear whether our share of the pool and its corresponding uncompensated care payments will increase or decrease. We provide charity care services directly to patients in several communities in the state of Texas, in affiliation with other hospitals. As a result of additional charitable care being provided directly to patients by private hospitals, public hospital districts or counties in Texas have available funds that were previously devoted to indigent care. The public hospital districts or counties are under no contractual or legal obligation to provide such indigent care. The public hospital districts or counties have elected to transfer some portion of these available funds to the state’s Medicaid program. Such action is at the sole discretion of the public hospital districts or counties. It is anticipated that these contributions to the state will be matched with federal Medicaid funds, as they have been for the past twelve years in Texas. The state then may make supplemental payments to hospitals in the state for Medicaid services rendered. Hospitals receiving Medicaid supplemental payments may include those that are providing additional indigent care services.

Our Texas Medicaid revenues included $351 million ($108 million DSRIP related and $243 million uncompensated care related), $370 million ($101 million DSRIP related and $269 million uncompensated care related) and $347 million ($95 million DSRIP related and $252 million uncompensated care related) during 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively, of Medicaid supplemental waiver payments. We cannot predict whether the Texas Medicaid Waiver Program will be further extended or revised beyond September 30, 2022.

In addition, we receive supplemental payments in several other states. We are aware these supplemental payment programs are currently being reviewed by certain state agencies and some states have made waiver requests to CMS to replace their existing supplemental payment programs. It is possible these reviews and waiver requests will result in the restructuring of such supplemental payment programs and could result in the payment programs being reduced or eliminated. Because deliberations about these programs are ongoing, we are unable to estimate the financial impact the program structure modifications, if any, may have on our results of operations.

 

63

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  (continued)

Results of Operations  (continued)

 

Operating Results Summary

The following are comparative summaries of operating results for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in millions):

 

		2017								2016								2015
		Amount				Ratio				Amount				Ratio				Amount				Ratio
Revenues before provision for doubtful accounts		$	47,653							$	44,747							$	43,591
Provision for doubtful accounts			4,039								3,257								3,913
Revenues			43,614				100.0				41,490				100.0				39,678				100.0
Salaries and benefits			20,059				46.0				18,897				45.5				18,115				45.7
Supplies			7,316				16.8				6,933				16.7				6,638				16.7
Other operating expenses			8,051				18.4				7,496				18.1				7,056				17.8
Equity in earnings of affiliates			(45	)			(0.1	)			(54	)			(0.1	)			(46	)			(0.1	)
Depreciation and amortization			2,131				4.9				1,966				4.8				1,904				4.8
Interest expense			1,690				3.9				1,707				4.1				1,665				4.2
Losses (gains) on sales of facilities			(8	)			—				(23	)			(0.1	)			5				—
Losses on retirement of debt			39				0.1				4				—				135				0.3
Legal claim costs (benefits)			—				—				(246	)			(0.6	)			249				0.6
			39,233				90.0				36,680				88.4				35,721				90.0
Income before income taxes			4,381				10.0				4,810				11.6				3,957				10.0
Provision for income taxes			1,638				3.7				1,378				3.3				1,261				3.2
Net income			2,743				6.3				3,432				8.3				2,696				6.8
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			527				1.2				542				1.3				567				1.4
Net income attributable to HCA Healthcare, Inc.		$	2,216				5.1			$	2,890				7.0			$	2,129				5.4
% changes from prior year:
Revenues			5.1	%							4.6	%							7.5	%
Income before income taxes			(8.9	)							21.6								13.7
Net income attributable to HCA Healthcare, Inc.			(23.3	)							35.8								13.6
Admissions(a)			2.4								1.2								4.1
Equivalent admissions(b)			3.0								2.2								5.5
Revenue per equivalent admission			2.1								2.3								1.8
Same facility % changes from prior year(c):
Revenues			3.8								4.1								6.4
Admissions(a)			1.1								1.1								3.4
Equivalent admissions(b)			1.5								1.9								4.6
Revenue per equivalent admission			2.2								2.2								1.7

 

(a)	Represents the total number of patients admitted to our hospitals and is used by management and certain investors as a general measure of inpatient volume.

(b)

Equivalent admissions are used by management and certain investors as a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume. Equivalent admissions are computed by multiplying admissions (inpatient volume) by the sum of gross inpatient revenue and gross outpatient revenue and then dividing the resulting amount by gross inpatient revenue. The equivalent admissions computation “equates” outpatient revenue to the volume measure (admissions) used to measure inpatient volume, resulting in a general measure of combined inpatient and outpatient volume.

(c)	Same facility information excludes the operations of hospitals and their related facilities that were either acquired, divested or removed from service during the current and prior year.

 

64