UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

Form 10-K

 

 

Commission file number 001-15925

 

 

 

 

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(615) 465-7000

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

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

 

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $3,231,059,649. Market value is determined by reference to the closing price on June 30, 2010 of the Registrant’s Common Stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange. The Registrant does not (and did not at June 30, 2010) have any non-voting common stock outstanding. As of February 17, 2011, there were 92,752,536 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, outstanding.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

The information required for Part III of this annual report is incorporated by reference from portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

 

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

Year ended December 31, 2010

 

 

 

Overview of Our Company

 

We are the largest publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States in terms of number of facilities and net operating revenues. We were incorporated in 1996 as a Delaware corporation. We provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. As of December 31, 2010, we owned or leased 130 hospitals, including four stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals are geographically diversified across 29 states, with an aggregate of 19,372 licensed beds. We generate revenues by providing a broad range of general and specialized hospital healthcare services to patients in the communities in which we are located. Services provided by our hospitals include general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. As part of providing these services, we also own physician practices, imaging centers and ambulatory surgery centers. Through our management and operation of these businesses, we provide standardization and centralization of operations across key business areas; strategic assistance to expand and improve services and facilities; implementation of quality of care improvement programs; and assistance in the recruitment of additional physicians to the markets in which our hospitals are located. In a number of our markets, we have partnered with local physicians or not-for-profit providers, or both, in the ownership of our facilities. In addition to our hospitals and related businesses, we also own and operate 64 licensed home care agencies and 25 hospice agencies, located primarily in markets where we also operate a hospital. Also, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Quorum Health Resources, LLC, or QHR, we provide management and consulting services to non-affiliated general acute care hospitals located throughout the United States. The home care agencies and the hospital management services businesses constitute operating segments, but are not considered reportable segments since they do not meet the quantitative thresholds for a separate identifiable reportable segment. The financial information for our reportable operating segments is presented in Note 14 of the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Report.

 

Our strategy has also included growth by acquisition. We generally target hospitals in growing, non-urban and selected urban healthcare markets for acquisition because of their favorable demographic and economic trends and competitive conditions. Because these service areas have smaller populations, there are generally fewer hospitals and other healthcare service providers in these communities and generally a lower level of managed care presence in these markets. We believe that smaller populations support less direct competition for hospital-based services. Also, we believe that these communities generally view the local hospital as an integral part of the community.

 

During 2010, we fully resumed our acquisition strategy by acquiring five hospitals. We had limited our acquisition activity after our acquisition of Triad Hospitals, Inc., or Triad, in 2007.

 

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

 

Available Information

 

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

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

 

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

 

Our Business Strategy

 

With the objective of increasing shareholder value and improving care, the key elements of our business strategy are to:

 

 

Increase Revenue at Our Facilities

 

Overview.  We seek to increase revenue at our facilities by providing a broader range of services in a more attractive care setting, as well as by supporting and recruiting physicians. We identify the healthcare needs of the community by analyzing demographic data and patient referral trends. We also work with local hospital boards, management teams, and medical staffs to determine the number and type of additional physician specialties needed. Our initiatives to increase revenue include:

 

 

Physician Recruiting.  The primary method of adding or expanding medical services is the recruitment of new physicians into the community. A core group of primary care physicians is necessary as an initial contact point for all local healthcare. The addition of specialists who offer services, including general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiovascular services, orthopedics and urology, completes the full range of medical and surgical services required to meet a community’s core healthcare needs. At the time we acquire a hospital and from time to time thereafter, we identify the healthcare needs of the community by analyzing demographic data and patient referral trends. As a result of this analysis, we are able to determine what we believe to be the optimum mix of primary care physicians and specialists. We employ recruiters at the corporate level to support the local hospital managers in their recruitment efforts. We have increased the number of physicians affiliated with us through our recruiting efforts, net of turnover, by approximately 935 in 2010, 772 in 2009 and 686 in 2008. The percentage of recruited or other physicians commencing practice with us that were specialists was over 50% in 2010. Additionally, in response to the recent trend in physicians seeking employment, we have begun employing more physicians, including, in some instances, acquiring physician practices. However, most of the physicians in our communities remain in private practice and are not our employees. We have been successful in recruiting physicians because of the practice opportunities afforded physicians in our markets, as well as lower managed care penetration as compared to larger urban areas.

 

Emergency Room Initiatives.  Approximately 60% of our hospital admissions originate in the emergency room. Therefore, we systematically take steps to increase patient flow in our emergency rooms as a means of optimizing utilization rates for our hospitals. Furthermore, our patients’ impression of our overall operations is

substantially influenced by our emergency rooms since generally that is our patients’ first experience with our hospitals. The steps we take to increase patient flow in our emergency rooms include renovating and expanding our emergency room facilities, improving service and reducing waiting times, as well as publicizing our emergency room capabilities in the local community. We have expanded or renovated 13 of our emergency rooms during the past three years, including four in 2010. We have also implemented marketing campaigns that emphasize the speed, convenience and quality of our emergency rooms to enhance each community’s awareness of our emergency room services.

 

One component of upgrading our emergency rooms is the implementation of specialized computer software programs designed to assist physicians in making diagnoses and determining treatments. The software also benefits patients and hospital personnel by assisting in proper documentation of patient records and tracking patient flow. It enables our nurses to provide more consistent patient care and provides clear instructions to patients at time of discharge to help them better understand their treatments.

 

Expansion of Services.  In an effort to better meet the healthcare needs of the communities we serve and to capture a greater portion of the healthcare spending in our markets, we have added a broad range of services to our facilities and in certain markets, acquired physician practices to broaden our service offerings. These services range from various types of diagnostic equipment capabilities to additional and renovated emergency rooms, surgical and critical care suites and specialty services. For example, we spent approximately $119.6 million on 35 major construction projects that were completed in 2010. The 2010 projects included new emergency rooms, cardiac cathertization laboratories, intensive care units, hospital additions and surgical suites. These projects improved various diagnostic and other inpatient and outpatient service capabilities. We continue to believe that appropriate capital investments in our facilities combined with the development of our service capabilities will reduce the migration of patients to competing providers while providing an attractive return on investment. We also employ a small group of clinical consultants at our corporate headquarters to assist the hospitals in their development of surgery, emergency, critical care, cardiovascular and hospitalist services. In addition to spending capital on expanding services at our existing hospitals, we also build replacement facilities in certain markets to better meet the healthcare needs in those communities. In 2010, we spent $34.7 million on construction projects related to three replacement hospitals that we are required to build pursuant to either a hospital purchase agreement or an amendment to a lease agreement. In addition, in September 2010, we received approval of our request for a certificate of need from the Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board for the construction of a replacement hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. This certificate of need remains subject to an appeal process. The total cost of these four replacement hospitals is estimated to be $598.5 million.

 

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

 

Improve Profitability

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Case and Resource Management.  Our case and resource management program is a company-devised program developed with the goal of improving clinical care and cost containment. The program focuses on:

 

 

Our case and resource management program integrates the functions of utilization review, discharge planning, overall clinical management and resource management into a single effort to improve the quality and efficiency of care. Issues evaluated in this process include patient treatment, patient length of stay and utilization of resources.

 

Under our case and resource management program, patient care begins with a clinical assessment of the appropriate level of care, discharge planning and medical necessity for planned services. Beginning when a patient presents to the hospital, we conduct ongoing reviews for medical necessity using appropriateness criteria. We reassess and adjust discharge plan options as the needs of the patient change. We closely monitor cases to prevent delayed service or inappropriate utilization of resources. Once the patient attains clinical improvement, we work with the attending physician to evaluate further needs for acute care treatment through discussions with the facility’s physician advisor. Finally, we refer the patient to the appropriate post-hospitalization resources.

 

Improve Quality

 

We have implemented various programs to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of care provided. We have developed training programs for all senior hospital management, chief nursing officers, quality directors, physicians and other clinical staff. We share information among our hospital management to implement best practices and assist in complying with regulatory requirements. We have standardized accreditation documentation and requirements. All hospitals conduct patient, physician and staff satisfaction surveys to help identify methods of improving the quality of care.

 

Each of our hospitals is governed by a board of trustees, which includes members of the hospital’s medical staff. The board of trustees establishes policies concerning the hospital’s medical, professional, and ethical practices, monitors these practices, and is responsible for ensuring that these practices conform to legally required standards. We maintain quality assurance programs to support and monitor quality of care standards and to meet Medicare and Medicaid accreditation and regulatory requirements. Patient care evaluations and other quality of care assessment activities are reviewed and monitored continuously.

 

To ensure the experience of our emergency room patients meets our service and quality expectations, we have implemented a program to contact each patient as a follow-up to the services they received. We verify that patients were able to obtain any prescriptions and outpatient appointments recommended at discharge. We also ensure that their symptoms have abated and that they understood the discharge instructions given at the hospital. Through this program, we placed in excess of one million follow-up calls in 2010.

 

Grow Through Selective Acquisitions

 

Acquisition Criteria.  Each year we intend to acquire, on a selective basis, two to four hospitals that fit our acquisition criteria. Generally, we pursue acquisition candidates that:

 

 

 

In each year since 1997, we have met or exceeded our acquisition goals. Occasionally, we have pursued acquisition opportunities outside of our specified criteria when such opportunities have had uniquely favorable characteristics. In the fourth quarter of 2008, we completed the acquisition of a two hospital system located in Spokane, Washington. In 2009, we acquired two hospitals located in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and one hospital in Siloam Springs, Arkansas and purchased the remaining equity in a hospital located in El Dorado, Arkansas in which we previously had a noncontrolling interest. In 2010, we acquired five hospitals located in Marion, South Carolina, Youngstown, Ohio, Warren, Ohio and Bluefield, West Virginia.

 

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

 

Acquisition Efforts.  Most of our acquisition targets are municipal or other not-for-profit hospitals. We believe that our access to capital, ability to recruit physicians and reputation for providing quality care make us an attractive partner for these communities. In addition, we have found that communities located in states where we already operate a hospital are more receptive to us, when they consider selling their hospital, because they are aware of our operating track record with respect to our hospitals within the state.

 

At the time we acquire a hospital, we may commit to an amount of capital expenditures, such as a replacement facility, renovations, or equipment over a specified period of time. As obligations under two hospital purchase agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010, we are required to build a replacement facility in Valparaiso, Indiana by April 2011 and in Siloam Springs, Arkansas by February 2013. Due to delays in receiving government approved building and zoning permits, the replacement facility in Valparaiso, Indiana is not expected to be completed until the fourth quarter of 2012. Also, as required by an amendment to a lease agreement entered into in 2005, we agreed to build a replacement hospital at our Barstow, California location. Estimated construction costs, including equipment costs, are approximately $318.5 million for these three replacement facilities, of which approximately $47.4 million has been incurred to date. In addition, in October 2008, after the purchase of the noncontrolling owner’s interest in our Birmingham, Alabama facility, we initiated the purchase of a site, which includes a partially constructed hospital structure, for a potential replacement to our existing Birmingham facility. In September 2010, we received approval of our request for a certificate of need from the Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board; however, this certificate of need remains subject to an appeal process. Our estimated construction costs, including the acquisition of the site and equipment costs, are approximately $280.0 million for the Birmingham replacement facility, of which approximately $1.3 million has been incurred to date. Under other purchase agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010, we have committed to spend $540.5 million, generally over a five to seven year period after acquisition, for costs such as capital improvements, equipment, selected leases and physician recruiting. Through December 31, 2010, we have incurred approximately $184.5 million related to these commitments.

On December 9, 2010, we announced that we made an offer to acquire Tenet Healthcare Corporation, or Tenet, for $6.00 per share, including $5.00 per share in cash and $1.00 per share in our common stock, which represented a premium of 40% over Tenet’s closing stock price on December 9, 2010. The total value of the transaction at this offering price would be approximately $7.3 billion, including $3.3 billion of acquired equity and approximately $4.0 billion of assumed long-term debt. The offer was made in a letter to Tenet’s Board of Directors on November 12, 2010, and rejected by Tenet on December 6, 2010. On December 20, 2010, we announced our intention to nominate directors for election at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Tenet, and on January 14, 2011, a full slate of 10 independent director nominees was nominated. Tenet’s entire Board is up for reelection at the 2011 Annual Meeting, which has been scheduled for November 3, 2011. There can be no assurance that such a transaction will be completed or, if completed, on what terms.

 

Industry Overview

 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, reported that in 2009 total U.S. healthcare expenditures grew by 4.0% to approximately $2.5 trillion. CMS also projected total U.S. healthcare spending to grow by 5.1% in 2010 and by an average of 6.3% annually from 2009 through 2019. By these estimates, healthcare expenditures will account for approximately $4.6 trillion, or 19.6% of the total U.S. gross domestic product, by 2019.

 

Hospital services, the market in which we operate, is the largest single category of healthcare at 30% of total healthcare spending in 2009, or approximately $759.1 billion, as reported by CMS. CMS projects the hospital services category to grow by at least 4.2% per year through 2019. It expects growth in hospital healthcare spending to continue due to the aging of the U.S. population and consumer demand for expanded medical services. As hospitals remain the primary setting for healthcare delivery, CMS expects hospital services to remain the largest category of healthcare spending.

 

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

 

Urban vs. Non-Urban Hospitals

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 21% of the U.S. population lives in communities designated as non-urban. In these non-urban communities, hospitals are typically the primary source of healthcare. In many cases a single hospital is the only provider of general healthcare services in these communities.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Hospital Industry Trends

 

Demographic Trends.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are presently approximately 39.6 million Americans aged 65 or older in the U.S. who comprise approximately 12.9% of the total U.S. population. By the year 2030, the number of Americans aged 65 or older is expected to climb to 72.1 million, or 19.3% of the total population. Due to the increasing life expectancy of Americans, the number of people aged 85 years and older is also expected to increase from 5.6 million to 8.7 million by the year 2030. This increase in life expectancy will increase demand for healthcare services and, as importantly, the demand for innovative, more sophisticated means of delivering those services. Hospitals, as the largest category of care in the healthcare market, will be among the main beneficiaries of this increase in demand. Based on data compiled for us, the populations of the service areas where our hospitals are located grew by 25.0% from 1990 to 2009 and are expected to grow by 4.6% from 2009 to 2014. The number of people aged 65 or older in these service areas grew by 26.6% from 1990 to 2009 and is expected to grow by 15.2% from 2009 to 2014.

 

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

 

 

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

Selected Operating Data

 

The following table sets forth operating statistics for our hospitals for each of the years presented, which are included in our continuing operations. Statistics for 2010 include a full year of operations for 125 hospitals and partial periods for five hospitals acquired during the year. Statistics for 2009 include a full year of operations for 121 hospitals and partial periods for three hospitals acquired during the year and one hospital in which we previously had a noncontrolling interest and purchased the remaining interest during the year. Statistics for 2008 include a full year of operations for 119 hospitals and partial periods for two hospitals acquired during the year. Statistics for hospitals which have been sold are excluded from all periods presented.

 

 

 

See pages 10 and 11 for footnotes.

 

 

 

 

The following table reconciles adjusted EBITDA, as defined, to our net cash provided by operating activities as derived directly from our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

Sources of Revenue

 

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

 

 

The following table presents the approximate percentages of net operating revenues received from Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, self-pay and other sources for the periods indicated. The data for the years presented are not strictly comparable due to the effect that hospital acquisitions have had on these statistics.

 

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

 

Medicare is a federal program that provides medical insurance benefits to persons age 65 and over, some disabled persons, and persons with end-stage renal disease. Medicaid is a federal-state funded program, administered by the states, which provides medical benefits to individuals who are unable to afford healthcare. All of our hospitals are certified as providers of Medicare and Medicaid services. Amounts received under the Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally significantly less than a hospital’s customary charges for the services provided. Since a substantial portion of our revenue comes from patients under Medicare and Medicaid programs, our ability to operate our business successfully in the future will depend in large measure on our ability to adapt to changes in these programs.

 

In addition to government programs, we are paid by private payors, which include insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs, other managed care companies, employers, and by patients directly. Blue Cross payors are included in the “Managed Care and other third-party payors” line in the above table. Patients are generally not responsible for any difference between customary hospital charges and amounts paid for hospital services by Medicare and Medicaid programs, insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs, and other managed care companies, but are responsible for services not covered by these programs or plans, as well as for deductibles and co-insurance obligations of their coverage. The amount of these deductibles and co-insurance obligations has increased in recent years. Collection of amounts due from individuals is typically more difficult than collection of amounts due from government or business payors. To further reduce their healthcare costs, an increasing number of insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs, and other managed care companies are negotiating discounted fee structures or fixed amounts for hospital services performed, rather than paying healthcare providers the amounts billed. We negotiate discounts with managed care companies, which are typically smaller than discounts under governmental programs. If an increased number of insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs, and other managed care companies succeed in negotiating discounted fee structures or fixed amounts, our results of operations may be negatively affected. For more information on the payment programs on which our revenues depend, see “Payment” on page 19.

 

As of December 31, 2010, Indiana, Texas and Pennsylvania represented our only areas of geographic concentration. Net operating revenues as a percentage of consolidated net operating revenues generated in Indiana were 10.3% in 2010 and 10.9% in both 2009 and 2008. Net operating revenues as a percentage of consolidated net operating revenues generated in Texas were 13.0% in 2010, 13.2% in 2009 and 13.3% in 2008. Net operating revenues as a percentage of consolidated net operating revenues generated in Pennsylvania were 10.0% in 2010, 9.9% in 2009 and 8.9% in 2008.

 

Hospital revenues depend upon inpatient occupancy levels, the volume of outpatient procedures, and the charges or negotiated payment rates for hospital services provided. Charges and payment rates for routine inpatient services vary significantly depending on the type of service performed and the geographic location of

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

 

 

Government Regulation

 

Overview.  The healthcare industry is required to comply with extensive government regulation at the federal, state, and local levels. Under these regulations, hospitals must meet requirements to be certified as hospitals and qualified to participate in government programs, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These requirements relate to the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, maintenance of adequate records, hospital use, rate-setting, compliance with building codes, and environmental protection laws. There are also extensive regulations governing a hospital’s participation in these government programs. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we can be subject to criminal penalties and civil sanctions, our hospitals can lose their licenses and we could lose our ability to participate in these government programs. In addition, government regulations may change. If that happens, we may have to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, and services so that our hospitals remain certified as hospitals and qualified to participate in these programs. We believe that our hospitals are in substantial compliance with current federal, state, and local regulations and standards.

 

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

 

Healthcare Reform.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, was signed into law on February 17, 2009, providing for a temporary increase in the federal matching assistance percentage (FMAP), a temporary increase in federal Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, or DSH, allotments, subsidization of health insurance premiums (COBRA) for up to nine months, and grants and loans for infrastructure and incentive payments for providers who adopt and use health information technology. This act also provides penalties by reducing reimbursement from Medicare in the form of reductions to scheduled market basket increases beginning in federal fiscal year 2015 if eligible hospitals and professionals fail to demonstrate meaningful use of electronic health record technology. The 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act was signed into law on December 19, 2009 and expanded the subsidization of health insurance premiums (COBRA) to 15 months and extended the eligibility period for individuals losing their jobs through February 28, 2010.

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, was signed into law on March 23, 2010. In addition, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, or Reconciliation Act, which contains a number of amendments to PPACA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. These healthcare acts, referred to collectively as the Reform Legislation, include a mandate that requires substantially all U.S. citizens to maintain medical insurance coverage which will ultimately increase the number of persons with access to health insurance in the United States. The Reform Legislation should result in a reduction in uninsured patients, which should reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable; however, this legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update beginning October 1, 2011, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, that could adversely impact the reimbursement received under these programs. The various provisions in the Reform Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years, and we cannot predict their impact at this time. Other provisions of the Reform

Legislation, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, should increase our operating costs.

 

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

 

In a number of markets, we have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of our facilities. Such investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law, or Stark Law, that allows physicians to invest in an entire hospital (as opposed to individual hospital departments). The Reform Legislation changes the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation permits existing physician investments in a whole hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians became prohibited, from the time the Reform Legislation became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Reform Legislation also restricts the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. Physician investments in hospitals that are under development are protected by the grandfather clause only if the physician investments have been made and the hospital has a Medicare provider agreement as of a specific date.

 

The impact of the Reform Legislation on each of our hospitals will vary depending on payor mix and a variety of other factors. We anticipate that many of the provisions in the Reform Legislation will be subject to further clarification and modification through the rule-making process, the development of agency guidance and judicial interpretations. Moreover, a number of state attorneys general are challenging the legality of certain aspects of the Reform Legislation. Currently, rulings in four separate Federal District Courts, regarding the constitutionality of the Reform Legislation, have been split, with two courts ruling in favor of the legislation and two courts ruling that part or all of the Reform Legislation was unconstitutional. These decisions are likely to be appealed and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court. We cannot predict the impact the Reform Legislation may have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity or the ultimate outcome of the judicial rulings. Furthermore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation.

 

Fraud and Abuse Laws.  Participation in the Medicare program is heavily regulated by federal statute and regulation. If a hospital fails substantially to comply with the requirements for participating in the Medicare program, the hospital’s participation in the Medicare program may be terminated and/or civil or criminal penalties may be imposed. For example, a hospital may lose its ability to participate in the Medicare program if it performs any of the following acts:

 

 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, broadened the scope of the fraud and abuse laws. Under HIPAA, any person or entity that knowingly and willfully defrauds or attempts to defraud a healthcare benefit program, including private healthcare plans, may be subject to fines, imprisonment or both. Additionally, any person or entity that knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact or makes any material false or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery or payment of healthcare services by a healthcare benefit plan is subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” This law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare patients to healthcare entities in which they or any of their immediate family members have ownership interests or other financial arrangements. These types of referrals are commonly known as “self referrals.” Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil money penalties, assessments equal to twice the dollar value of each service, and exclusion from government payor programs. There are ownership and compensation arrangement exceptions to the self-referral prohibition. One exception allows a physician to make a referral to a hospital if the physician owns an interest in the entire hospital, as opposed to an ownership interest in a department of the hospital. Another exception allows

a physician to refer patients to a healthcare entity in which the physician has an ownership interest if the entity is located in a rural area, as defined in the statute. There are also exceptions for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases, and recruitment agreements. From time to time, the federal government has issued regulations which interpret the provisions included in the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation changed the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation permitted existing physician investments in a whole hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians became prohibited, from the time the Reform Legislation became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Reform Legislation also restricted the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their aggregate licensed beds, operating rooms and procedure rooms. Physician investments in hospitals that are under development are protected by the grandfather clause only if the physician investments have been made and the hospital has a Medicare provider agreement as of a specific date. The whole hospital exception, as amended, also contains additional disclosure requirements. For example, a grandfathered physician-owned hospital is required to submit an annual report to the Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS, listing each investor in the hospital, including all physician owners. In addition, grandfathered physician-owned hospitals must have procedures in place that require each referring physician owner to disclose to patients, with enough notice for the patient to make a meaningful decision regarding receipt of care, the physician’s ownership interest and, if applicable, any ownership interest held by the treating physician. A grandfathered physician-owned hospital also must disclose on its web site and in any public advertising the fact that it has physician ownership. The Reform Legislation requires grandfathered physician-owned hospitals to comply with these new requirements by September 23, 2011 and requires audits of the hospitals’ compliance beginning no later than May 1, 2012.

 

In addition to the restrictions and disclosure requirements applicable to physician-owned hospitals set forth in the Reform Legislation, CMS regulations require physician-owned hospitals and their physician owners to disclose certain ownership information to patients. Physician-owned hospitals that receive referrals from physician owners must disclose in writing to patients that such hospitals are owned by physicians and that patients may receive a list of the hospitals’ physician investors upon request. Additionally, a physician-owned hospital must require all physician owners who are members of the hospital’s medical staff to agree, as a condition of continued medical staff membership or admitting privileges, to disclose in writing to all patients whom they refer to the hospital their (or an immediate family member’s) ownership interest in the hospital. A hospital is considered to be physician-owned if any physician, or an immediate family member of a physician, holds debt, stock or other types of investment in the hospital or in any owner of the hospital, excluding physician ownership through publicly-traded securities that meet certain conditions. If a hospital fails to comply with these regulations, the hospital could lose its Medicare provider agreement and be unable to participate in Medicare.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

We strive to comply with the Stark Law and regulations; however, the government may interpret the law and regulations differently. If we are found to have violated the Stark Law or regulations, we could be subject to significant sanctions, including damages, penalties, and exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

 

Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Laws.  Another trend affecting the healthcare industry today is the increased use of the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, and, in particular, actions being brought by individuals on the government’s behalf under the FCA’s “qui tam” or whistleblower provisions. Whistleblower provisions allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the defendant has defrauded the federal government. If the government intervenes in the action and prevails, the party filing the initial complaint may share in any settlement or judgment. If the government does not intervene in the action, the whistleblower plaintiff may pursue the action independently and may receive a larger share of any settlement or judgment. When a private party brings a qui tam action under the FCA, the defendant generally will not be made aware of the lawsuit until the government commences its own investigation or makes a determination whether it will intervene. Further, 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.

 

When a defendant is determined by a court of law to be liable under the FCA, the defendant must pay three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each separate false claim. Settlements entered into prior to litigation usually involve a less severe calculation of damages. 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 broadly defines the term “knowingly.” Although simple negligence will not give rise to liability under the FCA, submitting a claim with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity can constitute “knowingly” submitting a false claim and result in liability. In some cases, whistleblowers, the federal government and courts have taken the position that providers who allegedly have violated other statutes, such as the anti-kickback statute or the Stark Law, have thereby submitted false claims under the FCA. The Reform Legislation clarifies this issue with respect to the anti-kickback statute by providing that submission of a claim for an item or service generated in violation of the anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 expanded the scope of the FCA by, among other things, creating liability for knowingly and improperly avoiding repayment of an overpayment received from the government and broadening protections for whistleblowers. Under the Reform Legislation, the FCA is implicated by the knowing failure to report and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment or by the date a corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. Further, the FCA will cover payments involving federal funds in connection with the new health insurance exchanges to be created pursuant to the Reform Legislation.

 

A number of states, including states in which we operate, have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions whereby a private party may file a civil lawsuit in state court. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 creates an incentive for states to enact false claims laws that are

comparable to the FCA. From time to time, companies in the healthcare industry, including ours, may be subject to actions under the FCA or similar state laws.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Certificates of Need.  The construction of new facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities and the addition of new services at our facilities may be subject to state laws that require prior approval by state regulatory agencies. These CON laws generally require that a state agency determine the public need and give approval prior to the construction or acquisition of facilities or the addition of new services. As of December 31, 2010, we operated 56 hospitals in 16 states that have adopted CON laws for acute care facilities. If we fail to obtain necessary state approval, we will not be able to expand our facilities, complete acquisitions or add new services in these states. Violation of these state laws may result in the imposition of civil sanctions or the revocation of a hospital’s licenses.

 

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy and Security Requirements.  HIPAA requires the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for healthcare claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the healthcare industry. The DHHS has established electronic data transmission standards that all healthcare providers must use when submitting or receiving certain healthcare transactions electronically. In addition, HIPAA requires that each provider use a National Provider Identifier. In January 2009, CMS published a final rule making changes to the formats used for certain electronic transactions and requiring the use of updated standard code sets for certain diagnoses and procedures known as ICD-10 code sets. Although use of the ICD-10 code sets is not mandatory until October 1, 2013, we will be modifying our payment systems and processes to prepare for their implementation. Use of the ICD-10 code sets will require significant changes; however, we believe that

the cost of compliance with these regulations has not had and is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. The Reform Legislation requires the DHHS to adopt standards for additional electronic transactions and to establish operating rules to promote uniformity in the implementation of each standardized electronic transaction.

 

As required by HIPAA, DHHS has issued privacy and security regulations that extensively regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health-related information and require healthcare providers to implement administrative, physical and technical practices to protect the security of individually identifiable health information that is electronically maintained or transmitted. ARRA broadens the scope of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. In addition, ARRA extends the application of certain provisions of the security and privacy regulations to business associates (entities that handle identifiable health-related information on behalf of covered entities) and subjects business associates to civil and criminal penalties for violation of the regulations. On July 14, 2010, the DHHS issued a proposed rule that would implement these ARRA provisions. If finalized, these changes would likely require amendments to existing agreements with business associates and would subject business associates and their subcontractors to direct liability under the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. We have developed and utilize a HIPAA compliance plan as part of our effort to comply with HIPAA privacy and security requirements. The privacy regulations and security regulations have and will continue to impose significant costs on our facilities in order to comply with these standards.

 

As required by ARRA, the DHHS published an interim final rule on August 24, 2009, that requires covered entities to report breaches of unsecured protected health information to affected individuals without unreasonable delay, but not to exceed 60 days of discovery of the breach by the covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to the DHHS and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. 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 civil and criminal penalties, and ARRA has strengthened the enforcement provisions of HIPAA, which may result in increased enforcement activity. Under ARRA, the DHHS is required to conduct periodic compliance audits of covered entities and their business associates. ARRA broadens the applicability of the criminal penalty provisions to employees of covered entities and requires the DHHS to impose penalties for violations resulting from willful neglect. ARRA significantly increases the amount of the civil penalties, with penalties of up to $50,000 per violation for a maximum civil penalty of $1,500,000 in a calendar year for violations of the same requirement. Further, ARRA authorizes state attorneys general to bring civil actions seeking either injunction or damages in response to violations of HIPAA privacy and security regulations that threaten the privacy of state residents. Our facilities also are subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties.

 

There are numerous other laws and legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing privacy and security concerns. For example, in October 2007, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule requiring financial institutions and creditors, which arguably included hospitals and other healthcare providers, to implement written identity theft prevention programs to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with certain accounts. The enforcement date for this rule has been postponed until December 31, 2010. In addition, Congress recently has passed legislation that would restrict the definition of a “creditor” and may exempt many hospitals from complying with the rule.

 

Payment

 

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

 

Payments for inpatient acute services are generally made pursuant to a prospective payment system, commonly known as “PPS.” Under PPS, our hospitals are paid a predetermined amount for each hospital discharge based on the patient’s diagnosis. Specifically, each discharge is assigned to a diagnosis-related group, commonly known as a “DRG,” based upon the patient’s condition and treatment during the relevant inpatient stay. For the federal fiscal year 2008 (i.e., the federal fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007), each

DRG was assigned a payment rate using 67% of the national average cost per case and 33% of the national average charge per case and 50% of the change to severity adjusted DRG weights. Severity adjusted DRG’s more accurately reflect the costs a hospital incurs for caring for a patient and accounts more fully for the severity of each patient’s condition. Commencing with the federal fiscal year 2009 (i.e., the federal fiscal year beginning October 1, 2008), each DRG is assigned a payment rate using 100% of the national average cost per case and 100% of the severity adjusted DRG weights. DRG payments are based on national averages and not on charges or costs specific to a hospital. However, DRG payments are adjusted by a predetermined geographic adjustment factor assigned to the geographic area in which the hospital is located. While a hospital generally does not receive payment in addition to a DRG payment, hospitals may qualify for an “outlier” payment when the relevant patient’s treatment costs are extraordinarily high and exceed a specified regulatory threshold.

 

The DRG rates are adjusted by an update factor on October 1 of each year, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. The index used to adjust the DRG rates, known as the “market basket index,” gives consideration to the inflation experienced by hospitals in purchasing goods and services. DRG payment rates were increased by the full “market basket index,” for the federal fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, or 3.3%, 3.6%, 2.1% and 2.6%, respectively. In addition, the DRG payment rates were reduced by 0.25% on April 1, 2010 and by 0.25% on October 1, 2010, as mandated by the Reform Legislation. The DRG payment rates were also reduced by 2.9% for federal fiscal year 2011 for behavioral changes in coding practices relative to MS-DRGs. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 imposed a two percentage point reduction to the market basket index beginning October 1, 2007, and each year thereafter, if patient quality data is not submitted. We are complying with this data submission requirement. Future legislation may decrease the rate of increase for DRG payments or even decrease such payment rates, but we are not able to predict the amount of any reduction or the effect that any reduction will have on us.

 

In addition, hospitals may qualify for Medicare disproportionate share payments when their percentage of low income patients exceeds specified regulatory thresholds. A majority of our hospitals qualify to receive Medicare disproportionate share payments. For the majority of our hospitals that qualify to receive Medicare disproportionate share payments, these payments were increased by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 effective April 1, 2004. These Medicare disproportionate share payments as a percentage of net operating revenues were 1.6%, 1.6% and 1.8% for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

 

Beginning August 1, 2000, we began receiving Medicare reimbursement for outpatient services through a PPS. Under the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less were held harmless through December 31, 2004 under this Medicare outpatient PPS. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 extended the hold harmless provision for non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less and for non-urban sole community hospitals with more than 100 beds through December 31, 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 extended the hold harmless provision for non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less that are not sole community hospitals through December 31, 2008; however, that Act reduced the amount these hospitals would receive in hold harmless payment by 10% in 2007 and 15% in 2008. Of our 121 hospitals in continuing operations at December 31, 2008, 31 qualified for this relief. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act extended the hold harmless provision for non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less, including non-urban sole community hospitals, through December 31, 2009, at 85% of the hold harmless amount. Of our 125 hospitals at December 31, 2009, 44 qualified for this relief. The Reform Legislation extended the hold harmless provision for non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less, including non-urban sole community hospitals, through December 31, 2010. Of our 130 hospitals at December 31, 2010, 46 qualified for this relief. The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 extended the hold harmless provision for non-urban hospitals with 100 beds or less, including non-urban sole community hospitals, through December 31, 2011. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 3.3% effective January 1, 2008; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with the outpatient PPS, an approximate 3.0% to 3.4% net increase in outpatient payments occurred. The outpatient conversion factor was increased 3.6% effective January 1, 2009; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with outpatient PPS, an approximate 3.5% to 3.9% net increase in outpatient payments occurred. The outpatient conversion

factor was increased 2.1% effective January 1, 2010; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with outpatient PPS, an approximate 1.8% to 2.2% net increase in outpatient payments occurred. The outpatient conversion factor was increased to 2.35% effective January 1, 2011; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with outpatient PPS, an approximate 2.1% to 2.5% net increase in outpatient payments is expected to occur. The Medicare Improvements and Extension Act of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 imposed a two percentage point reduction to the market basket index beginning January 1, 2009, and each year thereafter, if patient quality data is not submitted. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

 

DHHS established a PPS for home health services (i.e., home care) effective October 1, 2000. The home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate increased by 3% on January 1, 2008; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with home health agency PPS, an approximate 1.5% to 1.9% net increase in home health agency payments occurred. The home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate increased by 2.9% on January 1, 2009; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with home health agency PPS, an approximate 0.2% net increase in home health agency payments occurred. The home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate increased by 2.0% on January 1, 2010; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with home health agency PPS, an approximate 2.3% net increase in home health agency payments occurred. The home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate increased 1.1% on January 1, 2011; however, coupled with adjustments to other variables with home health agency PPS, an approximate 4.9% net decrease in home health agency payments is expected to occur. Reform Legislation increases the home health agency PPS per episodic payment rate by 3.0% for home health services provided to patients in rural areas on or after April 1, 2010 through December 31, 2016. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 imposed a two percentage point reduction to the market basket index beginning January 1, 2007, and each year thereafter, if patient quality data is not submitted. We are complying with this data submission requirement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Commercial Insurance.  Our hospitals provide services to individuals covered by private healthcare insurance. Private insurance carriers pay our hospitals or in some cases reimburse their policyholders based upon the hospital’s established charges and the coverage provided in the insurance policy. Commercial insurers are trying to limit the costs of hospital services by negotiating discounts, including PPS, which would reduce payments by commercial insurers to our hospitals. Reductions in payments for services provided by our hospitals to individuals covered by commercial insurers could adversely affect us.

Supply Contracts

 

In March 2005, we began purchasing items, primarily medical supplies, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, under an agreement with HealthTrust, a GPO in which we are a noncontrolling partner. Triad was also a noncontrolling partner in HealthTrust and we acquired their ownership interest and contractual rights when we acquired Triad. As of December 31, 2010, we have a 17% ownership interest in HealthTrust. By participating in this organization we are able to procure items at competitively priced rates for our hospitals. There can be no assurance that our arrangement with HealthTrust will continue to provide the discounts that we have historically received.

 

Competition

 

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

 

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

 

Some of our hospitals operate in primary service areas where they compete with another hospital. Some of these competing hospitals use equipment and services more specialized than those available at our hospitals and/or are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or not-for-profit entities supported by endowments and charitable contributions. These hospitals can make capital expenditures without paying sales, property and income taxes. We also face competition from other specialized care providers, including outpatient surgery, orthopedic, oncology, and diagnostic centers.

 

The number and quality of the physicians on a hospital’s staff is an important factor in a hospital’s competitive position. Physicians decide whether a patient is admitted to the hospital and the procedures to be performed. Admitting physicians may be on the medical staffs of other hospitals in addition to those of our hospitals. We attempt to attract our physicians’ patients to our hospitals by offering quality services and facilities, convenient locations, and state-of-the-art equipment.

 

Compliance Program

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Employees

 

At December 31, 2010, we employed approximately 64,000 full-time employees and 23,000 part-time employees. Of these employees, approximately 6,000 are union members. We currently believe that our labor relations are good.

 

Professional Liability Claims

 

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

 

Environmental Matters

 

We are subject to various federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, discharge, and disposal of hazardous materials, including medical waste products. Compliance with these laws and regulations is not expected to have a material adverse effect on us. It is possible, however, that environmental issues may arise in the future which we cannot now predict.

 

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

 

The following risk factors could materially and adversely affect our future operating results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those predicted in the forward-looking statements we make about our business.

 

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

 

We are significantly leveraged. The chart below shows our level of indebtedness and other information as of December 31, 2010. In connection with the consummation of our acquisition of Triad in July 2007, approximately $7.2 billion of senior secured financing under a new credit facility, or Credit Facility, was obtained by our wholly-owned subsidiary, CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., or CHS. CHS also issued 8.875% senior notes, or the Notes, having an aggregate principal amount of approximately $3.0 billion. Both the indebtedness under the Credit Facility and the Notes are senior obligations of CHS and are guaranteed on a senior basis by us and by certain of our domestic subsidiaries. We used the net proceeds from the Notes offering and the net proceeds of the approximately $6.1 billion term loans under the Credit Facility to pay the consideration under the merger agreement with Triad, to refinance certain of our existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of Triad, to complete certain related transactions, to pay certain costs and expenses of the transactions and for general corporate uses. As of December 31, 2010, a $750 million revolving credit facility was available to us for working capital and general corporate purposes under the Credit Facility, with $81.9 million of the revolving credit facility being set aside for outstanding letters of credit. On November 5, 2010, we entered into an amendment and restatement of our existing Credit Facility, which extended by two and a half years, until January 25, 2017, the maturity date of $1.5 billion of the existing term loans under the Credit Facility. The remaining approximately $4.5 billion in term loans mature in 2014. With the exception of some small principal payments of our term loans under our Credit Facility, representing less than 1% of the outstanding balance each year through 2013, approximately $4.5 billion of term loans under our Credit Facility mature in 2014, our Notes are due in 2015, and the remaining $1.5 billion in term loans mature in 2017.

 

 

The following table shows the ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the periods indicated:

 

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2010, our approximately $5.4 billion notional amount of interest rate swap agreements represented approximately 89% of our variable rate debt. On a prospective basis, a 1% change in interest rates on the remaining unhedged variable rate debt existing as of December 31, 2010, would result in interest expense fluctuating approximately $6.5 million per year.

 

The Credit Facility and/or the Notes contain various covenants that limit our ability to take certain actions, including our ability to:

 

 

 

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

 

The counterparty to the interest rate swap agreements exposes us to credit risk in the event of non-performance. However, at December 31, 2010, we do not anticipate non-performance by the counterparty due to the net settlement feature of the agreements and our liability position with respect to all of our counterparties.

 

A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under our Credit Facility and/or the Notes. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under our Credit Facility or the Notes, all amounts outstanding under our Credit Facility and the Notes may become due and payable and all commitments under the Credit Facility to extend further credit may be terminated.

 

Our leverage could have important consequences for you, including the following:

 

 

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

 

We may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. The terms of the indenture governing the Notes do not fully prohibit us from doing so. For example, under the indenture for the Notes, we may incur up to approximately $7.8 billion pursuant to a credit facility or a qualified receivables transaction, less certain amounts repaid with the proceeds of asset dispositions. As of December 31, 2010, our

Credit Facility provided for commitments of up to approximately $6.7 billion in the aggregate. Additionally, our Credit Facility also gives us the ability to provide for one or more additional tranches of term loans in aggregate principal amount of up to $1.0 billion without the consent of the existing lenders if specified criteria are satisfied and $300 million of borrowing capacity from receivable transactions (including securitizations). If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face could intensify.

 

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

 

An important part of our business strategy is to acquire two to four hospitals each year. However, not-for-profit hospital systems and other for-profit hospital companies generally attempt to acquire the same type of hospitals as we do. Some of these other purchasers have greater financial resources than we do. Our principal competitors for acquisitions have included Health Management Associates, Inc. and LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. On some occasions, we also compete with HCA Inc., or HCA, and Universal Health Services, Inc., or UHS. In addition, some hospitals are sold through an auction process, which may result in higher purchase prices than we believe are reasonable. Therefore, we may not be able to acquire additional hospitals on terms favorable to us.

 

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

 

Many of the hospitals we have acquired, had, or future acquisitions may have, significantly lower operating margins than we do and/or operating losses prior to the time we acquired or will acquire them. In the past, we have occasionally experienced temporary delays in improving the operating margins or effectively integrating the operations of these acquired hospitals. In the future, if we are unable to improve the operating margins of acquired hospitals, operate them profitably, or effectively integrate their operations, we may be unable to achieve our growth strategy.

 

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

 

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

 

State efforts to regulate the construction, acquisition or expansion of hospitals could prevent us from acquiring additional hospitals, renovating our facilities or expanding the breadth of services we offer.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

The hospital industry is highly competitive. In addition to the competition we face for acquisitions and physicians, we must also compete with other hospitals and healthcare providers for patients. The competition among hospitals and other healthcare providers for patients has intensified in recent years. The majority of our hospitals are located in non-urban service areas. In over 60% of our markets, we are the sole provider of general healthcare services. In most of our other markets, the primary competitor is a not-for-profit hospital. These not-for-profit hospitals generally differ in each jurisdiction. However, our hospitals face competition from hospitals outside of their primary service area, including hospitals in urban areas that provide more complex services. Patients in our primary service areas may travel to these other hospitals for a variety of reasons. These reasons include physician referrals or the need for services we do not offer. Patients who seek services from these other hospitals may subsequently shift their preferences to those hospitals for the services we provide.

 

Some of our hospitals operate in primary service areas where they compete with one other hospital; 23 of our hospitals compete with more than one other hospital in their respective primary service areas. Some of these competing hospitals use equipment and services more specialized than those available at our hospitals. In addition, some competing hospitals are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or not-for-profit entities supported by endowments and charitable contributions. These hospitals can make capital expenditures without paying sales, property and income taxes. We also face competition from other specialized care providers, including outpatient surgery, orthopedic, oncology and diagnostic centers.

 

We expect that these competitive trends will continue. Our inability to compete effectively with other hospitals and other healthcare providers could cause local residents to use other hospitals.

 

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

 

We have a five-year participation agreement with HealthTrust, a GPO. This agreement extends to January 2012, with automatic renewal terms of one year, unless either party terminates by giving notice of non-renewal. GPOs attempt to obtain favorable pricing on medical supplies with manufacturers and vendors who sometimes negotiate exclusive supply arrangements in exchange for the discounts they give. To the extent these exclusive supply arrangements are challenged or deemed unenforceable, we could incur higher costs for our medical supplies obtained through HealthTrust. These higher costs could cause our operating results to decline.

 

There can be no assurance that our arrangement with HealthTrust will provide the discounts we expect to achieve.

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

 

At December 31, 2010, we had approximately $4.2 billion of goodwill recorded on our books. We expect to recover the carrying value of this goodwill through our future cash flows. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate, based on the fair value of our reporting units, whether the carrying value of our goodwill is impaired. If the carrying value of our goodwill is impaired, we may incur a material non-cash charge to earnings.

 

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

 

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

 

Risks related to our industry

 

We are subject to uncertainties regarding healthcare reform.

 

In recent years, Congress and some state legislatures have introduced an increasing number of proposals to make major changes in the healthcare system, including an increased emphasis on the linkage between quality of care criteria and payment levels such as the submission of patient quality data to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In addition, CMS conducts ongoing reviews of certain state reimbursement programs.

 

ARRA was signed into law on February 17, 2009, providing for a temporary increase in the federal matching assistance percentage (FMAP), a temporary increase in federal Medicaid DSH allotments, subsidization of health insurance premiums (COBRA) for up to nine months, and grants and loans for infrastructure and incentive payments for providers who adopt and use health information technology. This act also provides penalties by reducing reimbursement from Medicare in the form of reductions to scheduled market basket increases beginning in federal fiscal year 2015 if eligible hospitals and professionals fail to demonstrate meaningful use of electronic health record technology. The 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act was signed into law on December 19, 2009 and expanded the subsidization of health insurance premiums (COBRA) to 15 months and extended the eligibility period for individuals losing their jobs through February 28, 2010.

 

PPACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010. In addition, the Reconciliation Act, which contains a number of amendments to PPACA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. These healthcare acts, referred to collectively as the Reform Legislation, include a mandate that requires substantially all U.S. citizens to maintain medical insurance coverage which will ultimately increase the number of persons with access to health insurance in the United States. The Reform Legislation should result in a reduction in uninsured patients, which should reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable; however, this legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update beginning October 1, 2011, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, that could adversely impact the reimbursement received under these programs. The various provisions in the Reform Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years, and we cannot predict their impact at this time. Other provisions of the Reform Legislation, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, should increase our operating costs.

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

 

In a number of markets, we have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of our facilities. Such investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law, or the Stark Law, that allows physicians to invest in an entire hospital (as opposed to individual hospital departments). The Reform Legislation changes the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation permits existing physician investments in a whole hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians became prohibited, from the time the Reform Legislation became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Reform Legislation also restricts the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. Physician investments in hospitals that are under development are protected by the grandfather clause only if the physician investments have been made and the hospital has a Medicare provider agreement as of a specific date.

 

The impact of the Reform Legislation on each of our hospitals will vary depending on payor mix and a variety of other factors. We anticipate that many of the provisions in the Reform Legislation will be subject to further clarification and modification through the rule-making process, the development of agency guidance and judicial interpretations. Moreover, a number of state attorneys general are challenging the legality of certain aspects of the Reform Legislation. Currently, rulings in four separate Federal District Courts, regarding the constitutionality of the Reform Legislation, have been split, with two courts ruling in favor of the legislation and two courts ruling that part or all of the Reform Legislation was unconstitutional. These decisions are likely to be appealed and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court. We cannot predict the impact the Reform Legislation may have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity or the ultimate outcome of the judicial rulings. Furthermore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation.

 

If federal or state healthcare programs or managed care companies reduce the payments we receive as reimbursement for services we provide, our net operating revenues may decline.

 

In 2010, 37.8% of our net operating revenues came from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Federal healthcare expenditures continue to increase and state governments continue to face budgetary shortfalls as a result of the current economic downturn and accelerating Medicaid enrollment. As a result, federal and state governments have made, and continue to make, significant changes in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Some of these changes have decreased, or could decrease, the amount of money we receive for our services relating to these programs.

 

In addition, insurance and managed care companies and other third parties from whom we receive payment for our services increasingly are attempting to control healthcare costs by requiring that hospitals discount payments for their services in exchange for exclusive or preferred participation in their benefit plans. We believe that this trend may continue and our inability to negotiate increased reimbursement rates or maintain existing rates may reduce the payments we receive for our services.

 

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

 

The healthcare industry is required to comply with many laws and regulations at the federal, state, and local government levels. These laws and regulations require that hospitals meet various requirements, including

those relating to the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, maintenance of adequate records, compliance with building codes, environmental protection and privacy. These laws include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and a section of the Social Security Act, known as the “anti-kickback” statute. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including fraud and abuse laws, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties, including the loss of our licenses to operate and our ability to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal and state healthcare programs.

 

In addition, there are heightened coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts by both federal and state government agencies relating to the healthcare industry, including the hospital segment. Recent enforcement actions have focused on financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians, billing for services without adequately documenting the medical necessity for such services, and billing for services outside the coverage guidelines for such services. Specific to our hospitals, the Department of Justice has alleged that we and three of our New Mexico hospitals have caused the state of New Mexico to submit improper claims for federal funds in violation of the Civil False Claims Act. For a further discussion of this matter, see “Legal Proceedings” in Item 3 of this Report.

 

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

 

A shortage of qualified nurses could limit our ability to grow and deliver hospital healthcare services in a cost-effective manner.

 

Hospitals are currently experiencing a shortage of nursing professionals, a trend which we expect to continue for some time. If the supply of qualified nurses declines in the markets in which our hospitals operate, it may result in increased labor expenses and lower operating margins at those hospitals. In addition, in some markets like California, there are requirements to maintain specified nurse-staffing levels. To the extent we cannot meet those levels, the healthcare services that we provide in these markets may be reduced.

 

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

 

In recent years, physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers have become subject to an increasing number of legal actions alleging malpractice, product liability, or related legal theories. Even in states that have imposed caps on damages, litigants are seeking recoveries under new theories of liability that might not be subject to the caps on damages. Many of these actions involve large claims and significant defense costs. To protect us from the cost of these claims, we maintain professional malpractice liability insurance and general liability insurance coverage in excess of those amounts for which we are self-insured. This insurance coverage is in amounts that we believe to be sufficient for our operations. However, our insurance coverage does not cover all claims against us or may not continue to be available at a reasonable cost for us to maintain adequate levels of insurance. As a percentage of net operating revenues, our expense related to malpractice and other professional liability claims, including the cost of excess insurance, decreased in 2008 by 0.2%, increased in 2009 by 0.2% and decreased in 2010 by 0.2%. If these costs rise rapidly, our profitability could decline. For a further discussion of our insurance coverage, see our discussion of professional liability claims in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of this Report.

 

If we experience growth in self-pay volume and revenues, our financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

 

Like others in the hospital industry, we have experienced an increase in our provision for bad debts as a percentage of net operating revenues due to a growth in self-pay volume and revenues. Although we continue to seek ways of improving point of service collection efforts and implementing appropriate payment plans with our patients, if we experience growth in self-pay volume and revenues, our results of operations could be adversely affected. Further, our ability to improve collections for self-pay patients may be limited by statutory,

regulatory and investigatory initiatives, including private lawsuits directed at hospital charges and collection practices for uninsured and underinsured patients.

 

Currently, the global economies, and in particular the United States, are experiencing a period of economic uncertainty and the related financial markets are experiencing a high degree of volatility. This current financial turmoil is adversely affecting the banking system and financial markets and resulting in a tightening in the credit markets, a low level of liquidity in many financial markets and extreme volatility in fixed income, credit, currency and equity markets. This uncertainty poses a risk as it could potentially lead to higher levels of uninsured patients, result in higher levels of patients covered by lower paying government programs and/or result in fiscal uncertainties at both government payors and private insurers.

 

If our implementation of electronic health record systems is not effective or exceeds our budget and timeline, our operations could be adversely affected.

 

ARRA created an incentive payment program for eligible hospitals and health care professionals to adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health records, or EHR, technology. The implementation of EHR that meets the meaningful use criteria requires a significant capital investment, and our current plan to implement EHR anticipates maximizing the incentive payment program created by ARRA. If our hospitals and employed professionals are unable to meet the requirements for participation in the incentive payment program, we will not be eligible to receive incentive payments that could offset some of the costs of implementing EHR systems. As additional incentive, beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, if eligible hospitals and professionals fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology, they will be penalized with reduced reimbursement from Medicare in the form of reductions to scheduled market basket increases. If we fail to implement EHR systems effectively and in a timely manner, there could be a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

 

This Report includes forward-looking statements which could differ from actual future results.

 

Some of the matters discussed in this Report include forward-looking statements. Statements that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to future events or conditions or that include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates,” “thinks,” and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results and performance to be materially different from any future results or performance expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These factors include the following:

 

 

 

Although we believe that these statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, we can give no assurance that our goals will be achieved. Given these uncertainties, prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this filing. We assume no obligation to update or revise them or provide reasons why actual results may differ.

 

 

None

 

 

Corporate Headquarters

 

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

 

Hospitals

 

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

For each of our hospitals owned or leased as of December 31, 2010, the following table shows its location, the date of its acquisition or lease inception and the number of licensed beds:

 

 

 

 

The real property of substantially all of our wholly-owned hospitals is encumbered by mortgages under the Credit Facility.

 

The following table lists the hospitals owned by joint venture entities in which we do not have a consolidating ownership interest, along with our percentage ownership interest in the joint venture entity as of December 31, 2010. Information on licensed beds was provided by the majority owner and manager of each joint venture. A subsidiary of HCA is the majority owner of Macon Healthcare LLC, and a subsidiary of UHS is the majority owner of Summerlin Hospital Medical Center LLC and Valley Health System LLC.

 

 

 

From time to time, we receive various inquiries or subpoenas from state regulators, fiscal intermediaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Justice regarding various Medicare and Medicaid issues. In addition, we are subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not aware of any pending or threatened litigation that is not covered by insurance policies or reserved for in our financial statements or which we believe would have a material adverse impact on us; however, some pending or threatened proceedings against us may involve potentially substantial amounts as well as the possibility of civil, criminal, or administrative fines, penalties, or other sanctions, which could be material. Settlements of suits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments as well as corporate integrity agreements. Additionally, qui tam or “whistleblower” actions initiated under the civil False Claims Act may be pending but placed under seal by the court to comply with the False Claims Act’s requirements for filing such suits.

 

Community Health Systems, Inc. Legal Proceedings

 

On February 10, 2006, we received a letter from the Civil Division of the Department of Justice requesting documents in an investigation it was conducting involving the Company. The inquiry related to the way in which different state Medicaid programs apply to the federal government for matching or supplemental funds that are ultimately used to pay for a small portion of the services provided to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are referred to by different names, including “intergovernmental payments,” “upper payment limit programs,” and “Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments.” The February 2006 letter focused on our hospitals in three states: Arkansas, New Mexico, and South Carolina. On August 31, 2006, we received a follow up letter from the Department of Justice requesting additional documents relating to the programs in New Mexico and the payments to the Company’s three hospitals in that state. Through the beginning of 2009, we provided the Department of Justice with requested documents, met with its personnel on numerous occasions, and otherwise cooperated in its investigation. During the course of the investigation, the Civil Division notified us that it believed that we and these three New Mexico hospitals caused the State of New Mexico to submit improper claims for federal funds, in violation of the Federal False Claims Act. At one point, the Civil Division calculated that the three hospitals received ineligible federal participation

payments from August 2000 to June 2006 of approximately $27.5 million and said that if it proceeded to trial, it would seek treble damages plus an appropriate penalty for each of the violations of the Federal False Claims Act. This investigation has culminated in the federal government’s intervention in a qui tam lawsuit styled U.S. ex rel. Baker vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The federal government filed its complaint in intervention on June 30, 2009. The relator filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2009. Both of these complaints expand the time period during which alleged improper payments were made. We filed motions to dismiss all of the federal government’s and the relator’s claims on August 28, 2009. On March 19, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss as to the relator’s complaint. On July 7, 2010, the court denied our motion to dismiss the federal government’s complaint in intervention. We have filed our answer and pretrial discovery has begun. We are vigorously defending this action.

 

On June 12, 2008, two of our hospitals received letters from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York requesting documents in an investigation it was conducting into billing practices with respect to kyphoplasty procedures performed during the period January 1, 2002 through June 9, 2008. On September 16, 2008, one of our hospitals in South Carolina also received an inquiry. Kyphoplasty is a surgical spine procedure that returns a compromised vertebrae (either from trauma or osteoporotic disease process) to its previous height, reducing or eliminating severe pain. We have been informed that similar investigations have been initiated at unaffiliated facilities in Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana and other states. We believe that this investigation is related to a qui tam settlement between the same U.S. Attorney’s office and the manufacturer and distributor of the Kyphon product, which is used in performing the kyphoplasty procedure. We are cooperating with the investigation by collecting and producing material responsive to the requests. We are continuing to evaluate and discuss this matter with the federal government.

 

On April 19, 2009, we were served in Roswell, New Mexico with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros). The case was originally filed as a collection matter. The counterclaim was filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort, Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO statute. On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal to federal court. On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state court for lack of a federal question. A motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on October 20, 2009. These motions were denied. Extensive discovery has been conducted. A motion for class certification for all uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5, 2010 and on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge certified the case as a class action. Discovery is ongoing. A hearing is set for March 1, 2011 to assess the sufficiency of the methodology used to determine class damages. We are vigorously defending this action.

 

On December 7, 2009, we received a document subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, or OIG, requesting documents related to our hospital in Laredo, Texas. The categories of documents requested included case management, resource management, admission criteria, patient medical records, coding, billing, compliance, the Joint Commission accreditation, physician documentation, payments to referral sources, transactions involving physicians, disproportionate share hospital status, and audits by the hospital’s Quality Improvement organization. On January 22, 2010, we received a “request for information or assistance” from the OIG’s Office of Investigation requesting patient medical records from Laredo Medical Center in Laredo, Texas for certain Medicaid patients with an extended length of stay. Additional requests for records have also been received, including a request containing follow-up questions received on January 5, 2011. We are cooperating fully with these investigations.

 

On September 20, 2010, we received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, advising us that an investigation is being conducted to determine whether certain hospitals have improperly submitted claims for payment for implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or ICD. The period of time covered by the investigation is 2003 to the present. The letter states that the Department of Justice’s data indicates that many of our hospitals have claims that need to be reviewed to determine if Medicare payment was appropriate. We understand that the Department of Justice has submitted similar requests to many other hospitals and hospital systems across the country as well as to the ICD manufacturers themselves. We are fully cooperating

with the government in this investigation. Because we are in the early stages of this investigation, we are unable to evaluate the outcome of this investigation.

 

On November 15, 2010, we were served with substantially identical Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) from the Office of Attorney General, State of Texas for all our 18 affiliated Texas hospitals. The subject of the requests appears to concern emergency department procedures and billing. We are cooperating fully with these requests. Because we are in the early stages of this investigation, we are unable to evaluate the outcome of this investigation.

 

Triad Hospitals, Inc. Legal Proceedings

 

In a case styled U.S. ex rel. Bartlett vs. Quorum Health Resources, Inc., et al., pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Johnstown Division, the relator alleges in his second amended complaint, filed in January 2006 (the first amended complaint having been dismissed), that Quorum conspired with an unaffiliated hospital to pay an illegal remuneration in violation of the anti-kickback statute and the Stark Law, thus causing false claims to be filed. A renewed motion to dismiss that was filed in March 2006 asserting that the second amended complaint did not cure the defects contained in the first amended complaint. In September 2006, the hospital and one of the other defendants affiliated with the hospital filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code, which imposed an automatic stay on proceedings in the case. Relators entered into a settlement agreement with the hospital, subject to confirmation of the hospital’s reorganization plan. The District Court conducted a status conference on January 30, 2009 and later convened another conference on March 30, 2009 and heard arguments on whether to proceed with a motion to dismiss, but did not make a ruling. The government and relator have reached a settlement with the hospital. Our motion to dismiss is still pending. We believe this case is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend it.

 

 

 

We completed an initial public offering of our common stock on June 14, 2000. Our common stock began trading on June 9, 2000 and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CYH. At February 17, 2011, there were approximately 39 record holders of our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sale prices per share of our common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange.

 

Corporate Performance Graph

 

The following graph sets forth the cumulative return of our common stock during the five year period ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the cumulative return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index (S&P 500) and the cumulative return of the Dow Jones Healthcare Index. The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the foregoing indices and the reinvestment of dividends where applicable.

 

 

We have not paid any cash dividends since our inception, and do not anticipate the payment of cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our Credit Facility limits our ability to pay dividends and/or repurchase stock to an amount not to exceed $50 million in the aggregate after November 5, 2010, the date of our amendment and restatement of our Credit Facility. In addition, our Credit Facility allows us to repurchase stock in an amount not to exceed the aggregate amount of proceeds from the exercise of stock options. The indenture governing our Notes also limits our ability to pay dividends and/or repurchase stock. As of December 31, 2010, under the most restrictive test under these agreements, we have approximately $96.9 million remaining available with which to pay permitted dividends and/or make stock and Note repurchases.

 

The following table contains information about our purchases of common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2010:

 

 

 

 

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

 

Community Health Systems, Inc.

Five Year Summary of Selected Financial Data

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Executive Overview

 

We are the largest publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States in terms of number of facilities and net operating revenues. We provide healthcare services through these hospitals that we own and operate in non-urban and selected urban markets. We generate revenue primarily by providing a broad range of general hospital healthcare services to patients in the communities in which we are located. We currently own and operate 130 hospitals comprised of 126 general acute care hospitals and four rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals. In addition, we own and operate home care agencies, located primarily in markets where we also operate a hospital, and through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Quorum Health Resources, LLC, or QHR, we provide management and consulting services to non-affiliated general acute care hospitals located throughout the United States. For the hospitals and home care agencies that we own and operate, we are paid for our services by governmental agencies, private insurers and directly by the patients we serve. For our management and consulting services, we are paid by the non-affiliated hospitals utilizing our services.

 

In 2010, we increased our acquisition activity and acquired five hospitals located in Marion, South Carolina, Youngstown and Warren, Ohio and Bluefield, West Virginia. In 2009, we acquired one hospital located in Siloam Springs, Arkansas and two hospitals located in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and the remaining interest in a hospital located in El Dorado, Arkansas. In addition, on December 31, 2009, we entered into an agreement with a multi-specialty physician clinic that has 32 locations across the Inland Northwest region of the state of Washington. This agreement will allow our affiliated hospitals in Spokane, Washington to work with this clinic to offer a fully integrated healthcare delivery system in that market.

 

Our net operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased to approximately $13.0 billion, as compared to approximately $12.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2009. Income from continuing operations, before noncontrolling interests, for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased 14.3% over the year ended December 31, 2009. Despite low volume, this increase in income from continuing operations during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2009, is due primarily to the execution of our revenue growth initiatives at those hospitals owned throughout both years, general rate and reimbursement increases and our effective management of operating expenses. Our successful physician recruiting efforts have also been a key driver in the execution of our operating strategies. Total inpatient admissions for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased 0.1% compared to the year ended December 31, 2009 and adjusted admissions for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased 2.5% compared

to the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase in adjusted admissions was due primarily to acquisitions during the past year, offsetting decreases in admissions at those hospitals owned throughout both years from a less severe flu season as compared to the prior year period, lower birth rates coinciding with the downturn in the economy, reductions in one day stays and certain service closures.

 

Self-pay revenues represented approximately 11.6% of our net operating revenues in 2010 compared to 11.2% in 2009. The value of charity care services relative to total net operating revenues was approximately 4.1% and 3.9% in 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

PPACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010. In addition, the Reconciliation Act, which contains a number of amendments to PPACA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. These healthcare acts, referred to collectively as the Reform Legislation, include a mandate that requires substantially all U.S. citizens to maintain medical insurance coverage which will ultimately increase the number of persons with access to health insurance in the United States. The Reform Legislation should result in a reduction in uninsured patients, which should reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable; however, this legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid, such as reductions to the Medicare annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the Medicare market basket update beginning October 1, 2011, and a reduction to the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments, that could adversely impact the reimbursement received under these programs. The various provisions in the Reform Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years, and we cannot predict their impact at this time. Other provisions of the Reform Legislation, such as requirements related to employee health insurance coverage, should increase our operating costs.

 

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

 

In a number of markets, we have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of our facilities. Such investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law, or the Stark Law, that allows physicians to invest in an entire hospital (as opposed to individual hospital departments). The Reform Legislation changes the “whole hospital” exception to the Stark Law. The Reform Legislation permits existing physician investments in a whole hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians became prohibited, from the time the Reform Legislation became effective, from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Reform Legislation also restricts the ability of existing physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. Physician investments in hospitals that are under development are protected by the grandfather clause only if the physician investments have been made and the hospital has a Medicare provider agreement as of a specific date.

 

The impact of the Reform Legislation on each of our hospitals will vary depending on payor mix and a variety of other factors. We anticipate that many of the provisions in the Reform Legislation will be subject to further clarification and modification through the rule-making process, the development of agency guidance and judicial interpretations. Moreover, a number of state attorneys general are challenging the legality of certain aspects of the Reform Legislation. Currently, rulings in four separate Federal District Courts, regarding the constitutionality of the Reform Legislation, have been split, with two courts ruling in favor of the legislation and two courts ruling that part or all of the Reform Legislation was unconstitutional. These decisions are likely to be appealed and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court. We cannot predict the impact the Reform Legislation may have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity or the ultimate outcome of the judicial rulings. Furthermore, we cannot predict

whether we will be able to modify certain aspects of our operations to offset any potential adverse consequences from the Reform Legislation.

 

As a result of our current levels of cash, available borrowing capacity, long-term outlook on our debt repayments and our continued projection of our ability to generate cash flows, we do not anticipate a significant impact on our ability to invest the necessary capital in our business over the next twelve months and into the foreseeable future. We believe there continues to be ample opportunity for growth in substantially all of our markets by decreasing the need for patients to travel outside their communities for healthcare services. Furthermore, we continue to benefit from synergies from the acquisition of Triad as well as our more recent acquisitions and will continue to strive to improve operating efficiencies and procedures in order to improve our profitability at all of our hospitals.

 

Acquisitions

 

Effective October 1, 2010, we completed the acquisition of Forum Health based in Youngstown, Ohio, a healthcare system of two acute care hospitals, one rehabilitation hospital and other healthcare providers. This healthcare system includes Northside Medical Center (355 licensed beds) located in Youngstown, Ohio and Trumbull Memorial Hospital (311 licensed beds) located in Warren, Ohio. This healthcare system also includes Hillside Rehabilitation Hospital (69 licensed beds) located in Warren, Ohio, as well as several outpatient clinics and other ancillary facilities. The total cash consideration paid for fixed assets and working capital was approximately $93.4 million and $27.8 million, respectively, with additional consideration including $40.3 million assumed in liabilities, for a total consideration of $161.5 million. This acquisition transaction was accounted for as a purchase business combination. Based upon our preliminary purchase price allocation relating to this acquisition as of December 31, 2010, approximately $8.1 million of goodwill has been recorded. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price has been determined by us based on available information and is subject to settling amounts related to purchased working capital and final appraisals of tangible and intangible assets. Adjustments to the purchase price allocation are not expected to be material.

 

Effective October 1, 2010, we completed the acquisition of Bluefield Regional Medical Center (240 licensed beds) located in Bluefield, West Virginia. The total cash consideration paid for fixed assets was approximately $35.4 million, with additional consideration including $8.9 million assumed in liabilities as well as a credit applied at closing of $1.8 million for negative acquired working capital, for a total consideration of $42.5 million. This acquisition transaction was accounted for as a purchase business combination. Based upon our preliminary purchase price allocation relating to this acquisition as of December 31, 2010, approximately $2.2 million of goodwill has been recorded. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price has been determined by us based on available information and is subject to settling amounts related to purchased working capital and final appraisals of tangible and intangible assets. Adjustments to the purchase price allocation are not expected to be material.

 

Effective July 7, 2010, we completed the acquisition of Marion Regional Healthcare System located in Marion, South Carolina. This healthcare system includes Marion Regional Hospital (124 licensed beds), an acute care hospital, along with a related skilled nursing facility and other ancillary services. The total cash consideration paid for fixed assets and working capital was approximately $18.6 million and $5.8 million, respectively, with additional consideration including $3.9 million assumed in liabilities, for a total consideration of $28.3 million. This acquisition transaction was accounted for as a purchase business combination. Based upon our preliminary purchase price allocation relating to this acquisition as of December 31, 2010, no goodwill has been recorded. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price has been determined by us based on available information and is subject to settling amounts related to purchased working capital and final appraisals of tangible and intangible assets. Adjustments to the purchase price allocation are not expected to be material.

 

During 2010, we paid approximately $67.4 million to acquire the operating assets and related businesses of certain physician practices, clinics, and other ancillary businesses that operate within the communities served by our hospitals. In connection with these acquisitions, we allocated approximately $35.6 million of the consideration paid to property and equipment and the remainder, approximately $35.4 million consisting of intangible assets that do not qualify for separate recognition, was allocated to goodwill. These acquisition transactions were accounted for as purchase business combinations.

On December 9, 2010, we announced that we made an offer to acquire Tenet for $6.00 per share, including $5.00 per share in cash and $1.00 per share in our common stock, which represented a premium of 40% over Tenet’s closing stock price on December 9, 2010. The total value of the transaction at this offering price would be approximately $7.3 billion, including $3.3 billion of acquired equity and approximately $4.0 billion of assumed long-term debt. The offer was made in a letter to Tenet’s Board of Directors on November 12, 2010, and rejected by Tenet on December 6, 2010. On December 20, 2010, we announced our intention to nominate directors for election at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Tenet, and on January 14, 2011, a full slate of 10 independent director nominees was nominated. Tenet’s entire Board is up for reelection at the 2011 Annual Meeting, which has been scheduled for November 3, 2011. There can be no assurance that such a transaction will be completed or, if completed, on what terms.

 

Sources of Revenue

 

The following table presents the approximate percentages of net operating revenues derived from Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, self-pay and other sources for the periods indicated. The data for the years presented are not strictly comparable due to the effect that hospital acquisitions have had on these statistics.

 

 

Net operating revenues include amounts estimated by management to be reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid under prospective payment systems and provisions of cost-based reimbursement and other payment methods. In addition, we are reimbursed by non-governmental payors using a variety of payment methodologies. Amounts we receive for treatment of patients covered by these programs are generally less than the standard billing rates. We account for the differences between the estimated program reimbursement rates and the standard billing rates as contractual allowance adjustments, which we deduct from gross revenues to arrive at net operating revenues. Final settlements under some of these programs are subject to adjustment based on administrative review and audit by third parties. We account for adjustments to previous program reimbursement estimates as contractual allowance adjustments and report them in the periods that such adjustments become known. Contractual allowance adjustments related to final settlements and previous program reimbursement estimates impacted net operating revenues and net income by an insignificant amount in each of the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. In the future, we expect the percentage of revenues received from the Medicare program to increase due to the general aging of the population.

 

Currently, several states utilize supplemental reimbursement programs for the purpose of providing reimbursement to providers to offset a portion of the cost of providing care to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are designed with input from CMS and are funded with a combination of state and federal resources, including, in certain instances, fees or taxes levied on the providers. Similar programs are also being considered by other states. After these supplemental programs are signed into law, we recognize revenue and related expenses in the period in which amounts are estimable and collection is reasonably assured. Reimbursement under these programs is reflected in net operating revenues and included as Medicaid revenue in the table above, and fees, taxes or other program related costs are reflected in other operating costs and expenses.

 

The payment rates under the Medicare program for hospital inpatient and outpatient acute care services are based on a prospective payment system, depending upon the diagnosis of a patient’s condition. These rates are indexed for inflation annually, although increases have historically been less than actual inflation. On August 16, 2010, CMS issued the final rule to adjust this index by 2.6% for hospital inpatient acute care services that are reimbursed under the prospective payment system. The final rule also makes other payment adjustments that, coupled with the 0.25% reduction to hospital inpatient rates implemented pursuant to the

Reform Legislation referred to below, yield a net 0.4% reduction in reimbursement for hospital inpatient acute care services beginning October 1, 2010. The Reform Legislation implemented a 0.25% reduction to hospital inpatient rates effective April 1, 2010 and 0.25% reductions to hospital outpatient rates effective January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. Reductions in the rate of increase or overall reductions in Medicare reimbursement may cause a decline in the growth of our net operating revenues.

 

In addition, specified managed care programs, insurance companies and employers are actively negotiating the amounts paid to hospitals. The trend toward increased enrollment in managed care may adversely affect our net operating revenue growth.

 

Results of Operations

 

Our hospitals offer a variety of services involving a broad range of inpatient and outpatient medical and surgical services. These include general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. The strongest demand for hospital services generally occurs during January through April and the weakest demand for these services occurs during the summer months. Accordingly, eliminating the effect of new acquisitions, our net operating revenues and earnings are historically highest during the first quarter and lowest during the third quarter.

 

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