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

The following table sets forth certain operating statistics for our health care facilities. Health care facility operations are subject to certain seasonal fluctuations, including decreases in patient utilization during holiday periods and increases in the cold weather months. The data set forth in this table includes only those facilities that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

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

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

Our strategies are designed to ensure our hospitals are competitive. We believe our hospitals compete within local communities on the basis of many factors, including the quality of care, ability to attract and retain quality physicians, skilled clinical personnel and other health care professionals, location, breadth of services, technology offered, quality and condition of the facilities and prices charged. The Health Reform Law requires hospitals to publish annually a list of their standard charges for items and services. We have increased our focus on operating outpatient services with improved accessibility and more convenient service for patients, and increased predictability and efficiency for physicians.

Two of the most significant factors to the competitive position of a hospital are the number and quality of physicians affiliated with or employed by the hospital. Although physicians may at any time terminate their relationship with a hospital we operate, our hospitals seek to retain physicians with varied specialties on the hospitals’ medical staffs and to attract other qualified physicians. We believe physicians refer patients to a hospital on the basis of the quality and scope of services it renders to patients and physicians, the quality of physicians on the medical staff, the location of the hospital and the quality of the hospital’s facilities, equipment and employees. Accordingly, we strive to maintain and provide quality facilities, equipment, employees and services for physicians and patients.

Another major factor in the competitive position of a hospital is our ability to negotiate service contracts with purchasers of group health care services. Managed care plans attempt to direct and control the use of hospital services and obtain discounts from hospitals’ established gross charges. In addition, employers and traditional health insurers continue to attempt to contain costs through negotiations with hospitals for managed care programs and discounts from established gross charges. Generally, hospitals compete for service contracts with group health care services purchasers on the basis of price, market reputation, geographic location, quality and range of services, quality of the medical staff and convenience. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our managed care contracts and enter into new managed care contracts on favorable terms. Other health care providers may impact our ability to enter into managed care contracts or negotiate increases in our reimbursement and other favorable terms and conditions. For example, some of our competitors may negotiate exclusivity provisions with managed care plans or otherwise restrict the ability of managed care companies to contract with us. The trend toward consolidation among non-government payers tends to increase their bargaining power over fee structures. In addition, as various provisions of the Health Reform Law are implemented, including the establishment of American Health Benefit Exchanges (“Exchanges”) and limitations on rescissions of coverage and pre-existing condition exclusions, non-government payers may increasingly demand reduced fees or be unwilling to negotiate reimbursement increases. The

importance of obtaining contracts with managed care organizations varies from community to community, depending on the market strength of such organizations.

State certificate of need (“CON”) laws, which place limitations on a hospital’s ability to expand hospital services and facilities, make capital expenditures and otherwise make changes in operations, may also have the effect of restricting competition. We currently operate health care facilities in a number of states with CON laws. Before issuing a CON, these states consider the need for additional or expanded health care facilities or services. In

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

Admissions, average lengths of stay and reimbursement amounts continue to be negatively affected by payer-required pre-admission authorization, utilization review and payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. The Health Reform Law potentially expands the use of prepayment review by Medicare contractors by eliminating statutory restrictions on their use. Increased competition, admission constraints and payer pressures are expected to continue. To meet these challenges, we intend to expand and update our facilities or acquire or construct new facilities where appropriate, to enhance the provision of a comprehensive array of outpatient services, offer market competitive pricing to private payer groups, upgrade facilities and equipment and offer new or expanded programs and services.

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

In some states where we operate hospitals and other health care facilities, the construction or expansion of health care facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities, the transfer or change of ownership and the addition of

new beds or services may be subject to review by and prior approval of, or notifications to, state regulatory agencies under a CON program. Such laws generally require the reviewing state agency to determine the public need for additional or expanded health care facilities and services. Failure to provide required notifications or obtain necessary state approvalapprovals can result in the inability to expand facilities, complete an acquisition or change ownership.

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

Participation in any federal health care program, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, is heavily regulated by statute and regulation. If a hospital fails to substantially comply with the numerous conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs or performs certain prohibited acts, the hospital’s participation in the federal health care programs may be terminated, or civiland/or criminal penalties may be imposed.

A section of the Social Security Act known as the “Anti-kickback Statute” prohibits providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration with the intent of generating referrals or orders for services or items covered by a federal health care program. Courts have interpreted this statute broadly and held that there is a violation of the Anti-kickback Statute if just one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals, even if there are other lawful purposes. Furthermore, the Health Reform Law provides that knowledge of the law or the intent to violate the law is not required. Violations of the Anti-kickback Statute may be punished by a criminal fine of up to $25,000 for each violation or imprisonment, civil money penalties of up to $50,000 per violation and damages of up to three times the total amount of the remunerationand/or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. The Health Reform Law provides that submission of a claim for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim and may be subject to additional penalties under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”).

The Office of Inspector General at HHS (“OIG”),OIG, among other regulatory agencies, is responsible for identifying and eliminating fraud, abuse and waste. The OIG carries out this mission through a nationwide program of audits, investigations and inspections. As one means of providingThe OIG provides guidance to health care providers, the OIG issuesindustry through various methods including advisory opinions and “Special Fraud Alerts.” These alertsSpecial Fraud Alerts do not have the force of law, but identify features of arrangements or transactions that the government believes may cause the arrangements or transactions to violate the Anti-kickback Statute or other federal health care laws. The OIG has identified several incentive arrangements that constitute suspect practices, including: (a) payment of any incentive by a hospital each time a physician refers a patient to the hospital, (b) the use of free or significantly discounted office space or equipment in facilities usually located close to the hospital, (c) provision of free or significantly discounted billing, nursing or other staff services, (d) free training for a physician’s office staff in areas such as management techniques and laboratory techniques, (e) guarantees which provide, if the physician’s income fails to reach a predetermined level, the hospital will pay any portion of the remainder, (f) low-interest or interest-free loans, or loans which may be forgiven if a physician refers patients to the hospital, (g) payment of the costs of a physician’s travel and expenses for conferences, (h) coverage on the hospital’s group health insurance plans at an inappropriately low cost to the physician, (i) payment for services (which may include consultations at the hospital) which require few, if any, substantive duties by the physician, (j) purchasing goods or services from physicians at prices in

excess of their fair market value, and (k) rental of space in physician offices, at other than fair market value terms, by persons or entities to which physicians refer. The OIG has encouraged persons having information about hospitals who offer the above types of incentives to physicians to report such information to the OIG.

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

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

As authorized by Congress, the OIG has published safe harbor regulations that outline categories of activities deemed protected from prosecution under the Anti-kickback Statute. Currently, there are statutory exceptions and

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

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

Although we believe our arrangements with physicians and other referral sources have been structured to comply with current law and available interpretations, there can be no assurance regulatory authorities enforcing these laws will determine these financial arrangements comply with the Anti-kickback Statute or other applicable laws. An adverse determination could subject us to liabilities under the Social Security Act and other laws, including criminal penalties, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs.

The Social Security Act also includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” The Stark Law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to entities with which they or any of their

immediate family members have a financial relationship, if these entities provide certain “designated health services” reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid unless an exception applies. The Stark Law also prohibits entities that provide designated health services reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid from billing the Medicare and Medicaid programs for any items or services that result from a prohibited referral and requires the entities to refund amounts received for items or services provided pursuant to the prohibited referral. “Designated health services” include inpatient and outpatient hospital services, clinical laboratory services and radiology services. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, civil monetary penalties of up to $15,000 per claim submitted and exclusion from the federal health care programs. The statute also provides for a penalty of up to $100,000 for a circumvention scheme. There are exceptions to the self-referral prohibition for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases and recruitment agreements. Unlike safe harbors under the Anti-kickback Statute with which compliance is voluntary, an arrangement must comply with every requirement of a Stark Law exception or the arrangement is in violation of the Stark Law. Although there is an exception for a physician’s ownership interest in an entire hospital, the Health Reform Law prohibits newly created physician-owned hospitals from billing for Medicare patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals after December 31, 2010. While the Health Reform Law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

Through a series of rulemakings, CMS has issued final regulations implementing the Stark Law. Additional changes to these regulations, which became effective October 1, 2009, further restrict the types of arrangements facilities and physicians may enter, including additional restrictions on certain leases, percentage compensation arrangements, and agreements under which a hospital purchases services “under arrangements.” While these regulations were intended to clarify the requirements of the exceptions to the Stark Law, it is unclear how the government will interpret many of these exceptions for enforcement purposes. CMS has indicated it is considering

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

HIPAA broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for health care fraud offenses that apply to all health benefit programs. The Social Security Act also imposes criminal and civil penalties for making false claims and statements to Medicare and Medicaid. False claims include, but are not limited to, billing for services not rendered or for misrepresenting actual services rendered in order to obtain higher reimbursement, billing for unnecessary goods and services and cost report fraud. Federal enforcement officials have the ability to exclude from Medicare and Medicaid any investors, officers and managing employees associated with business entities that have committed health care fraud, even if the officer or managing employee had no knowledge of the fraud. Criminal and civil penalties may be imposed for a number of other prohibited activities, including failure to return known overpayments, certain gainsharing arrangements, billing Medicare amounts that are substantially in excess of a provider’s usual charges, offering remuneration to influence a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary’s selection of a health care provider, contracting with an individual or entity known to be excluded from a federal health care program, making or accepting a payment to induce a physician to reduce or limit services, and soliciting or receiving any remuneration in return for referring an

individual for an item or service payable by a federal health care program. Like the Anti-kickback Statute, these provisions are very broad. Under the Health Reform Law, civil penalties may be imposed for the failure to report and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment or by the date a corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later. To avoid liability, providers must, among other things, carefully and accurately code claims for reimbursement, promptly return overpayments and accurately prepare cost reports.

Some of these provisions, including the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law, require a lower burden of proof than other fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-kickback Statute. Civil monetary penalties that may be imposed under the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law range from $10,000 to $50,000 per act, and in some cases may result in penalties of up to three times the remuneration offered, paid, solicited or received. In addition, a violator may be subject to exclusion from federal and state health care programs. Federal and state governments increasingly use the federal Civil Monetary Penalty Law, especially where they believe they cannot meet the higher burden of proof requirements under the Anti-kickback Statute. Further, individuals can receive up to $1,000 for providing information on Medicare fraud and abuse that leads to the recovery of at least $100 of Medicare funds under the Medicare Integrity Program.

Thequi tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the FCA allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the defendant has defrauded the federal government. Further, the government may use the FCA to prosecute Medicare and other government program fraud in areas such as coding errors, billing for services not provided and submitting false cost reports. When a private party brings aqui tamaction under the FCA, the defendant is not made aware of the lawsuit until the government commences its own investigation or makes a determination whether it will intervene. WhenIf a defendant is determined by a court of law to be liable under the FCA, the defendant may be required to pay three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each separate false claim. There are many potential bases for liability under the FCA. Liability often arises when an entity knowingly submits a false claim for

In some cases, whistleblowers and the federal government have taken the position, and some courts have held, that providers who allegedly have violated other statutes, such as the Anti-kickback Statute and the Stark Law, have thereby submitted false claims under the FCA. The Health Reform Law clarifies this issue with respect to the Anti-kickback Statute by providing that submission of claims for services or items generated in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. Every entity that receives at least $5 million annually in Medicaid payments must have written policies for all employees, contractors or agents, providing detailed information about false claims, false statements and whistleblower protections under certain federal laws, including the FCA, and similar state laws. In addition, federal law provides an incentive to states to enact false claims laws comparable to the FCA. A number of states in which we operate have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions under which a private party may file a civil lawsuit in state court. We have adopted and distributed policies pertaining to the FCA and relevant state laws.

The Administrative Simplification Provisions of HIPAA require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for certain health care claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the health care industry. HHS has issued regulations implementing the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Provisions and compliance with these regulations is mandatory for our facilities. 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. While 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 the implementation. Implementing the ICD-10 code sets will require significant administrative changes, but 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 Health Reform Law requires HHS to adopt standards for additional electronic transactions and to establish operating rules to promote uniformity in the implementation of each standardized electronic transaction.

As required by ARRA, HHS 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

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. UnderAs required by ARRA, HHS is requiredhas announced a pilot program to conduct periodic complianceperform audits of up to 150 covered entities and their business associates.by the end of 2012. ARRA broadens the applicability of the criminal penalty provisions to employees of covered entities and requires HHS to impose penalties for violations resulting from willful neglect. ARRA also 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. In addition, 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.

There are numerous other laws and legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing privacy and security concerns. Our facilities also remain subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties.

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

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

Some of the states in which we operate have laws prohibiting corporations and other entities from employing physicians, practicing medicine for a profit and making certain direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements between health care providers designed to induce or encourage the referral of patients to, or the recommendation of, particular providers for medical products and services. Possible sanctions for violation of these

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

Our substantial Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental billings result in heightened scrutiny of our operations. We continue to monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigations or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with our or industry practices.

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

Both federal and state government agencies have increased their focus on and coordination of civil and criminal enforcement efforts in the health care area. The OIG and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have, from time to time, established national enforcement initiatives, targeting all hospital providers that focus on specific billing practices or other suspected areas of abuse. The Health Reform Law includes additional federal funding of $350 million over the next 10 years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse, including $105 million for federal fiscal year 2011 and $65 million in federal fiscal year 2012. In addition, governmental agencies and their agents, such as MACs, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, may conduct audits of our health care operations. Private payers may conduct similar post-payment audits, and we also perform internal audits and monitoring.

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

As enacted, the Health Reform Law will change how health care services are covered, delivered and reimbursed through expanded coverage of uninsured individuals, reduced growth in Medicare program spending, reductions in Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments, and the establishment of programs where reimbursement is tied to quality and integration. In addition, the law reforms certain aspects of health insurance, expands existing efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid payments to performance and quality, and contains provisions intended to strengthen fraud and abuse enforcement. More than 20 challenges toNumerous lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law have been filed in federal courts.Law. Some federal district courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law or dismissed cases on procedural grounds. Others have held unconstitutional the requirement that individuals maintain health insurance or pay a penalty and have either found the Health Reform Law void in its entirety or left the remainder of the law intact. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the constitutionality of the Health Reform Law intact. These lawsuits are subject to appeal, and several are currentlyin 2012. Based on appeal, including those that hold the law unconstitutional. It is unclear how these lawsuits will be resolved. Further, Congress is considering bills that would repeal or reviseoutcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review, the Health Reform Law.

Based on CBO and CMS estimates made prior to enactment of the Health Reform Law, by 2019, the Health Reform Law will expand coverage to 32 to 34 million additional individuals (resulting in coverage of an estimated 94% of the legal U.S. population). This increased coverage will occur through a combination of public program expansion and private sector health insurance and other reforms.

The primary public program coverage expansion will occur through changes in Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”). The most significant changes will expand the categories of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage and permit individuals with relatively higher incomes to qualify. The federal government reimburses the majority of a state’s Medicaid expenses, and it conditions its payment on the state meeting certain requirements. The federal government currently requires that states provide coverage for only limited categories of low-income adults under 65 years old (e.g., women who are pregnant, and the blind or disabled). In addition, the income level required for individuals and families to qualify for Medicaid varies widely from state to state.

The Health Reform Law materially changes the requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Commencing January 1, 2014, all state Medicaid programs are required to provide, and the federal government will subsidize, Medicaid coverage to virtually all adults under 65 years old with incomes at or under 133% of the federal poverty level (“FPL”). This expansion will create a minimum Medicaid eligibility threshold that is uniform across states. Further, the Health Reform Law also requires states to apply a “5% income disregard” to the Medicaid eligibility standard, so that Medicaid eligibility will effectively be extended to those with incomes up to 138% of the FPL. TheseAccording to the CBO’s March 2011 projection, the new eligibility requirements will expand Medicaid and CHIP coverage by an estimated 16 to 1817 million persons nationwide. A disproportionately large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage is likely to be in states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements.

As Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, the federal government provides states with “matching funds” in a defined percentage, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (“FMAP”). Beginning in 2014, states will receive an enhanced FMAP for the individuals enrolled in Medicaid pursuant to the Health Reform Law. The FMAP percentage is as follows: 100% for calendar years 2014 through 2016; 95% for 2017; 94% in 2018; 93% in 2019; and 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

The Health Reform Law also provides that the federal government will subsidize states that create non- Medicaidnon-Medicaid plans for residents whose incomes are greater than 133% of the FPL but do not exceed 200% of the FPL.

Historically, states often have attempted to reduce Medicaid spending by limiting benefits and tightening Medicaid eligibility requirements. Effective March 23, 2010,However, the Health Reform Law requires states to at least maintain Medicaid eligibility standards established prior to the enactment of the law for adults until January 1, 2014 and for children until October 1, 2019. States with budget deficits may however, seek a waiver from this requirement, but only to address eligibility standards that apply to adults making more than 133% of the FPL.

The expansion of health coverage through the private sector as a result of the Health Reform Law will occur through new requirements onapplicable to health insurers, employers and individuals. Health insurers must keep their annual nonmedical costs lower than 15% of premium revenue for the group market and lower than 20% in the small group and individual markets or rebate to enrollees the amount spent in excess of the percentage. In addition, health insurers are not permitted to deny coverage to children based upon a pre-existing condition and must allow dependent care coverage for children up to 26 years old. Commencing January 1, 2014, health insurance companiesinsurers will be prohibited from imposing annual coverage limits, dropping coverage, excluding persons based upon pre-existing conditions or denying coverage for any individual who is willing to pay the premiums for such coverage. Effective January 1, 2011, each health plan must keep its annual nonmedical costs lower than 15% of premium revenue for the group market and lower than 20% in the small group and individual markets or rebate its enrollees the amount spent in excess of the percentage. In addition, effective September 23, 2010, health insurers will not be permitted to deny coverage to children based upon a pre-existing condition and must allow dependent care coverage for children up to 26 years old.

Larger employers will be subject to new requirements and incentives to provide health insurance benefits to their full time employees. Effective January 1, 2014, employers with 50 or more employees that do not offer health insurance will be held subject to a penalty if an employee obtains government-subsidized coverage through an Exchange if the coverage is subsidized by the government.Exchange. The employer penalties will range from $2,000 to $3,000 per employee, subject to certain thresholds and conditions.

As enacted, the Health Reform Law uses various means to induce individuals who do not have health insurance to obtain coverage. By January 1, 2014, individuals will be required to maintain health insurance for a minimum defined set of benefits or pay a tax penalty. The penalty in most cases is $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to a cost of living adjustment in subsequent years. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), in consultation with HHS, is responsible for enforcing the tax penalty, although the Health Reform Law

limits the availability of certain IRS enforcement mechanisms. In addition, for individuals and families below 400% of the FPL, the cost of obtaining health insurance through the Exchanges will be subsidized by the federal government. Those with lower incomes will be eligible to receive greater subsidies. It is anticipated that those at the lowest income levels will have the majority of their premiums subsidized by the federal government, in some cases in excess of 95% of the premium amount.

To facilitate the purchase of health insurance by individuals and small employers, each state must establish an Exchange by January 1, 2014. Based on CBO and CMS estimates between 29 and 31issued in March 2011, approximately 24 million individuals will obtain their health insurance coverage through an Exchange by 2019. Of that2021. This amount an estimated 16 million will beinclude individuals who were previously uninsured and 13 to 15 million will be individuals who have switched from their prior insurance coverage to a plan obtained through the Exchange. The Health Reform Law requires that the Exchanges be designed to make the process of evaluating, comparing and acquiring coverage simple for consumers. For example, each state’s Exchange must maintain an internet website through which consumers may access health plan ratings that are assigned by the state based on quality and price, view governmental health program eligibility requirements and calculate the actual cost of health coverage. Health insurers participating in an Exchange must offer a set of minimum benefits to be defined by HHS and may offer more benefits. Health insurers must offer at least two, and up to five, levels of plans that vary by the percentage of medical expenses that must be paid by the enrollee. These levels are referred to as platinum, gold, silver, bronze and catastrophic plans, with gold and silver being the two mandatory levels of plans. Each level of plan must require the enrollee to share the following percentages of medical expenses up to the deductible/co-paymentcopayment limit: platinum, 10%; gold, 20%; silver, 30%; bronze, 40%; and catastrophic, 100%. Health insurers may establish varying deductible/co-paymentcopayment levels, up to the statutory maximum (estimated to be between $6,000 and $7,000 for an individual). The health insurers must

The Health Reform Law provides for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care program spending reductions between 2010 and 2019. TheIn March 2010, CMS estimated Medicare fee-for-service reductions from 2010 to 2019 would be $233 billion and the Medicare and Medicaid DSH reductions would be an additional $64 billion. In February 2011, the CBO estimatesestimated that these willfrom 2012 to 2021, the Health Reform Law reductions would include $156$379 billion in Medicarefee-for-service market basket and productivity reimbursement reductions, for all providers, the majority of which will come from hospitals; CMS sets this estimate at $233 billion.hospitals. The CBO estimates also includeestimate included an additional $36$57 billion in reductions ofin Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share funding ($22 billion for Medicare and $14 billion for Medicaid). CMS estimates include an additional $64 billion in reductions of Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share funding, with $50 billion of the reductions coming from Medicare.

Inpatient Market Basket and Productivity Adjustment.    Under the Medicare program, hospitals receive reimbursement under a PPS for general, acute care hospital inpatient services. CMS establishes fixed PPS payment amounts per inpatient discharge based on the patient’s assigned MS-DRG. These MS-DRG rates are updated each federal fiscal year, which begins October 1, using a market basket index that takes into account inflation experienced by hospitals and other entities outside the health care industry in purchasing goods and services.

The Health Reform Law provides for three types of annual reductions in the market basket. The first is a general reduction of a specified percentage each federal fiscal year starting in 2010 and extending through 2019. These reductions are as follows: federal fiscal year 2010, 0.25% for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2010; 2011 (0.25%); 2012 (0.1%); 2013 (0.1%); 2014 (0.3%); 2015 (0.2%); 2016 (0.2%); 2017 (0.75%); 2018 (0.75%); and 2019 (0.75%).

The second type of reduction to the market basket is a “productivity adjustment” that will bewas implemented by HHS beginning in federal fiscal year 2012. The amount of that reduction will beis the projected nationwide productivity

gains over the preceding 10 years. To determine the projection, HHS will useuses the BLS10-year moving average of changes in specified economy-wide productivity (the BLS data is typically a few years old). The Health Reform Law does not contain guidelines for HHS to use in projecting the productivity figure. Based upon the latest available data,For federal fiscal year 2012, CMS has announced a negative 1.0% productivity adjustment to the market basket. CMS estimates that the combined market basket reductions resultingand productivity adjustments will reduce Medicare payments under the inpatient PPS by $112.6 billion from this productivity adjustment are likely2010 to range from 1% to 1.4%.

If the aggregate of the three market basket reductions described above is more than the annual market basket adjustments made to account for inflation, there will be a reduction in the MS-DRG rates paid to hospitals. For example, for the federal fiscal year 2011 hospital inpatient PPS, the market basket increase to account for inflation iswas 2.6% and the aggregate reduction due to the Health Reform Law and the documentation and coding adjustment iswas 3.15%. Thus, the rates paid to a hospital for inpatient services in federal fiscal year 2011 will bewere 0.55% less than rates paid for the same services in the prior year.

Quality-Based Payment Adjustments and Reductions for Inpatient Services.    The Health Reform Law establishes or expands three provisions to promote value-based purchasing and to link payments to quality and efficiency. First, in federal fiscal year 2013, HHS is directed to implement a value-based purchasing program for inpatient hospital services. This program will reward hospitals that meet certain quality performance standards established by HHS. The Health Reform Law provides HHS considerable discretion over the value-based purchasing program. For example, HHS will determine the quality performance measures, the standards hospitals

Medicare and Medicaid DSH Payments.    The Medicare DSH program provides for additional payments to hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of low-income patients. Under the Health Reform Law, beginning in federal fiscal year 2014, Medicare DSH payments will be reduced to 25% of the amount they otherwise would have been absent the law. The remaining 75% of the amount that would otherwise be paid under Medicare DSH will be effectively pooled, and this pool will be reduced further each year by a formula that reflects reductions in the national level of uninsured who are under 65 years of age. In other words, the greater the level of coverage for the uninsured nationally, the more the Medicare DSH payment pool will be reduced. Each hospital will then be paid, out of the reduced DSH payment pool, an amount allocated based upon its level of uncompensated care.

It is difficult to predict the full impact of the Medicare DSH reductions, and CBO and CMS estimates differ by $38 billion. The Health Reform Law does not mandate what data source HHS must use to determine the reduction, if any, in the uninsured population nationally. In addition, the Health Reform Law does not contain a definition of “uncompensated care.” As a result, it is unclear how a hospital’s share of the Medicare DSH payment pool will be calculated. CMS could use the definition of “uncompensated care” used in connection with hospital cost reports.

In addition to Medicare DSH funding, hospitals that provide care to a disproportionately high number of low-income patients may receive Medicaid DSH payments. The federal government distributes federal Medicaid DSH funds to each state based on a statutory formula. The states then distribute the DSH funding among qualifying hospitals. Although federal Medicaid law defines some level of hospitals that must receive Medicaid DSH funding, states have broad discretion to define additional hospitals that also may qualify for Medicaid DSH payments and the amount of such payments. The Health Reform Law will reduce funding for the Medicaid DSH hospital program in federal fiscal years 2014 through 2020 by the following amounts: 2014 ($500 million); 2015 ($600 million); 2016 ($600 million); 2017 ($1.8 billion); 2018 ($5 billion); 2019 ($5.6 billion); and 2020 ($4 billion). In addition, the Jobs Creation Act provides for an additional Medicaid DSH reduction of $4.1 billion in federal fiscal year 2021. How such cuts are allocated among the states, and how the states allocate these cuts among providers, have yet to be determined.

ACOs.    The Health Reform Law requires HHS to establish a Medicare Shared Savings Program thatthe MSSP, which promotes accountability and coordination of care through the creation of ACOs. Beginning no later than January 1, 2012, the program will allow certain providers and suppliers (including hospitals),hospitals, physicians and other designated professionals and suppliersprofessionals) to voluntarily form ACOs and voluntarily work together along with other ACO participants to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to achieve high quality and efficient delivery of services. The program is intended to produce savings as a result of improved quality and operational efficiency. ACOs that achieve quality performance standards established by HHS will be eligible to share in a portion of the amounts saved by the

Medicare program. HHS has significant discretion to determine key elements of the program, including what steps providers must takeprogram. In 2011, CMS, the OIG and certain other federal agencies released a series of rules and guidance further defining and implementing the ACO program. These rules and guidance provide for two different ACO tracks, the first of which allows ACOs to be considered an ACO, howshare only in the savings under the MSSP. The second track requires ACOs to decide if Medicare programshare in any savings have occurred, and what portionor losses under the MSSP but offers ACOs a greater share of suchany savings will be paid to ACOs. In addition, HHS will determine to what degree hospitals, physicians and other eligible participants will be able to form and operate an ACO without violating certain existing laws, includingrealized under the Civil Monetary Penalty Law, the Anti-kickback Statute and the Stark Law. However,MSSP. As authorized by the Health Reform Law, does not authorize HHS to waive otherthe rules and guidance also provide for certain waivers from fraud and abuse laws that may impact the ability of hospitals and other eligible participantsfor ACOs. In addition, beginning January 1, 2012, CMS has authorized 32 organizations to participate in the “Pioneer” ACO program, which is similar to, but separate from, the ACOs such as antitrust laws.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers.    The Health Reform Law reduces reimbursement for ASCs through a productivity adjustment to the market basket similar to the productivity adjustment for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, beginning in federal fiscal year 2011.

Over the last decade, we have faced significant competition from hospitals that have physician ownership. The Health Reform Law prohibits newly created physician-owned hospitals from billing for Medicare patients referred by their physician owners. As a result, the law effectively prevents the formation of new physician-owned hospitals after December 31, 2010. While the law grandfathers existing physician-owned hospitals, it does not allow these hospitals to increase the percentage of physician ownership and significantly restricts their ability to expand services.

The Health Reform Law makes several significant changes to health care fraud and abuse laws, provides additional enforcement tools to the government, increases cooperation between agencies by establishing mechanisms for the sharing of information and enhances criminal and administrative penalties for non-compliance. For example, the Health Reform Law: (1) provides $350 million in increased federal funding over the next 10 years to fight health care fraud, waste and abuse; (2) expands the scope of the RAC program to include MA plans and Medicaid; (3) authorizes HHS, in consultation with the OIG, to suspend Medicare and Medicaid payments to a provider of services or a supplier “pending an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud;” (4) provides Medicare contractors with additional flexibility to conduct random prepayment reviews; and (5) tightens up the rules for returning overpayments made by governmental health programs and expands FCA liability to include failure to timely repay identified overpayments.

The expansion of health insurance coverage under the Health Reform Law may result in a material increase in the number of patients using our facilities who have either private or public program coverage. In addition, a disproportionately large percentage of the new Medicaid coverage is likely to be in states that currently have relatively low income eligibility requirements. Two such states are Texas and Florida, where about one-half of the Company’s licensed beds are located. We also have a significant presence in other relatively low income eligibility states, including Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Virginia. Further, the Health Reform Law provides for a value-based purchasing program, the establishment of ACOs and bundled payment pilot programs, which will create possible sources of additional revenue.

However, it is difficult to predict the size of the potential revenue gains to the Company as a result of these elements of the Health Reform Law, because of uncertainty surrounding a number of material factors, including the following:

30

32

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

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

43

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

Controls imposed by Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, managed Medicaid and commercial third-party payers designed to reduce admissions, intensity of services, surgical volumes and lengths of stay, commonlyin some instances referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Utilization review entails the review of the admission and course of treatment of a patient by health plans. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by payer-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative health care delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. For example, the Health Reform Law potentially expands the use of prepayment review by Medicare contractors by eliminating statutory restrictions on their use. Although we are unable to predict the effect these changes will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates and fees could have a material, adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

During periods of high unemployment, governmental entities often experience budget deficits as a result of increased costs and lower than expected tax collections. These budget deficits at federal, state and local government entities have decreased, and may continue to decrease, spending for health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant payer sources for our hospitals. Other risks we face during periods of high unemployment include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective and non-emergency health care procedures (including delaying surgical procedures), potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations and further difficulties in our collecting patient co-paymentcopayment and deductible receivables.

There is a trend in the health care industry towards value-based purchasing of health care services. These value-based purchasing programs include both public reporting of quality data and preventable adverse events tied to the quality and efficiency of care provided by facilities. Governmental programs including Medicare and Medicaid currently require hospitals to report certain quality data to receive full reimbursement updates. In addition, Medicare does not reimburse for care related to certain preventable adverse events (also called “never events”). Many large commercial payers currently require hospitals to report quality data, and several commercial payers do not reimburse hospitals for certain preventable adverse events. Further, we have implemented a policy pursuant to which we do not bill patients or third-party payers for fees or expenses incurred due to certain preventable adverse events.

Effective July 1, 2011, the Health Reform Law will prohibitalso prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for medical assistance provided to treat HACs. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, the 25% of hospitals with the worst national risk-adjusted HAC rates in the previous year will receive a 1% reduction in their total inpatient operating Medicare payments. HospitalsBeginning in fiscal year 2013, hospitals with excessive readmissions for