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

FORM 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1)
10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20082009


Commission File Number 001-31932
_______________________

HYTHIAM, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
_______________________

Delaware88-0464853
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

11150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, California 90025
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(310) 444-4300
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Common Stock, $0.0001 par valueNASDAQ Global MarketOTC Bulletin Board
(Title of each class)(Name of each exchange on which registered)


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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o
 
No þ

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o
 
No þ

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 o
No o



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 posteddisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to RuleItem 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 229.405S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment to this chapter) during the preceeding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).Form 10-K.  þ

Yes þ
No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of ‘‘accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer,’’ and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o
 
Accelerated filer þo
 
Non-accelerated filer o
 
Smaller reporting company oþ

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

As of June 30, 2008,March 25, 2010, the aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $95,234,000$11,294,173 based on the $2.42$0.22 closing price on the NASDAQ Global MarketOver The Counter (OTC) Bulletin Board on that date. This amount excludes the value of $36,743,0003,309,052 shares of common stock directly or indirectly held by the registrant’s affiliates.

As of April 28, 2009,March 29 2010, there were 55,154,68866,378,296 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.
 

Explanatory Note

This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (this “Amendment”) amends Hythiam, Inc.’s (“we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company,” or “Hythiam”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2009 (the “Original Filing”). This Amendment is being filed to amend the Original Filing to include the information required by Items 10 through 14 of Part III of Form 10-K, which information was previously omitted from the Original Filing in reliance on General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K. General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K requires the information in the above referenced items be included in the Form 10-K filing or incorporated by reference from our definitive Proxy Statement if such statement is filed no later than 120 days after our last fiscal year end. We do not expect to file a definitive Proxy Statement containing the above referenced items within such 120-day period and therefore Part III information is filed hereby as an amendment to our Original Filing.  In addition, on the cover page, (i) the reference in the Original Filing to the incorporation by reference of the definitive Proxy Statement for our 2009 Annual Meeting has been deleted and (ii) the information with respect to the number of outstanding shares of common stock has been updated.

Additionally, in the second paragraph on page 38 within Item  7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition  and Results of Operations, we replaced the term “cash operating expenditures” with “operating expenses” and on page F-17 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, within Part IV, Item 15, Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules (a)(1),(2) Financial Statements, we corrected the table that summarizes the fair value measurements using Level III inputs by reporting the $11.5 million in “Transfers into Level III” and the $1.4 million in “Net realized losses”.

The Company is also updating its list of exhibits in Item 15 of this report to include the certifications specified in Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) required to be filed with this Amendment.  The Company is also amending the information contained in Items 1 and 1A of Part I of the Original Filing; Items 7, 8, and 9 of Part II of the Original Filing.  Except for the addition of the Part III information, the amendments to the information contained in Items 7 and 8 of the Part II information, the amendment to Footnote 1 to Financial Statements within Part IV, Item 15, the amendments to the information contained in Items 1 and 1A of the Part I information, the updates to the cover page and the updated exhibit list, no other changes have been made to the Original Filing.

 
 

 

HYTHYHIAM,THIAM, INC.
Form 10-K/A10-K Annual Report
For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20082009


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 

 






 
PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed due to factors such as, among others, limited operating history, difficulty in developing, exploiting and protecting proprietary technologies, intense competition and substantial regulation in the healthcare industry. Additional information concerning factors that could cause or contribute to such differences can be found in the following discussion, as well as in Item 1.A Risk Factors and Item 7.7- Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

ITEM 1.                  BUSINESS
ITEM 1.BUSINESS

Overview

We are a healthcare services management company, providing through our Catasys™Catasys® subsidiary specialized behavioral health management services for substance abuse to health plans.plans, employers and unions through a network of licensed and company managed healthcare providers.  The Catasys is focused on offering integrated substance dependence solutions,program was designed to address substance dependence as a chronic disease. The program seeks to lower costs and improve member health through the delivery of integrated medical and psychosocial interventions in combination with long term “care coaching”, including our patentedproprietary PROMETA® Treatment Program for alcoholism and stimulant dependence.  The PROMETA Treatment Program, which integrates behavioral, nutritional and medical components,c omponents, is also available on a private-pay basis through licensed treatment providers and a company managed treatment centerscenter that offeroffers the PROMETA Treatment Program, as well as other treatments for substance dependencies. We also research, develop, license and commercialize innovative and proprietary physiological, nutritional, and behavioral treatment programs. 

In January 2009, we sold our interest in Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare), a behavioral health managed care company, in which we had acquired a majority controlling interest in January 2007.  Additionally, we entered into an administrative services only (ASO) agreement with CompCare to provide administrative services including case management and authorization services in support of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) specialty behavioral health products that will be offered through Catasys.  As part of our effort to develop additional specialty behavioral health products for Catasys, we are continuing to focus on smaller populations that incur disproportionately higher costs, and that payors have difficulty addressing.

Catasys’sCatasys’ integrated substance dependence solution combines innovative medical and psychosocial treatments with elements of traditional disease management and ongoing member”care coaching” support to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations to impact both the medical and behavioral health costs associated with members with substance dependence and the related co-morbidities.dependence.

Our unique PROMETA Treatment Program is designed for use by health care providers seeking to treat individuals diagnosed with dependencies to alcohol, cocaine or methamphetamine, as well as combinations of these drugs.  The PROMETA Treatment Program includes nutritional supplements, FDA-approved oral and IV medications used off-label and separately administered in a unique dosing algorithm, as well as psychosocial or other recovery-oriented therapy chosen by the patient and his or her treatment provider.  As a result, our PROMETA Treatment Program represents an innovative approach to managing substance dependence designed to address physiological, nutritional and psychosocial aspects of the disease, and are thereby intended to offer patients an opportunity to achieve sustained recovery.

We have been unprofitable since our inception in 2003 and expect to continue to incur operating losses for at least the next twelve months.  However, we believe our operating losses will decrease and we will achieve positive cash flows within the next two years as we begin to sign contracts with managed care organizations for our Catasys products and the number of covered lives increases.  Accordingly, our historical operations and financial information are not necessarily indicative of future operating results, financial condition or ability to operate profitably as a commercial enterprise.

We believe that our business and operations as outlined above are in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations. However, the healthcare industry is highly regulated, and the criteria are often vague and subject to change and interpretation by various federal and state legislatures, courts, enforcement and regulatory


authorities. Additional clinical studies are underwayhave been conducted to evaluate our PROMETA Treatment Program and confirm initial studies and reports from physicians using them in their practices. The medications used in the PROMETA Treatment Program are FDA approved for uses other than treating dependence on alcohol, cocaine or methamphetamine. Therefore, the risks and benefits of using those medications to treat dependence on those substances have not been evaluated by the FDA, which may not findf ind them to be sufficiently safe or effective. We do not manufacture, distribute or sell any medications and have no relationship with any manufacturers or distributors of medications used in the PROMETA Treatment Program. Only a treating physician can determine if the PROMETA Treatment Program is appropriate for any individual patient. Our future prospects are subject to the legal, regulatory, commercial and scientific risks outlined above and in Item 1.A Risk Factors.

Substance Dependence as a Disease

Scientific research indicates that not only can drugs interfere with normal brain functioning, but they can also have long-lasting effects that persist even after the drug is no longer being used. Data indicates that at some point changes may occur in the brain that can turn drug and alcohol abuse into substance dependence—a chronic, relapsing and sometimes fatal disease. Those dependent on drugs may suffer from compulsive drug craving and usage and be unable to stop drug use or remain drug abstinent without effective treatment. Professional medical treatment is oftenmay be necessary to end this physiologically-based compulsive behavior. We believe that addressing the physiological basis of substance dependence as part of an integrated treatment program will improve clinical outcomes and reduce the cost of treating dependence, and reduce the cost to society by decreasing related criminality and violence, therefore mitigating the costs associated with high risk behavior.

Alcohol

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rank alcohol as the number three preventable cause of death in the United States, with 85,000 deaths annually. According to NIAAA, 47.5% of all deaths due to liver cirrhosis are alcohol related, with most of these deaths occurring in people 40 to 65 years old. One study found that 20-37% of all emergency room trauma cases involve alcohol use (Roizen, J., Alcohol and Trauma, 1988). Another found that 46% of asymptomatic alcoholic men exhibited evidence of cardiomyopathy (Rubin, E., The Effects of Alcoholism on Skeletal and Cardiac Muscle, 1989).

The consequences of alcoholism and alcohol abuse affect most American families. One study estimated that 20-25% of all injury-related hospital admissions are the result of alcoholism or alcohol problems (Waller J., Diagnosis of Alcoholism in the Injured Patient, 1988). According to a 2003 report by the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, over 250,000 Americans were injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes, resulting in 17,000 fatalities in 2002. According to a 2005 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes accounted for 39% of all traffic fatalities in 2004.

Methamphetamine

According to a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) report “Methamphetamine: Abuse and Addiction” (January 2002), the effects of methamphetamine use can include memory loss, aggression, psychotic behavior, and heart and brain damage. Methamphetamine is highly addictive and users trying to abstain from use may suffer withdrawal symptoms that include depression, anxiety, fatigue, paranoia, aggression, and intense cravings for the drug. Chronic methamphetamine use can cause violent behavior, anxiety, confusion, and insomnia. Users can also exhibit psychotic behavior including auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, delusions, and paranoia, possibly resulting in homicidal or suicidal thoughts. According to NIDA’s report “Methamphetamine Abuse Linked to Long-Term Damage to Brain Cells” (March 2000), use of methamphetamine can cause damage to the brain that is still detectable months after the use of the drug. The damage to the brain caused by methamphetamine use appears similar to damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease, stroke and epilepsy.

Cocaine and Crack Cocaine

Cocaine and crack cocaine use are societal problems that place a heavy load upon our criminal justice system. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, “Prisoners in 2006,” published in December 2007, 53% of the 176,000 federal prisoners and 20% of the 1.3 million state prisoners were convicted of drug offenses. The National Institute of Justice reports that over 30% of all arrestees in 2003 tested positive for crack or powder cocaine.

2


The consequences of cocaine and crack use extend beyond the criminal justice system. NIDA reports the medical complications of cocaine use can include heart arrhythmias and heart attacks, chest pain, respiratory failure, strokes, seizures and headaches, as well as abdominal pain and nausea. NIDA also notes that there have been no medications available to treat cocaine dependence.

Our Market

Substance Dependence

Substance dependence is a worldwide problem with prevalence rates continuing to rise despite the efforts by national and local health authorities to curtail its growth. Substance dependence disorders affect many people and have wide-ranging social consequences. In 2007,2008, an estimated 22.322.2 million Americans aged 12 and older were classified with substance dependence or abuse, of which only 2.42.3 million received treatment at a specialty substance abuse facility, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Furthermore, according to the survey, approximately 13 million Americans age 12 and older are reported as having tried methamphetamine, and, according to its 2006 survey, the percentage of methamphetamine use characterized as abuse or dependence increased 57% from 2002 to 2005. Findings from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2006 published by SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies show that the proportion of admissions for primary abuse of methamphetamine as a percent of substance abuse treatment admissions increased from 2.5% in 1996 to 8.3% in 2006.

Summarizing data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse exceeds $365 billion annually in the U.S., including $42 billion in healthcare costs and approximately $262 billion in productivity losses. Despite these staggering figures, it is a testament to the unmet need in the market that only a small percentage of those who need treatment actually receive help. Traditional treatment methods are often not particularly effective, especially when it comes to those who are dependent on stimulants.effective.

There are over 13,00013,500 facilities reporting to SAMHSA that provide substance dependence treatment on an inpatient or outpatient basis.treatment. Historically, the disease of substance dependence has been treated primarily through behavioral intervention, with fairly high relapse rates. SAMHSA’s TEDS 2005 report states that in 2005 only 71% of those treated for alcoholism and 57% of those treated for cocaine completed detoxification, and that alcohol and cocaine outpatient treatment completion rates were only 47% and 24%, respectively.

The stigmaConventional forms of treatment for substance abuse, with its lack of effective treatment options and high cost, has meant that few if any healthcare plans, third-party payors or employers know how to grapple with this significant health issue.  This leaves a largely untreated or under-treated substance dependent population for a payor.  Impediments to treatment are oftendependence generally focus on the result of behavioral health units being carved outpsychosocial aspect of the medical division of commercial healthcare plans, thereby creating a non-integrateddisease, conducted through residential or outpatient treatment approach. centers, individual counseling and self-help programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.

Pharmacological options for alcohol dependence exist and a number of pharmaceutical companies have introduced or announced drugs to treat alcohol dependence. These drugs may require chronic or long-term administration. In addition, several of these drugs are generally not used until the patient has already achieved abstinence, are generally administered on a chronic or long-term continuing basis, and do not represent an integrated treatment approach to addiction. We believe the PROMETA Treatment Program can be used at various stages of recovery, including initiation of abstinence and during early recovery, and can also complement other existing treatments. As such, our treatment programs offer a potentially valuable alternative or addition to traditional treatment methods. We also believe the best results can be achieved in programs such as our Catasys offering that integrates psychosocial and medical treatment modalities and provide longer term support.

It is commonly reported that addiction to methamphetamine is an epidemic rapidly spreading throughout the United States.  Methamphetamine addicts are highly resistant to treatmentOur Market

Health Plans, Employers and even after intervention, relapse at very high rates.  Methamphetamine use is also spreading to the workplace.  A study funded by the Wal-Mart Foundation in 2004 determined that each methamphetamine-using employee costs his or her employer $47,500 per year in terms of lost productivity, absenteeism, higher healthcare costs and higher workers’ compensation costs.  For city, state and county governments and their taxpayers, methamphetamine abuse causes legal, medical, environmental and social problems. A study entitled “The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities” conducted in 2005 by the National Association of Counties, which surveyed 500 counties in 45 states, reported that 58% of

3


counties surveyed reported methamphetamine as their largest drug problem, with 87% reporting increases in arrests involving methamphetamine starting three years earlier. Cocaine was reported as the number one drug problem in 19% of the counties. There are currently no generally accepted medical treatments for cocaine or methamphetamine dependence.Unions

The true impact of substance dependence is often under-identified by organizations that provide healthcare benefits. The reality is that substance dependent individuals:

●  Are prevalent in any organizationorganization;

●  
Cost health plans and employers a disproportionate amount of moneymoney;

●  
Stay in health plans comparably as long as members without substance dependence

●  
Have higher rates of absenteeism and lower rates of productivityproductivity; and

2



●  
Who have co-morbid medical conditions incur increased costs for the treatment of these conditions compared to a non-substance dependent populationpopulation.

When considering substance dependence-related costs, many organizations only look at direct treatment costs–usually behavioral claims.  The reality is that substance dependent individuals generally have overall poorer health and lower compliance, which leads to more expensive treatment for related, and even seemingly unrelated, co-occurring medical conditions. In fact, of total healthcare claims costs associated with substance dependence populations, only 6% are behavioral health, while 94%the vast majority are medical claims according to our research.and not behavioral treatment costs.

Currently,As December 31, 2008 there are approximatelywere over 191 million lives in the United States covered by various managed care programs including Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), self-insured employers and managed Medicare/Medicaid programs.   Each year, based on our analysis, approximately 1.93%1.9% of commercial plan members will have a substance dependence diagnosis, and that figure may be lesser or greater for specific planspayors depending on the health plan demographics and location.  A smaller, high-cost subset of this population drives the majority of the claims costs for the overall substance dependent population.  For commercial members with substance dependence and a total annual claims cost of at least $7,500, the average annual per member claims cost is $25,500, compared to an average of $3,250 for a commercial non-substance dependent member, according to our research.

In October 2008, the Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was passed as part of the nation’s Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) financial bail-out package.  The bill requires that behavioral coverage be no less favorable than medical coverage, which is expected to increase utilization of mental health services, causing health plans’ costs to rise.   The impact on commercial plans with high-cost substance dependent members will be significant.  The increased costs will be most acute for members who recur frequently throughout the behavioral health plan system and whose substance dependence increases the cost of any co-existing disorders.system. We expect that this parity bill, and the continuing difficult economic environment and increasing focus on containing healthcare costs will heighten commercial plans’ interest in programs that can lower their cost and increase their interest in seeking solutions.

Autism and ADHD
The Autism Society of America estimates that 1 in 150 children are autistic, and with growth rates of 10-17% per year and annual direct treatment costs of up to $50,000 per child, autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disabilities.  A recent study indicated that the economic costs associated with autism are approximately $35 billion dollars annually, and do not include the myriad challenges that parents encounter in helping their child cope with the condition.  Autistic children typically struggle with social interaction, display difficulty in communication and may demonstrate repetitive behaviors or focus on obsessive interests.  Many health care professionals and organizations focused on autism awareness recommend early, individualized intervention to treat autism.  Parents of autistic children may be presented with numerous treatment alternatives from speech therapy to self-help services.  Because autism is so unique, it typically requires a care plan tailored to a child’s specific needs, and parents are often seeking guidance on where to begin and how to access services.


4


The recently passed federal parity law is also expected to have a significant impact on health plans currently mandated to provide autism coverage.  Numerous well-funded organizations are lobbying to expand autism coverage mandates throughout all 50 states.  The anticipated cost increases due to parity and state mandated coverage are creating a need for health plans to focus on managing autism and other costly disorders by launching cost-effective and integrated medical and behavioral programs that improve patient care.

ADHD is typically characterized by an individual’s inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity, and diagnosis of ADHD usually involves a comprehensive and thorough evaluation conducted by trained professionals using accepted diagnostic interview techniques.  Treatment pathways include support and education of parents, behavioral therapy and pharmacological treatment—primarily psychostimulants.  Health plans currently spend substantial amounts on pharmaceutical costs, and would significantly benefit from care management programs that improve patient care and help control costs.

Our Solution: Catasys and the PROMETA Treatment Program

Under our Catasys solution, we work with health plans and employers to customize our program to meet a plan’s structural needs and pricing—either a case rate per patient or a per-enrolled member, per-month fee.  Our Catasys substance dependence program is designed for increased enrollment, longer retention and better health outcomes so we can help payors improve member care and achieve lower costs, and in addition help employers and organized labor reduce medical costs, absenteeism and job-related injuries in the workplace, thereby improving productivity.

We are in a position to respond to a largely unmet need in the healthcare industry by offering an innovative and integrated substance dependence treatment solution in an effort to reduce overall medical costs, improve clinical outcomes and improve quality of care for patients.  People suffering from alcohol and drug dependence have a clinical disease, but are often characterized as having a social disorder or a lack of self-discipline.  In this context, with few pharmaceutical options for substance dependence available, traditional treatment approaches have generally focused on the psychosocial aspect of the disease.  While we recognize the psychologicalpsychosocial approach to substance dependence treatment is important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to this multi-factorial disease should be addressed as part of an integrated treatment approach intended to provide patients with an improved chance for recovery.  We believe our integrated approach offers patients a better opportunity to achieve their individual recovery goals.

Current research indicates that substance dependence is associated with altered cortical activity and changes in neurotransmitter function in the specific areas of the brain which are critical to normal brain function. Moreover, changes in the neurochemistry of the brain may underlie the hallmarks of substance dependence, including tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, craving, decrease in cognitive function and propensity for relapse. Our Catasys and PROMETA Treatment Program for substance dependence include medically directed and supervised treatments, prescription medications and nutritional supplements, combined with psychosocial or other recovery-oriented therapy and patient coaching.  We provide a proprietary integrated treatment program to medical professionals who exercise their discretion and judgment in the specific implementation of treatment programs tailored to individual patient needs.

Under our Catasys offering, we work with health plans and employers using our model to customize our program to meet a plan’s need on pricing—either a case rate per patient or a per-member, per-month fee.  Our Catasys substance dependence program is designed for increased enrollment, longer retention and better health outcomes so we can help payors improve member care and achieve lower costs, and help employers and organized labor reduce medical costs, absenteeism and job-related injuries in the workplace, thereby improving productivity. 

Our proprietary PROMETA Treatment Program combines a medical treatment approach—addressing the physiological aspects of addiction—with a behavioral treatment program, including wellness and psychosocial support, and also includes nutritional aspects.  This unique regimen allows us to offer a more comprehensive way to manage a broader array of aspects of substance dependence and achieve higher success rates than traditional approaches.

Catasys™®

Our Catasys integrated substance dependence solution combines innovative medical and psychosocial treatments with elements of traditional diseasepopulation health management and ongoing member support to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations, and is designed to lower both the medical and behavioral healthoverall costs associatedof members diagnosed with substance dependence, and the related co-morbidities.dependence. We believe the benefits of Catasys include improved clinical outcomes and decreased costs for the payor, and improved quality of life and productivity for the member.


53


We believe Catasys is the only program of its kind dedicated exclusively to chemicalsubstance dependence. The Catasys substance dependence program was developed by addiction experts with years of clinical experience in the substance dependence field. This experience has helped to form a key areaareas of expertise that sets Catasys apart from other solutions:solutions, including member engagement.engagement, working directly with the member treatment team and a more fully integrated treatment offering.

Our Catasys integrated substance dependence program includes the following components:  Member identification, enrollment/referral, provider network, outpatient medical treatment, outpatient psychosocial treatment, care coaching, monitoring and reporting, and ITour proprietary web based clinical information platform.

We targetidentify those who have been diagnosed as substance dependence membersdependent and who incur significant costs and may be appropriate for enrollment into Catasys.  We then enroll targeted members into the Catasys program through consumer marketing research, mailings, email and telephonic outreach, for example.  After enrollment/referral, we optimize patient outcomes through a specially trained sub-network of providers, utilizing integrated treatment modalities.  Outpatient medical treatment follows, where we utilize the most advanced pharmacologic treatments (primarily(including PROMETA Treatment Program for alcohol and stimulant dependence and SUBOXONE® for opioid dependence) in order to provide more immediate and sustained results.  This is paired with outpatient psychosocial treatment where we utilize our proprietary psychosocial model and Relapse Prevention Program (RPP), in order to enhance the neurophysiologic effect gained from the medical treatment by helping members develop improved coping skills and a recovery support network.  Throughout the treatment process, our care coaches work directly with members to keep them engaged in treatment by proactively supporting members to enhance motivation, minimize lapses and enable lifestyle modifications consistent with the recovery goals.  We also link providers and care coaches to member information through our ITweb based clinical information platform, enabling each provider to be better informed with a member’s treatment in order to assist in providing the best possible care. At treatment end,Periodically we will provide outcomes reporting on clinical and financial metrics to our customers to demonstrate the extent of the program’s value.

PROMETA® Treatment Program

Our PROMETA Treatment Program is an integrated, physician-based outpatient addiction treatment program that combines three components–medical treatment, nutritional support and psychosocial therapy–all critical in helping people address addiction to alcohol and stimulants (e.g. cocaine and methamphetamine). The program is designed to help relieve cravings, restore nutritional balance and initiate counseling.

There are two PROMETA treatments:

●  
PROMETA for alcohol dependence

●  
PROMETA for stimulant dependence (or combination alcohol/stimulant dependence)

Historically, the disease of addiction has been treated primarily through behavioral intervention, with fairly high relapse rates. We believe the PROMETA Treatment Program offers an advantage to traditional alternatives because it provides a treatment methodology that is discreet and only mildly sedating, and can be initiated in only three days, with a two-day follow-up treatment three weeks later for addictive stimulants.later. The initiation of treatment under PROMETA involves the oral and intravenous administration of pharmaceuticals in a medically directed and supervised setting. The medications used in the PROMETA Treatment Program have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for uses other than treatment of substance dependence. Treatment generally takes place on an outpatient basis at a properly equipped outpatient setting or clinic, or at a hospitalhos pital or other in-patient facility, by physicians and healthcare providers who have licensed the rights to use our PROMETA Treatment Program. Following the initial treatment, our treatment program provides that patients receive one month of prescription medication, nutritional supplements, nutritional guidelines designed to assist in recovery, and individualized psychosocial or other recovery-oriented therapy chosen by the patient in conjunction with their treatment provider. The PROMETA Treatment Program for stimulant dependence provides for a second, two-day administration at the facility, which takes place about three weeks after initiation of treatment. The medical treatment is followed by continuing care, such as individual or group counseling, as a key part of recovery.

We believe the short initial treatment period when using our PROMETA Treatment Program is a major advantage over traditional inpatient detoxification treatments and residential treatment programs, which typically consist of up to 28 days of combined inpatient detoxification and recovery in a rehabilitation or residential treatment

6


center. Treatment with PROMETA does not require an extensive stay at an inpatient facility. Rather, the PROMETA Treatment Program offers the convenience of a three-day treatment, (for addictive stimulants, there isfollowed by a two-day follow-up treatment three weeks later) andlater, which can be administered on an outpatient basis. The outpatient nature of the treatment provides the opportunity for the care to be provided in a discreet manner and without long periods away from home or work. This is particularly

4


relevant since results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health – 2007 reported that approximately 75% of adults using illicit drugs in 2007 were employed, and loss of time from work can be a significant deterrent to seeking treatment.

The PROMETA Treatment Program provides for:

●  
A comprehensive physical examination, including specific laboratory tests, prior to initiation of treatment by the treating physician, to determine if the patient is appropriate for PROMETA.PROMETA;

●  
Prescription medications delivered in a unique dosing algorithm administered in a physician-supervised setting. The initial treatment occurs during three consecutive daily visits of about two hours each. For addictive stimulants, there iseach, followed by a two-day follow-up treatment three weeks later.later;

●  
A nutritional plan and recommendations, designed to help facilitate and maintain the other aspects of recovery.recovery;

●  
One month of prescription at-home medications and nutritional supplements and education following the initial treatment.treatment; and

●  
Individualized group or individual professional psychosocial counseling, or other recovery oriented counseling.

Initial results indicate that the PROMETA Treatment Program may be associated with higher initial completion rates than conventional treatments, improved cognitive function and reduced physical cravings which can be a major factor in relapse, thus allowing patients to more meaningfully engage in counseling or other forms of psychosocial therapy. These initial conclusions have been reported in the treatment of over 3,2003,400 patients at licensed sites, commercial pilots and in research studies being conducted to study our treatment programs. They may not be confirmed by additional double-blind, placebo-controlled research studies, and may not be indicative of the long-term future performance of our treatment programs.

Current research indicates that substance dependence is associated with altered cortical activity and changes in neurotransmitter function in the specific areas of the brain which are critical to normal brain function. Moreover, changes in the neurochemistry of the brain may underlie the hallmarks of substance dependence, including tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, craving, decrease in cognitive function and propensity for relapse. We believe the PROMETA Treatment Program may offer an advantage to traditional alternatives for several reasons:

●  
By first addressing the physiologic components of the disease, substance dependent patients may have a better opportunity to address the behavioral and environmental components, enabling them to progress through the various stages of recovery

●  
The PROMETA Treatment Program is designed to address a spectrum of patient needs, including physiological, nutritional and psychological elements in an integrated way

●  
The PROMETA Treatment Program includes medically directed and supervised procedures designed to address neurochemical imbalances in the brain that may be caused or worsened by substance dependence. The rationale for this approach is that by addressing the underlying physiological balance thought to be disrupted by substance dependence, dependent persons may be better able to address the behavioral/psychological and environmental components of their diseasedisease;

●  
By first addressing the physiologic components of the disease, substance dependent patients may have a better opportunity to address the behavioral and environmental components, enabling them to progress through the various stages of recovery;

●  The PROMETA Treatment Program is designed to address a spectrum of patient needs, including physiological, nutritional and psychological elements in an integrated way;

●  Treatment using the PROMETA Treatment Program generally can be performed on an outpatient basis and does not require long periods away from home or workwork; and

●  
The PROMETA Treatment Program may be initiated at various stages of recovery, including initiation of abstinence and during early recovery, and can complement other treatment modalitiesmodalities.


7


Additionally, we provide training, education and other administrative services to assist physicians, healthcare providers and treatment centers with staff education, marketing and administrative support.

5


Treatment with PROMETA is not appropriate for everyone. PROMETA is not designed for use with those diagnosed with dependence to opiates, benzodiazepines, or addictive substances other than alcohol or stimulants. The PROMETA-treating physician must make the treatment decision for each individual patient regarding the appropriateness of using the PROMETA Treatment Program during the various stages of recovery.

Our Strategy

Our business strategy is to provide a quality integrated medical and behavioral programsprogram to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations to impact both the medical and behavioral health costs associated with substance-dependence and the related co-morbidities.members with a substance dependence diagnosis. We intend to grow our business through increased adoption of our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions, and our autism and ADHD solutions by managed care health plans, employers, unions and other third-party payors. We also intend to grow our business through increased utilization of our PROMETA Treatment Program from within existing and new licensees and managed treatment centers.

Key elements of our business strategy include:

●  
Providing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to managed care health plansthird-payors for reimbursement on a case rate or monthly feefee;

●  
Educating third partythird-party payors on the disproportionately high cost of their substance dependent populationpopulation; and

●  
Demonstrating the potential for improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost associated with using our Catasys programs with key managed care and other third-party payors

●  
Launching other specialty behavioral health products and programs, including Autism and ADHD, that can leverage our existing infrastructure and sales force

●  
Further validation of the benefits of the PROMETA Treatment Program through the pending clinical studies by leading research institutions and preeminent researchers in the field of alcohol and substance abusepayors.

As an early entrant into offering integrated medical and behavioral programs for substance dependence, and one of the first to offer autism and ADHD specialty programs, Catasys will be well positioned to address increasing market demand.  Our Catasys productsprogram will help fill the gap that exists today: a lack of programs that focus on smaller populations with disproportionately higher costs and that improve patient care while controlling overall treatment costs.

Catasys – Integrated Substance Dependence Solutions

There are currently approximately 191over 190 million lives in the United States covered by various managed care programs, including PPOs, HMOs, self-insured employers and managed Medicare/Medicaid programs. We believe our greatest opportunities for growth are in this market segment.

Our proprietary Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions are designed to improve treatment outcomes and lower the utilization of medical and behavioral health plan services by high utilizers and high risk enrollees.  Our Catasys substance dependence programs include medical (including the PROMETA Treatment Program) and proprietary psychosocial interventions and the use of our PROMETA Treatment Program, a proprietary web based clinical information technology platform and database, clinical algorithms, psychosocial programs and integrated case management and care coaching services.

Another important aspect of the Catasys program is that the program is flexible and can be altered in a modular way to enable us to partner with payors to meet their needs.  As a service delivery model, the Catasys program can be expandedmodified to include other medical interventionscover particular populations and provide for addiction such as buprenorphine for opiate dependent

8


patients.service. In this way Catasys can work with payors to identify, engage and treat medically and behaviorally a broader spectrum of patients struggling with substance dependence in a way that improves outcomes and thereby lowers costs.is consistent with payors’ business needs.

Our proposed value proposition to our customers includes that the Catasys program is designed for the following benefits:

●  
Specific programsA specific program aimed at addressing high-cost conditions by improving patient care and reducing overall medicalhealthcare costs can benefit health plans that do not have or do not wish to dedicate the capacity, ability or focus to develop these programs internallyinternally;

●  
Increased worker productivity by reducing workplace absenteeism, compensation claims and job related injuriesinjuries;


6


●  
Decreased emergency room and inpatient utilizationutilization;

●  
Decreased readmission ratesrates; and

●  
Healthcare cost savings (including medical, behavioral and pharmaceutical).

Catasys – Autism and ADHD Specialty ProgramsManaged Treatment Center

Autism and ADHD are high cost conditions impacting both behavioral and medical costs for those statesWe currently manage one treatment center located in which coverage is mandated and would benefit from better coordination and management through specialty programs that more rigorously apply evidence based practices and specialty specific provider sub-networks.  These conditions require greater depth and higher intensity case management than many conditions, have significant medical cost implications, and would be augmented by programs specifically designed toSanta Monica, California (dba the Center To Overcome Addiction.). We manage the disorders.  Our Catasys specialty programs delivered in conjunction with CompCare under an ASO agreement will help patients reduce hurdles to obtaining appropriate care, and provide them with greater access to a variety of public and private services available in their communities.

In completing development of our new autism and ADHD programs, Catasys will be able to leverage its existing infrastructure and expertise, such as product development, sales, marketing and clinicalbusiness components to incorporate these programs and pursue both commercial and government opportunities.  The new products are expected to be particularly relevant because of the recently passed Wellstonetreatment center and Domenici Mental Health Paritylicense the PROMETA Treatment Program and Addiction Equity Act,use of the name and because several states currently have some level of mandated autism coverage with additional states to add coverage soon.  These new specialty behavioral health productstrademark in exchange for management and programs fit within our strategy of offering programs that address smaller populations with disproportionately higher costs for health plans.  Specific programs aimed at addressing high-cost conditions by improving patient care and reducing overall medical costs can benefit health plans that do not have or do not wish to dedicate the capacity or focus to develop programs internally.

Managed Medical Practices and Treatment Centers

Underlicensing fees under the terms of full business service management agreements with medical professional corporationsagreements. The treatment center operates in a state-of-the-art outpatient facility and treatment centers, we manage their business components and license to them the PROMETA Treatment Program and use of our PROMETA trademark in exchange for management and licensing fees. These treatment centers offeroffers the PROMETA Treatment Program for dependencies on alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines, and also offeroffers medical and psychosocial interventions for other substance dependencies. Under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), the revenues and expenses of suchthe managed treatment centers arecenter is included in our consolidated financial statements. We currently manage two such treatment centers, the PROMETA Center in Santa Monica, California, and the Murray Hill Recovery Center in Dallas, Texas.

Self-pay Patients – Licensees

A significant source of our revenues to date has been from license fees derived from the licensing of our PROMETA Treatment Program to physicians and other licensed treatment providers.  Although we plan to continue to provide such serviceslicenses to our existing licensees for the treatment of substance dependencies using our PROMETA

9


Treatment Program, we do not expect to significantly invest in or expand this line of business at this time. Accordingly, in 2008 and 2009 we significantly reduced our resources in each market area to more closely match our resources and expenditures with revenues from our licensees in each market.

International Operations

In 2007,2009 we expandedceased all of our operations into Europe, with our Swiss foreign subsidiary commencing operations in the first quarter of 2007.  However, in 2008 we decided to substantially curtail our foreigninternational operations to reduce costs and focus on our Catasys offering.offering, and have no plans to expand internationally in the near future.

Clinical Data from Research Studies

There arehave been several research studies evaluating treatment with the PROMETA Treatment Program, conducted by leading research institutions and preeminent researchers in the field of alcohol and substance abuse. In 2006 and 2007 three studies by industry thought leaders were completed. Dr. Harold C. Urschel III conducted an open-label methamphetamine study followed by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled methamphetamine study, preceded by an open-label methamphetamine study, the results of which were peer-reviewed and published in July 2007.2007 and November 2009, respectively.  Dr. Urschel’s double-blind placebo-controlled study showed that the pharmacological component of the PROMETA Treatment Program versus placebo had a statistically significant reduction of cravings for methamphetamine.  This data further validates our PROMETA Treatment Program with respect to reducing cravings and improving retention by also allowing recipients to engage more actively in psychosocial counseling, thereby improving treatment outcomes. 

Both the peer-reviewed published study and the top-line data from the double-blind, placebo-controlled study indicate that the PROMETA Treatment Program appears to reduce cravings for methamphetamine. We are not aware of any other published study showing such results.cravings. Moreover, no patients have reported any majorma jor adverse events or had to discontinue the treatment due to side effects.

AtIn August 2009, Dr. Raymond Anton’s study on alcohol dependent subjects was published in the Cedars-SinaiAugust issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. The study was conducted at the Medical CenterUniversity of South Carolina, and among the researchers’ findings were that key results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in Los Angeles, Dr. Jeffrey Wilkins concludeduse for subjects who exhibited pre-treatment withdrawal symptoms. The results are the first to be published in a 30-subject, open-label, single-site alcoholpeer-reviewed scientific journal from a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a 16-week follow-up that showed a substantial reduction in cravings and use among subjects treated withconducted to assess the medical portion and nutritional elementsimpact of the PROMETA Treatment Program.  The study also showed that subjects with measurable neurocognitive deficits at baseline showed significant improvement by week 2, and all but one of the subjects tested normal at week 16.Program on alcohol dependence.

DrugMany drug treatment experts agree that minimizing cravings is critical to supporting recovery, and that decreased cravings are an important indicator of treatment success.relapse. Published clinical research has shown that cravings are a key cause of continued drug use and relapse for those patients trying to end drug use. In a study titled “Craving predicts use during treatment for methamphetamine dependence: a prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject analysis,” published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence in 2001, it was shown that among the test population, craving scores that preceded use were 2.7 times higher than craving scores that preceded abstinence. This confirms the long-held

7


conviction among clinicians that cravings drive substance dependent individuals to continue to use, even when they truly desire to stop.

In Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Hartz et al. cited leading addiction experts’ view of the role that cravings play in the disease. These experts agreed on the critical importance of addressing cravings in treatment. Dr. Charles O’Brien from the University of Pennsylvania stated, “Cravings“Craving is viewed by many as the primary symptom motivating drug use and the appropriate target of behavioral interventions.” Robinson and Berridge refer to cravings and subsequent relapse as, “the defining characteristics of addiction.”

Additionally, in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Dackis et al. concluded “Although patients cite many reasons why they use cocaine, the feeling states of craving and euphoria are the primary reinforcers of the addiction.”


Completed studies:
10


Studies funded by our unrestricted grants that have been completed and published or are completed, pending or underwaypublication include:

Completed studies:

●  
A 135-subject randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program’s acute effects on cravings and cognition in methamphetamine dependent subjects designed and supervised by Harold Urschel, M.D., completed in October 2007.  Top line results showed a statistically significant reduction in cravings versus placebo. The results of this study were presented at College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) conference in June 2006 and have been submitted for publication.

●  
A 50-subject open-label study of the physiological component of the PROMETA Treatment Program for methamphetamine dependence conducted by Dr. Urschel that was completed in 2006, in which it was reported that more than 80% of study participants experienced a significant clinical benefit—measured through decrease in cravings, reduction of methamphetamine use and treatment retention—after treatment, with no adverse events. The results of this study were reported in October 2007 in a peer-reviewed journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

●  
A 135-subject randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program’s acute effects on cravings and cognition in methamphetamine dependent subjects designed and supervised by Harold Urschel, M.D., completed in October 2007.  Top line results showed a statistically significant reduction in cravings versus placebo. The results of this study were presented at College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) conference in June 2006 and were published in the November 2009 Journal of Psychopharmacology.

●  A 60–subject, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program for the initiation and extension of abstinence of alcoholism conducted by Raymond Anton, M.D., at Medical University of South Carolina. Initial results of the study were presented at the Research Society on Alcoholism conference in Washington, DC, in July 2008, which showed that patients demonstrating relatively more symptoms of substance dependence withdrawal had a significant response to PROMETA and during the follow up 8 week period, though not statistically significant, the higher withdrawal PROMETA subjects continued to be superior for end points that included percent days abstinent and craving, when compared to placebo.  For patients demonstrating lower withdrawal symptoms, PROMETA had no effect or a lesser response compared to placebo subjects, whow ho fared better in the study.  Additionally, during the treatment phase and at the end of the study the data demonstrated that those patients with higher withdrawal symptoms had a significant difference on the measures of percent days abstinent and cravings, as compared to patients with lower withdrawal symptoms, which provides substantial clarity on which patients may benefit from PROMETA. This study has been submitted for publication.

●  
A 30-subject open label randomized controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program in the treatment of alcohol dependence conducted by Jeffery Wilkins, M.D., at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles completed in August 2007. Top line results reported at 30 days showed a 94% decrease in median cravings and an 82% reduction in mean percentage of total drinking days. The results of this study were presented atpublished in the Research Society on Alcoholism conferenceJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology in July 2007.August 2009.

●  
In 2008, Sheryl Smith, Ph.D., a leading researcher in the field of neurosteroids, presented data further supporting a mechanism of action underlying our PROMETA Treatment Program at the 2008 Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in Washington, D.C.  The study focused on methamphetamine dependent rats and highlighted a methamphetamine induced increase in the alpha-4 and delta subunit expression of the GABA receptor that has been associated with states of hyper-excitability and anxiety. Receptor dysregulation of the alpha-4 subunit has previously been associated with alcohol, methamphetamine and neurosteroid withdrawal. The current study shows that a component of the PROMETA Treatment Program reverses the increase in both alpha-4 and delta subunit expression in chronic methamphetamine treated rats.

●  
A 120-subject randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program’s acute and immediate effects on cravings and cognition in alcohol dependent subjects was completed in January 2009.  The study was designed and supervised by alcoholism researcher, Joseph R. Volpicelli, M.D., Ph.D., at the Institute of Addiction Medicine in Philadelphia. This study demonstrated that for patients with lower symptoms of withdrawal and a clinical history of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, when treated with PROMETA experienced a statistically significant decrease in alcohol craving and alcohol consumption during the active treatment phase, as compared to placebo.

Ongoing studies:

●  
120-subject multi-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the PROMETA Treatment Program for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence being conducted by Walter Ling, M.D., of UCLA.placebo.  

We believe additional positivesuch results from published studies will enhance acceptance of ourthe PROMETA Treatment Program will enhanceand assist in our efforts to increase third-party reimbursementpayor support for providers using our treatment programs.Catasys substance dependence program.

8


In a step to further ensure the integrity of the clinical data, the independent physicians who are conducting clinical trials of the PROMETA Treatment Program own their study data and have complete control over the resulting data.

11


Additionally, we are a pioneering company in exploring and identifying the role GABA dysregulation plays in addiction as well as in generalizable anxiety disorders.  We believe that in the wake of many articles recently published about the association between addiction and anxiety, as well as the growing recognition by the scientific community of the GABA system’s part in it, this essential and pioneering premise is being affirmed.  With this mounting body of evidence and our growing intellectual property estate, we firmly believe that we will bring substantial and increasing value to the life sciences and pharmaceutical fields. Our entirely distinct applications for composition of matter and use patents for various treatment approaches for multiple CNS indications, in which GABA receptor dysregulation may serve as the critical pathology, have significant clinical implications.

Our Operations

Behavioral Health

In 2007 and 2008, we developed and introduced our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions for third-party payors into operations. Although we have not generated any revenues from Catasys through December 31, 2009, we believe that our Catasys offerings will address a large segment of the healthcare market for substance dependence and will be the primary focus of our business strategy going forward.

Catasys’s integrated substance dependence solution combines innovative medical and psychosocial treatments with elements of population health management and ongoing member support to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations to impact both the medical and behavioral health costs associated with substance dependence and the related co-morbidities.

We are currently marketing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to managed care health plans, employers and unions for reimbursement on a case rate or monthly fee basis, which involves educating third party payors on the disproportionately high cost of their substance dependent population and demonstrating the potential for improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost associated with using our Catasys programs.

Healthcare Services

To date, a substantial portion of our healthcare services revenues has been derived from license fees for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program in treating self-pay patients, and consolidation of self-pay patient revenues from our managed treatment centers. We commenced operations in July 2003 and signed our first licensing and administrative services agreement in November 2003. Under our licensing agreements, we provide physicians and other licensed treatment providers access to our PROMETA Treatment Program, education and training in the implementation and use of the licensed technology and marketing support. We receive a fee for the licensed technology and related services, generally on a per patient basis. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had active licensing agreements with physicians, hospitals and treatment providers for 84 sites29 sit es throughout the United States.  However, we streamlined our operations during 2008 and 2009 to increase our focus on Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions, significantly reducing our field and regional sales personnel. We will continue tomay enter into agreements on a selective basis with additional healthcare providers to increase the availability of the PROMETA Treatment Program, but onlygenerally in markets where we are presently operating or where such sites will provide support for our Catasys products.  Revenues are generally related to the number of patients treated, and key indicators of our financial performance for the PROMETA Treatment Program will be the number of facilities and healthcare providers that license our technology, and the number of patients that are treated by those providers using our PROMETA Treatment Program. Since July 2003, over 3,2003,400 patients have completed treatment using our PROMETA Treatment Program at our licensed sites, and in commercial pilots and research studies being conducted to study our treatment programs.

We currently manage twoone treatment centerscenter under oura licensing agreements,agreement, located in Santa Monica, California (dba The PROMETA Center Inc.) and Dallas, Texas (Murray Hill Recovery, LLC)to Overcome Addiction), whose revenues and expenses are included in our consolidated financial statements.

In 20072009, we ceased all of our international operations to reduce costs and 2008, we developed and operationalizedfocus on our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions for third-party payors. We believe that our Catasys offerings will address the largest segment of the healthcare market for substance dependence.offerings.

We do not operate our own healthcare facilities, employ our own treating physicians or provide medical advice or treatment to patients. We provide services, which assist health plans to manage their substance dependence populations, and access to tools that physicians may use to treat their patients as they determine appropriate. The hospitals, licensed healthcare facilities and physicians that contract for the use of our technology own their facilities or professional licenses, and control and are responsible for the clinical activities provided on their premises. Patients receive medical care in accordance with orders from their attending physicians.  PhysiciansLicensed physicians with license rights to use the PROMETA Treatment Program exercise their independent medical judgment in determining the use and specific application of our treatment programs, and the appropriate course of care for each patient. Following the medical portion of the treatment procedure, physicians, local clinics and healthcare providers specializing in drug abuse treatment administer and provide the psychosocial component of the PROMETA Treatment Program.

Behavioral Health Managed Care Services

All of our behavioral health managed care service revenues have been derived from the operations of our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, in which we acquired a majority controlling interest on January 12, 2007.  In January 2009, we sold our interest in CompCare.


129


Competition

Healthcare ServicesBehavioral Health

Catasys

Our Catasys productsproduct offerings primarily focus on substance dependence and are marketed to health plans, employers and unions who have members or employees with coverage for such medical and behavioral diseases. While we believe our products and services are unique, we operate in highly competitive markets. We compete with other healthcare management service organizations and disease management companies, including managed behavioral health organizations (MBHOs), HMOs, PPOs, third-party administrators and other specialty healthcare and managed care companies. Most of our competitors are significantly larger and have greater financial, marketing and other resources than us. In addition, customers that are managed care companies may seek to provide similar specialty healthcare services directly to their members, rather than by contracting withw ith us for such services.  Behavioral health conditions, including substance dependence, are typically managed for insurance companies by internal divisions or third-party (MBHO)third-parties (MBHOs), frequently under capitated arrangements.  Under such arrangements, MBHOs are paid a fixed monthly fee and must pay providers for provided services, which gives such entities an incentive to decrease cost and utilization of services by members.  We compete to differentiate our integrated program for high utilizing substance dependence members from the population of utilization management programs that MBHOs offer.

We believe that our ability to offer customers a comprehensive and integrated substance dependence solution, including the utilization of innovative medical and psychosocial treatments, and our unique technology platform will enable us to compete effectively.  However, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter more effective competition in the future, which would limit our ability to maintain or increase our business.

Healthcare Services

PROMETA Treatment Program

Our PROMETA Treatment Program focuses on providing licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer PROMETA and other treatment programs, including medical practices and treatment centers that are licensed and managed by us. We compete with many types of substance dependence treatment


methods, treatment facilities and other service providers. Conventional forms of treatment for alcohol dependence are usually divided into the following phases:

●  
Detoxification, which is typically conducted in medically directed and supervised environmentsenvironments;

●  
Rehabilitation, which is often conducted through short- or long-term therapeutic facilities or programs, most of which do not offer medical management optionsoptions; and

●  
Relapse prevention/aftercare that is provided via structured outpatient treatment programs.

Most medically managed treatments require long-term usage of pharmaceuticals, resulting in low patient compliance. Conventional forms of treatment for stimulant dependence generally consist only of relapse prevention (psychosocial and recovery oriented therapy), conducted through therapeutic programs.  Regardless of the approach, there is great variability in the duration of treatment procedures, level of medical supervision, price to the patients, and success rates.

One currently accepted practice for detoxifying patients from dependence on alcohol consists of heavily sedating the patient at an inpatient hospital facility for a period of three to five days. Due to the heavy sedation, the patient may need to be observed for an additional five to seven days. This procedure, while medically necessary to prevent severe complications, e.g. seizures or delirium tremens when withdrawing these patients from alcohol, does not consistently relieve the patient’s cravings or otherwise attempt to address the long term recovery of the patient. Further, the drugs typically used during this procedure (the most commonly utilized medications are Valium® (diazepam), Ativan® (lorazepam), and Xanax® (alprazolam)) can be addictive, and/or require a time-intensive dose tapering and washout period, and/or cause side effects.

While withdrawal from cocaine or methamphetamine dependence is not considered to be life threatening, withdrawal symptoms can be extremely unpleasant and may lead to repeated relapses and treatment failures. Detoxification procedures typically involve the use of sedatives to assist patients through this difficult period. Following treatment, however, environmentally “cue induced” cravings are especially pronounced and may re-occur for months to years.

Treatment Programs

There are over 13,00013,500 facilities reporting to the SAMHSA that provide substance dependence treatment on an inpatient or outpatient basis.treatment. Well-known examples of residential treatment programs include the Betty Ford Center®, Caron Foundation®, Hazelden® and Sierra Tucson®. In addition, individual physicians may provide substance dependence treatment in the course of their practices. There appears to be no readily available reliable information about the success rates of these programs, nor agreed upon standards of how outcomes should be measured (e.g. self-reported abstinence or reduction in days of heavy drinking). Many of these traditional treatment programs have established name recognition, and their treatments may be covered in large part by insurance or other third party payors. To date, treatments using our PROMETA Treatment Program have generally not been covered by insurance, and patients treated with the PROMETA Treatment Program have been substantially self-pay patients.



Traditional treatment approaches for substance dependence focus mainly on group therapy, abstinence and behavioral modification, while the disease’s underlying physiology and pathology is rarely addressed, resulting in fairly high relapse rates. Currently, therapies are beginning to target brain receptors thought to play a central role in the disease process. We believe that our PROMETA Treatment Program offers an improvement to traditional treatments because the integrated PROMETA Treatment Program is designed to target the pathophysiology induced by chronic use of alcohol or other drugs in addition to nutritional and psychosocial aspects of substance dependence.  The abnormalities in brain function induced by chronic substance dependence may take weeks to years of drug abstinence to return to normal function, if at all. We believe the PROMETA Treatment Program offers an advantage to traditional alternatives because it provides an integrated treatment methodology that is discreet, mildly sedating and can be initiated in only three days, with a second two-day treatment three weeks later for addictive stimulants.later. Our PROMETA Treatment Program also provides for one month of prescription medication and nutritional supplements, integrated with psychosocial or other recovery-oriented therapy.



We further believe the short initial outpatient treatment period when using our PROMETA Treatment Program is a major advantage over traditional inpatient treatments and residential treatment programs, which typically consist of approximately 15 to 28 days of combined inpatient detoxification and recovery in a rehabilitation or residential treatment center. The PROMETA Treatment Program does not require an extensive stay at an inpatient facility. Rather, the treatment program offers the convenience of a three day treatment (addictive stimulants require a second two-day treatment three weeks later) and can generally be administered on an outpatient basis. This is particularly relevant since approximately 75% of adults classified with dependence or abuse are employed, and loss of time from work can be a major deterrent for seeking treatment.trea tment.  Moreover, we believe the PROMETA Treatment Program can be used at various stages of recovery, including initiation of abstinence and during early recovery, and can complement other forms of alcohol and drug abuse treatments. As such, our treatment program offers a potentially valuable alternative or addition to traditional behavioral or pharmacotherapy treatments.

Treatment Medications

There are currently no generally accepted medical treatments for methamphetamine dependence. Anti-depressants and dopamine agonists have been investigated as possible maintenance therapies, but none have been FDA approved or are generally accepted for medical practice.

Several classes of pharmaceutical agents have been investigated as potential maintenance agents (e.g., anti-depressants and dopamine agonists) for cocaine dependence; however, none are FDA approved for treatment of cocaine dependence or generally accepted widely in medical practice. Their effects are variable in terms of providing symptomatic relief, and many of the agents may cause side effects or may not be well tolerated by patients.

There are a number of companies developing or marketing medications for reducing craving in the treatment of alcoholism. Currently available medications include:

●  
The addiction medication naltrexone, an opiate receptor antagonist, is marketed by a number of generic pharmaceutical companies as well as under the trade names ReVia® and Depade®, for treatment of alcohol dependence;

●  
VIVITROL®, an extended release formulation of naltrexone manufactured by Alkermes, is administered via monthly injections for the treatment of alcohol dependence in patients who are able to abstain from drinking in an outpatient setting, and are not actively drinking prior to treatment initiation. Alkermes reported that in clinical trials, when used in combination with psychosocial support, VIVITROL was shown to reduce the number of drinking days and heavy drinking days and to prolong abstinence in patients who abstained from alcohol the week prior to starting treatment;

●  
Campral® Delayed-Release Tablets (acamprosate calcium), an NMDA receptor antagonist taken two to three times per day on a chronic or long-term basis and marketed by Forest Laboratories.  Clinical studies supported the effectiveness in the maintenance of abstinence for alcohol-dependent patients who had undergone inpatient detoxification and were already abstinent from alcohol; and



●  
Tropiramate (Topamax®), a drug manufactured by Ortho-McNeill Jannssen, which is approved for the treatment of seizures. A multi-site clinical trial reported in October 2007 found that tropiramate significantly reduced heavy drinking days in alcohol-dependent individuals.

Many medications marketed to treat alcohol or drug dependence are not administered until the patient is already abstinent or require long-term chronic administration and.administration. As noted above, we believe the PROMETA Treatment Program represents an approach to treatment that includes medical, nutritional and psychosocial components that can be used at various stages of recovery, including initiation of abstinence and during early recovery, and can complement other existing treatments. As such, our treatment programs offer a potentially valuable addition to traditional medical treatment. Moreover, because treatment with the PROMETA Treatment Program is an integrated treatment, we do not view the current medical therapies as directly competitive and in some cases may be used in conjunction with our treatment programs. We also believe, based on the limited initial results discussed above, that treatment using our treatment programs may have higher completion rates, greater compliance, reduction or elimination of cravings and potentially lower relapse rates.



Behavioral Health Managed Care Services

The behavioral healthcare industry is very competitive and provides products and services that are price sensitive.  We believe that there are approximately 150 MBHOs providing services for an estimated 191 million covered lives in the United States. CompCare’s competitors include both freestanding MBHOs as well as managed care companies with internal behavioral health units or subsidiaries. Most of these competitors have revenues and financial resources substantially larger than CompCare. In January 2009, we sold our interest in CompCare.

Development of Our Technology

Much of our proprietary, patented and patent–pending, substance dependence technology known as the PROMETA Treatment Program, was developed by Dr. Juan José Legarda, a European scientist educated at University of London who has spent most of his professional career conducting research related to substance abuse. In 2002, Dr. Legarda filed Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications in Spain to protect treatment programs that he developed for dependencies to alcohol and cocaine. We acquired the rights to these patent filings in March 2003 through a technology purchase and license agreement with Dr. Legarda’s company, Tratamientos Avanzados de la Adiccion S.L., to which we pay a royalty of three percent of the amount the patient pays for treatment using our treatment programs. After acquiring these rights,rig hts, we filed U.S. patent applications and other national phase patent applications based on the PCT filings, as well as provisional U.S. patent applications to protect aspects of additional treatment programs for alcohol, cocaine and other addictive stimulants.

We have two issued U.S. patents, one relating to the treatment of cocaine dependency with our PROMETA Treatment Program and one relating to our PROMETA Treatment Program for the treatment of certain symptoms associated with alcohol dependence.  We have also received allowances, issuances or notices that patent grants are intended for our core intellectual property for the treatment of alcohol and/or stimulant dependence in Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Russia,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, South Korea, Hong Kong and the European Union.United Kingdom.

Once patents are issued, they generally will expire 20 years from the dates of original filing. Our two issued U.S. patents will expire in 2021.We spent $0.0 on research and development in 2009 and $3.4 million in 2008.

Proprietary Rights and Licensing

Our success depends in large part on our ability to protect our proprietary technology and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. We rely on a combination of patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright laws and contractual restrictions to protect the proprietary aspects of our technology. Our branded trade names include the following:

●  
HythiamCatasys®;
●  
PROMETAHythiam®; and
●  
Catasys™
●  
The Science of RecoveryPROMETA®.

We impose restrictions in our license agreements on our customers’licensees’ rights to utilize and disclose our technology. We also seek to protect our intellectual property by generally requiring employees and consultants with access to our proprietary information to execute confidentiality agreements and by restricting access to our proprietary information. We require that, as a condition of their employment, employees assign to us their interests in inventions, original works of authorship, copyrights and similar intellectual property rights conceived or developed by them during their employment with us.

Our Management Team

The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers:

NamePositionAge
Terren S. PeizerChief Executive Officer49
Richard A. AndersonPresident and Chief Operating Officer39
Christopher S. HassanChief Strategy Officer48
Maurice S. HebertChief Financial Officer46
Terren S. Peizer is the founder of our company and has served as our chief executive officer and chairman of our Board of Directors since our inception in February 2003.  Mr. Peizer has served on the board of Xcorporeal, Inc. since August 2007 and was executive chairman until October 2008. Mr. Peizer also served as chief executive officer of Clearant, Inc., a company which he founded in April 1999 to develop and commercialize a universal pathogen inactivation technology, until October 2003. He served as chairman of its Board of Directors from April 1999 to October 2004 and as a director until February 2005. From February 1997 to February 1999, Mr. Peizer served as president and vice chairman of Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market listed company. In addition, from June 1999 through May 2003 he was a director, and from June 1999 through December 2000 he was chairman of the board, of supercomputer designer and builder Cray Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market company. Since August 2006, he has served as chairman of the board of Xcorporeal, Inc., an American Stock Exchange listed company. Mr. Peizer has been the largest beneficial stockholder and has held various senior executive positions with several technology and biotech companies. He has assisted companies by assembling management teams, boards of directors and scientific advisory boards, formulating business and financial strategies, and investor relations. Mr. Peizer has a background in venture capital, investing, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and previously held senior executive positions with the investment banking firms Goldman Sachs, First Boston and Drexel Burnham Lambert. He received his B.S.E. in Finance from The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

Richard A. Anderson has more than fifteen years of experience in business development, strategic planning and financial management. He has served as a director since July 2003 and an officer since April 2005. He was the chief financial officer of Clearant, Inc. from November 1999 until March 2005, and served as a director from November 1999 to March 2006.  Mr. Anderson was previously with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, for seven years, most recently a director and founding member of PriceWaterhouseCoopers Los Angeles Office Transaction Support Group, where he was involved in operational and financial due diligence, valuations and structuring for high technology companies. He received a B.A. in Business Economics from University of California, Santa Barbara.

Christopher S. Hassan is a senior healthcare executive who, prior to joining us in July 2006, served as vice president, sales for Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals since October 2003. From 2000 to October 2002, he served as director of sales, North America for Drugabuse Sciences, Inc. a bio-pharmaceutical company. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. Hassan served as area business manager for Parke-Davis/Pfizer. From 1989 to 1996 he served as district sales manager for Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Hassan received a B.B.A. in Accounting from University of Texas, Austin.

Maurice S. Hebert has served as our chief financial officer since November 2008.  From October 2006 to October 2008, Mr. Hebert served as our vice president and corporate controller and from February 2007, as our principal accounting officer.  Mr. Hebert has 23 years of experience as a financial executive, including 14 years within the insurance and managed care industries.   From April 2005 to October 2006, Mr. Hebert served as corporate controller and principal accounting officer at Health Net, Inc. in Woodland Hills, CA. From October 2003 to April 2005, he was with Safeco Corporation (Insurance) in Seattle, WA, most recently as senior vice president & controller and principal accounting officer. From 1993 to 2003, Mr. Hebert was with AIG SunAmerica in Woodland Hills, CA, most recently as vice president & controller-Life Insurance Companies. Mr. Hebert received a B.S. in Accounting from Louisiana State University.

Financial Information about Segments

We have conductedmanage and report our operations through two business segments: healthcare services and behavioral health managed careand healthcare services. Our healthcare servicesThe behavioral health segment provides ourincludes Catasys and its integrated substance dependence autism and ADHD solutions marketed to health plans, employers and unions through a network of licensed and company managed healthcare providers, andproviders. The healthcare services segment provides licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer PROMETA and other treatment programs, including a managed treatment centerscenter that areis licensed and/orand managed by us. In 2009, we revised our segments to reflect the disposal of CompCare and to reflect how our business is currently managed. Our behavioral health managed care services segment, which previously had been comprised entirely of the operations of our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, provides managed careis now presented in discontinued operati ons and is not a reportable segment (see Note 12— Discontinued Operations). Catasys operations were previously reported as part of healthcare services, but is now segregated and reported separately in the behavioral health, psychiatric and substance abuse fields.health. Prior year financial statements have been restated to reflect this revised presentation. A majority of our consolidated revenues and assets are earned or located within the United States.

In January 2009, we disposed of our entire interest in CompCare, and as a result we will have only one reporting segment, healthcare services.
Employees

As of December 31, 2008,2009, we and our consolidated managed treatment centers employed 81 persons, and our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, employed 7440 persons. We are not a party to any labor agreements and none of our employees are represented by a labor union.

Our Offices

We are incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 11150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90025 and our telephone number is (310) 444-4300.

Company Information
 
We make our current and annual reports on Form 10-K, our proxy statement,statements, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports available free of charge through links on our corporate website as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Our corporate website is located on the Internet at http://www.hythiam.com. These reports are not part of this report or incorporated by reference herein. The public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Additionally, the SEC maintains an Internet site thattha t contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, which can be found at http://www.sec.gov.

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS
RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider and evaluate all of the information in this report, including the risk factors listed below. Risks and uncertainties in addition to those we describe below, that may not be presently known to us, or that we currently believe are immaterial, may also harm our business and operations. If any of these risks occurs, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be harmed, the price of our common stock could decline, and future events and circumstances could differ significantly from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements contained in this report.

Risks related to our business

We have a limited operating history, expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses and may be unable to obtain additional financing, causing our independent auditors to express substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern

We have been unprofitable since our inception in 2003 and expect to continue to incur substantial additional operating losses and negative cash flow from operations for at least the next twelve months.  As of December 31, 2008,2009, these conditions raised substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. At December 31, 2008,


2009, cash and cash equivalents and current marketable securities amounted to $11.0$4.6 million of which $1.1 million related to CompCare, which was sold in January 2009. At that date,and we had a working capital deficit of approximately $11.5 million, of which $5.7 million is related to CompCare.$78,000. During the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, our cash and cash equivalents used in operating activities amounted to $29.4 million, of which $5.5 million related to CompCare.$14.5 million. Although we have recently taken actions to decrease expenses, increase revenues and obtain additional financing, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts. We may not be successful in raising necessary funds on acceptable terms or at all, and we may not be able to offset this by sufficient reductions in expenses and increases in revenue. If this occurs, we may be unable to meet our cash obligations as they become due and we may be required to further delay or reduce operating expenses and curtail our operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us.
We may fail to successfully manage and maintain the growth ofgrow our business, which could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and business

Continued expansion could put significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources. The need to comply with the rules and regulations of the SEC and The NASDAQ Global Market will continue to place significant demands on our financial and accounting staff, financial, accounting and information systems, and our internal controls and procedures, any of which may not be adequate to support our anticipated growth. We may not be able to effectively hire, train, retain, motivate and manage required personnel. Our failure to manage growth effectively could limit our ability to satisfy our reporting obligations, or achieve our marketing, commercialization and financial goals.  Recent actions to reduce costs and streamline our operations, as well as planned future cost reductions, could place further demands on our personnel, which could hinder our ability to effectively execute on our business strategies.

We will need additional funding, and we cannot guarantee that we will find adequate sources of capital in the future.future

We have incurred negative cash flows from operations since inception and have expended, and expect to continue to expend, substantial funds to grow our business. We currently estimate that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will not be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital requirements for the next twelve months.through August 2010.  We will require additional funds before we achieve positive cash flows and we may never become cash flow positive.

If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, such financing will result in further dilution to our stockholders. Any equity securities issued also may provide for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock. If we raise additional funds by issuing additional debt securities, these debt securities would have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock, and the terms of the debt securities issued could impose significant restrictions on our operations. If we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, we might be required to relinquish significant rights to our technology or products, or to grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

We do not know whether additional financing will be available on commercially acceptable terms, when needed.or at all. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on commercially acceptable terms, we may need to continue to downsize, curtail program development efforts or halt our operations and may be unable to continue developing our products.altogether.

Our investments in auction-rate securities are subject to risks which may cause losses and affect the liquidity of these investments.investments

As of December 31, 20082009 our total investment in auction-rate securities (ARS) was $11.5$10.23 million. Since February 13, 2008, auctions for these securities have failed,failed; meaning the parties desiring to sell securities could not be matched with an adequate number of buyers, resulting in our having to continue to hold these securities. Although the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market conditions it is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls the securities, or they mature. The remaining maturity periods range from nineteen to thirty-eight years. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist.  In December 2008,2009, we utilized a third-party valuation firm to assist us with determining the fair market value of our ARS which was estimated to be $10.1$9.5 million, representing an estimated decline in value of $1.4 million.$604,000 from our original cost.

In making our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary” declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end reporting period:

●  
How long and by how much the fair value of the ARS securities have been below cost
●  
The financial condition of the issuers
●  
Any downgrades of the securities by rating agencies
●  
Default on interest or other terms
●  
Our intent & ability to hold the ARS long enough for them to recover their value
 

We determined that the loss in the fair value of our ARS investments was “other-than-temporary,” in connection with our year end assessment.  Accordingly, we recognized an other-than-temporary loss in non-operating expenses of approximately $1.4 million in December 2008.  These securities will be analyzed each reporting period for additional other-than-temporary impairment factors.  Due to the current uncertainty in the credit markets and the terms of a Rights offering with UBS, that we accepted in NovemberIn October 2008, we have classified the fair value of our ARS as long-term assets as of December 31, 2008.
In May 2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS AG (UBS), provided us with a demand margin loan facility, allowing us to borrow up to 50% of the market value of the ARS, as determined by UBS. The margin loan facility is collateralized by the ARS.  In October 2008, UBS made a “rights”rights offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all auction-rate securities held by us in our UBS account. The rights permitoffering permits us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. As part of the rights offering, UBS would provideprovided to us a line of credit equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. The line of credit has certain restrictions described in the prospectus.  We accepted this offer on November 6, 2008. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had $6.5 million of outstanding borrowing under the outstanding balance on ourUBS line of credit was 5.7 million.that is payable on demand and is secured by the ARS. We granted Highbridge additional redemption rights in connection with the amendment of the senior secured note that would require us to use any margin loan proceeds in excess of $5.8 million to pay down the principal amount of the senior secured note. The potentialcurrent lack of liquidity on these investments may affectthe ARS has affected our ability to execute our current business plan, based on our expected operating cash flows and our other sources of cash, and may require us to sell them before we are able to sell them to UBS pursuant to the Rightsrights offering or before they recover in value.

Our treatment programs may not be as effective as we believe them to be, which could limit our revenues and adversely affect our businessrevenue growth

Our belief in the efficacy of our Catasys solution and PROMETA Treatment Program is based on a limited number of studies and commercial pilots that have been conducted to date and our initial experience with a relatively small number of patients. Such results may not be statistically significant, have not been subjected to close scientific scrutiny, and may not be indicative of the long-term future performance and safety of treatment with our programs. Controlled scientific studies, including those that have been announced and planned for the future,in process, may yield results that are unfavorable or demonstrate that treatment with our programs is not clinically effective or safe. If the initially indicated results cannot be successfully replicated or maintained over time, utilization of our programs could decline substantially. Our success is dependent on our ability to enroll third-pa rty payor members in our Catasys programs. Large scale outreach and enrollment efforts have not been conducted and we may not be able to achieve the anticipated enrollment rates.

Our Catasys Program or PROMETA Treatment Program may not become widely accepted, which could limit our growth

Further marketplace acceptance of our treatment programs may largely depend upon healthcare providers’ and third-party payors’ interpretation of our limited data, the results of pending studies, pilots and programs, including financial and clinical outcome data from our Catasys Programs, or upon reviews and reports that may be given by independent researchers.researchers or other clinicians. In the event such research does not establish our treatment programs to be safe and effective, it is unlikely we will be able to achieve widespread market acceptance.

In addition, our ability to achieve further marketplace acceptance for our Catasys Program may be dependent on our ability to contract with a sufficient number of third party payors to and demonstrate financial and clinical outcomes from those agreements. If we are unable to secure sufficient contracts to achieve recognition of acceptance of our Catasys program or if our program does not demonstrate the expected level of clinical improvement and cost savings it is unlikely we will be able to achieve widespread market acceptance.

Disappointing results for our PROMETA Treatment Program or Catasys Program, or failure to attain our publicly disclosed milestones, could adversely affect market acceptance and have a material adverse effect on our stock price

There are a number ofseveral studies, evaluations and pilot programs that have been completed or are currently in progress that are evaluating our PROMETA Treatment Program and the Catasys Program. Some results have been published and we expect results of many to become available throughout the remainder of 2009.and/or published over time.  Disappointing results, later-than-expected press release announcements or termination of evaluations, pilot programs or pilotcommercial programs could have a material adverse effect on the commercial acceptance of the PROMETA Treatment Program, our stock price and on our results of operations.  In addition, announcements regarding results, or anticipation of results, may increase volatility in our stock price.  On October 24, 2007, the Pierce County Council in the State of Washington voted to end funding for PROMETA. This announcement had an immediate negative effect on our stock price, and we are unable to assess the long-term impact on our business as a result of these and similar types of events.  In addition to numerous upcoming milestones, from time to time we provide financial guidance and other forecasts to theth e market.  While we believe that the assumptions underlying projections and forecasts we make publicly available are reasonable, projections and forecasts are inherently subject to numerous risks and uncertainties.  Any failure to achieve milestones, or to do so in a timely manner, or to achieve publicly


announced guidance and forecasts, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and the price of our common stock.



Our industry is highly competitive, and we may not be able to compete successfully

The healthcare business, in general, and the substance dependence treatment business in particular, are highly competitive. We compete with many types of substance dependence treatment methods, treatment facilities and other service providers, many of whom are more established and better funded than we are. Many of these other treatment methods and facilities are well established in the same markets we target, have substantial sales volume, and are provided and marketed by companies with much greater financial resources, facilities, organization, reputation and experience than we have. The historical focus on the use of psychological or behavioral therapies, as opposed to medical or physiological treatments for substance dependence, may create further resistance to penetrating the substance dependence treatment market.

There are a number of companies developing or marketing medications for reducing craving in the treatment of alcoholism, including:

●  
the addiction medication naltrexone, an opiate receptor antagonist, is marketed by a number of generic pharmaceutical companies as well as under the trade namenames ReVia® and Depade®, for treatment of alcohol dependence;

●  
VIVITROL®, an extended release formulation of naltrexone manufactured by Alkermes, is intended to be administered by a physician via monthly injections for the treatment of alcohol dependence in patients who are able to abstain from drinking in an outpatient setting, and are not actively drinking prior to treatment initiation. Alkermes reported that in clinical trials, when used in combination with psychosocial support, VIVITROL was shown to reduce the number of drinking days and heavy drinking days and to prolong abstinence in patients who abstained from alcohol the week prior to starting treatment;

●  
Campral® Delayed-Release Tablets (acamprosate calcium), an NMDA receptor antagonist taken two to three times per day on a chronic or long-term basis and marketed by Forest Laboratories.  Clinical studies supported the effectiveness in the maintenance of abstinence for alcohol-dependent patients who had undergone inpatient detoxification and were already abstinent from alcohol; and

●  
Topiramate (Topamax)
Tropiramate (Topamax®), a drug manufactured by Ortho-McNeill Jannssen, which is approved for the treatment of seizures. A multi-site clinical trial reported in October 2007 found that tropiramate significantly reduced heavy drinking days in alcohol-dependent individuals.

Our competitors may develop and introduce new processes and products that are equal or superior to our programs in treating alcohol and substance dependencies. Accordingly, we may be adversely affected by any new processes and technology developed by our competitors.

There are approximately 13,00013,500 facilities reporting to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration that provide substance abuse treatment on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Well known examples of residential treatment programs include the Betty Ford Center®Center®, Caron Foundation®Foundation®, Hazelden®Hazelden® and Sierra Tucson®Tucson®. In addition, individual physicians may provide substance dependence treatment in the course of their practices.  While we believe our products and services are unique, we operateoper ate in highly competitive markets. We compete with other healthcare management service organizations and disease management companies, including MBHOs, HMOs, PPOs, third-party administrators and other specialty healthcare and managed care companies. Most of our competitors are significantly larger and have greater financial, marketing and other resources than us.  We believe that our ability to offer customers a comprehensive and integrated substance dependence solution, including the utilization of innovative medical and psychosocial treatments, and our unique technology platform will enable us to compete effectively.  However, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter more effective competition in the future, which would limit our ability to maintain or increase our business.



We depend on key personnel, the loss of which could impact the ability to manage our business

Our future success depends on the performance of our senior management, in particular our Chairmanchairman and Chief Executive Officer,chief executive officer, Terren S. Peizer, President,president and chief operating officer, Richard A. Anderson, Christopher S. Hassan, Chief Strategy Officersenior vice president and Maurice S. Hebert, Chief Financial Officer. Messrs. Peizer, Anderson, Hassanglobal head scientific affairs, Gary Ingenito, M.D., PhD., and Hebert are each a party to employment agreements which, subject to termination for cause or good reason, have various remaining terms with renewable options.senior vice president of sales and marketing, Greg McLane.

The loss of the services of any key member of management could have a material adverse effect on our ability to manage our business.



We may be subject to future litigation, which could result in substantial liabilities that may exceed our insurance coverage

All significant medical treatments and procedures, including treatment utilizing our programs, involve the risk of serious injury or death. Even under proper medical supervision, withdrawal from alcohol may cause severe physical reactions. While we have not been the subject of any such claims, our business entails an inherent risk of claims for personal injuries and substantial damage awards. We cannot control whether individual physicians will apply the appropriate standard of care, or conform to our treatment programs in determining how to treat their patients. While our agreements typically require physicians to indemnify us for their negligence, there can be no assurance they will be willing and financially able to do so if claims are made. In addition, our license agreements require us to indemnify physicians, hospitals or their affiliatesaff iliates for losses resulting from our negligence.

We currently have insurance coverage for up to $5 million per year, in the aggregate, for personal injury claims. Hythiam maintainsWe maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage, subject to a self insured retention of between $0 to $250,000 per claim. We may not be able to maintain adequate liability insurance at acceptable costs or on favorable terms. We expect that liability insurance will be more difficult to obtain and that premiums will increase over time and as the volume of patients treated with our programs increases. In the event of litigation, we may sustain significant damages or settlement expense (regardless of a claim's merit), litigation expense and significant harm to our reputation.

If government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate payment rates for treatment using our treatment programs, our revenue and prospects for profitability will be harmed

Our future revenue growth will depend in part upon the availability of reimbursement for treatment or other forums of payment for using our programs fromability to contract with third-party payors, such as government health programs including Medicareself-insured employers, insurance plans and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.unions for our Catasys program. To date, we have received an insignificant amount of revenue from our Catasys substance dependence programs from governmental payors, managed care organizations and other third-party payors, and acceptance of our Catasys substance dependence programs is importantcritical to the future prospects of our business. In addition, third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs, and may not cover or provide adequate payment for treatment using our programs. Adequate third-party reimbursement might not be available to enable us to realize an appropriate return on investment in research and product development, and the lack of such reimbursement could have a material adversea dverse effect on our operations and could adversely affect our revenues and earnings.

We may not be able to achieve promised savings for our Catasys contracts, which could result in pricing levels insuffiicientinsufficient to cover our costs or ensure profitability

We anticipate that many or all of our Catasys contracts will be based upon anticipated or guaranteed levels of savings for our customers or meetingand achieving other operational metrics.metrics resulting in incentive fees based on savings.  If we are unable to achieve themeet or exceed promised savings or achieve agreed upon operational metrics, we may be required to refund from the amount of fees paid to us any difference between savings that were guaranteed and the savings, if any, thatwhich were actually achieved.achieved; or we may fail to earn incentive fees based on savings. Accordingly, during or at the end of the contract terms, we may be required to refund some or all of the fees paid for our services.  This exposes us to significant risk that contracts negotiated and entered into may ultimately be unprofitable. In addition, managed care operations are at risk for costs incurred to provide agreed upon services under our program.Failure Therefore, failure to anticipate or control costs therefore could have material,materially adverse effects on our business.



Our prior international operations may be subject to foreign regulation and the success of our foreign operations will depend on many factors

The criteria of foreign laws, regulations and requirements are often vague and subject to change and interpretation. Our prior international operations may become the subject of foreign regulatory, civil, criminal or other investigations or proceedings, and our interpretations of applicable laws and regulations may be challenged. The defense of any such challenge could result in substantial cost and a diversion of management’s time and attention, regardless of whether it ultimately is successful. If we fail to comply with any applicable international laws, or a determination is made that we have failed to comply with these laws, our financial condition and results of operations including our domestic operations, could be adversely affected.

In addition, the private pay healthcare system in Europe is not as developed as in the U.S and as a result it may be more difficult to convince patients in these countries to pay substantial amounts for treatment. We will be reliant on relationships that we establish with local companies, thought leaders and governments. There can be no

assurance we will be able to establish these relationships, maintain them or that the partners will retain their influence in the market. It may take longer than we expect to commence operations or to operate our business at profitable levels as we do not have the established relationships and or knowledge of the regulations and business practices in the markets we are in or entering.

In 2008, we significantly reduced our operations and presence in Europe in order to reduce costs and better focus our efforts on pursuing U.S.-based business strategies.

Our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards may be limited

As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs) of approximately $126.4$140.7 million for federal income tax purposes that will begin to expire in 2023. These NOLs may be used to offset future taxable income, to the extent we generate any taxable income, and thereby reduce or eliminate our future federal income taxes otherwise payable. Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes limitations on a corporation's ability to utilize NOLs if it experiences an ownership change as defined in Section 382.  In general terms, an ownership change may result from transactions increasing the ownership of certain stockholders in the stock of a corporation by more than 50 percent over a three-year period. In the event that an ownership change has occurred, or were to occur, utilization of our NOLs would be subject to an annual limitation under Section 382 determined by multiplying the value of our stock at the time of the ownership change by the applicable long-term tax-exempt rate as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Any unused annual limitation may be carried over to later years.  We may be found to have experienced an ownership change under Section 382 as a result of events in the past or the issuance of shares of common stock upon a conversion of notes, or a combination thereof.  If so, the use of our NOLs, or a portion thereof, against our future taxable income may be subject to an annual limitation under Section 382, which may result in expiration of a portion of our NOLs before utilization.

Risks related to our intellectual property

We may not be able to adequately protect the proprietary PROMETA Treatment Program which is important to our business

We consider the protection of our proprietary PROMETA Treatment Program to be critical to our business prospects. We obtained the rights to some of our most significant PROMETA technologies through an agreement that is subject to a number of conditions and restrictions, and a breach or termination of that agreement or the bankruptcy of any party to that agreement could significantly impact our ability to use and develop our technologies.  While we have two issued U.S. patents, one relating to the treatment of cocaine dependency with our PROMETA Treatment Program and one relating to our PROMETA Treatment Program for the treatment of certain symptoms associated with alcohol dependency, we currently have no issued U.S. patents covering our PROMETA Treatment Program for the treatment of methamphetamine dependency. The patent applicationsapplic ations we have licensed or filed may not issue as patents, and any issued patents may be too narrow in scope to provide us with a competitive advantage. Our patent position is uncertain and includes complex factual and legal issues, including the existence of prior art that may preclude or limit the scope of patent protection. Issued patents will generally expire twenty years after their priority date.  Our two issued U.S. patents will expire in 2021. Further, our patents and pending applications for patents and other intellectual property have been pledged as collateral to secure our obligations to pay certain debts, and our default with respect to those obligations could result in the transfer of our patents to our creditor.  In the event of such a transfer, we may be unable to continue to operate our business.

Patent examiners may reject our patent applications and thereby prevent us from receiving more patents.  Competitors, licensees and others may challenge our patents and, if successful, our patents may be denied, subjected to reexamination, rendered unenforceable, or invalidated. The cost of litigation to uphold the validity of patents, and to protect and prevent infringement can be substantial. We may not be able to adequately protect the aspects of our treatment programs that are not patented or have only limited patent protection. Furthermore, competitors and others may independently develop similar or more advanced treatment programs and technologies, may design around aspects of our technology, or may discover or duplicate our trade secrets and proprietary methods.



To the extent we utilize processes and technology that constitute trade secrets under applicable laws, we must implement appropriate levels of security to ensure protection of such laws, which we may not do effectively. Policing compliance with our confidentiality agreements and unauthorized use of our technology is difficult. In addition, the laws of many foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights as fully as the laws of the United States. The loss of any of our trade secrets or proprietary rights which may be protected under the foregoing

intellectual property safeguards may result in the loss of our competitive advantage over present and potential competitors. Our intellectual property may not prove to be an effective barrier to competition, in which case our business could be materially adversely affected.

Our pending patent applications disclose and claim various approaches to the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program.  There is no assurance that we will receive one or more patents from these pending applications, or that, even if we receive one or more patents, the patent claims will be sufficiently broad to create patent infringement liability for competitors using treatment programs similar to the PROMETA Treatment Program.

Confidentiality agreements with employees, licensees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information

In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality provisions in our agreements with employees, licensees, treating physicians and others. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. We have had threeseveral instances in which it was necessary to send a formal demand to cease and desist using our programs to treat patients due to breachbrea ch of confidentiality provisions in our agreements, and in one instance have had to file suit to enforce these provisions.

We may be subject to claims that we infringe the intellectual property rights of others, and unfavorable outcomes could harm our business

Our future operations may be subject to claims, and potential litigation, arising from our alleged infringement of patents, trade secrets or copyrights owned by other third parties. Within the healthcare, drug and bio-technology industry, many companies actively pursue infringement claims and litigation, which makes the entry of competitive products more difficult. We may experience claims or litigation initiated by existing, better-funded competitors and by other third parties. Court-ordered injunctions may prevent us from continuing to market existing products or from bringing new products to market and the outcome of litigation and any resulting loss of revenues and expenses of litigation may substantially affect our ability to meet our expenses and continue operations.

Risks related to our industry

The recently enacted healthcare reforms pose risks and uncertainties that may have a material adverse affect on our business.

There may be risks and uncertainties arising from the recently enacted healthcare reform and the implementing regulations that will be issued in the future. If we fail to comply with these laws or are unable to deal with these risks and uncertainties in an effective manner, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our policies and procedures may not fully comply with complex and increasing regulation by state and federal authorities, which could negatively impact our business operations

Our PROMETA Treatment Program has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and while the drugs incorporated in the PROMETA Treatment Program have been approved for other indications, they are not FDA approved for the treatment of alcohol or substance dependency. We have not sought, and do not currently intend to seek, FDA approval for the PROMETA Treatment Program.  It is possible that in the future the FDA could require us to seek FDA approval for the PROMETA Treatment Program.



The healthcare industry is highly regulated and continues to undergo significant changes as third-party payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid, traditional indemnity insurers, managed care organizations and other private payors increase efforts to control cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services. Healthcare companies are subject to extensive and complex federal, state and local laws, regulations and judicial decisions. The U.S. Congress and state legislatures are considering legislation that could limit funding to our licensees and CompCare's clients.licensees.  In addition, the FDA regulates development, testing, labeling, manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution, record-keeping and reporting requirements for prescription drugs, medical devices and biologics. Other regulatory requirements apply to dietary supplements, including vitamins. Compliance with laws and regulations enforced by regulatory agencies that have broad discretion in applying them may be required for our programs or other medical programs or services developed or used by us. Many healthcare laws and regulations applicable to our business are complex, applied broadly and subject to interpretation by courts and government agencies. Regulatory, political and legal action and pricing pressures could prevent us from marketing some or all of our products and services for a period of time or permanently. Our failure, or the failure of our licensees, to comply with applicable regulations may result in the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions that we cannot afford, or require redesign or withdrawal of our programs from the market.


We may be subject to regulatory, enforcement and investigative proceedings, which could adversely affect our financial condition or operations

We could become the subject of regulatory, enforcement, or other investigations or proceedings, and our relationships, business structure, and interpretations of applicable laws and regulations may be challenged. The defense of any such challenge could result in substantial cost and a diversion of management’s time and attention. In addition, any such challenges could require significant changes to how we conduct our business. Any such challenge could have a material adverse effect on our business, regardless of whether it ultimately is successful. If determination is made that we have failed to comply with any applicable laws, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

The promotion of our treatment programs may be found to violate federal law concerning off-label uses of prescription drugs, which could prevent us from marketing our programs

Generally, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act, requires that a prescription drug be approved by the FDA for a specific indication before the product can be distributed in interstate commerce.  Although the FDC Act does not prohibit a doctor’s use of a drug for another indication (this is referred to as off-label use), it does prohibit the promotion of a drug product for an unapproved use. The FDA also permits the non-promotional discussion of information related to off-label use in the context of scientific or medical communications. Our treatment programs include the use of prescription drugs that have been approved by the FDA, but not for the treatment of chemical dependence and drug addiction, which is how the drugs are used in our programs. Although we carefully structure our communications in a way that is intendedintend ed to comply with the FDC Act and FDA regulations, it is possible that our actions could be found to violate the prohibition on off-label promotion of drugs. In addition, the FDC Act imposes limits on the types of claims that may be made for a dietary supplement, and the promotion of a dietary supplement beyond such claims may also be seen as the unlawful promotion of a drug product for an unapproved use. Because our treatment programs also include the use of nutritional supplements, it is possible that claims made for those products could also put us at risk of FDA enforcement for making unlawful claims.

Violations of the FDC Act or FDA regulations can result in a range of sanctions, including administrative actions by the FDA (such as issuance of a Warning Letter), seizure of product, issuance of an injunction prohibiting future violations, and imposition of criminal or civil penalties. A successful enforcement action could prevent promotion of our treatment programs and we may be unable to continue operating under our current business model. Even if we defeat an enforcement action, the expenses associated with doing so, as well as the negative publicity concerning the “off-label” use of drugs in our treatment programs, could adversely affect our business and results of operation.

The FDA has recently increased enforcement efforts in the area of promotion of “off-label” use of drugs, and we cannot assure you that our business practices or third party clinical trials will not come under scrutiny.



Treatment using our programs may be found to require FDA or other review or approval, which could delay or prevent the study or use of our treatment programs

Under authority of the FDC Act, the FDA extensively regulates entities and individuals engaged in the conduct of clinical trials, which broadly includes experiments in which a drug is administered to humans.  FDA regulations require, among other things, submission of a clinical trial treatment program for FDA review, obtaining from the agency an investigational new drug (IND) exemption before initiating a clinical trial, obtaining appropriate informed consent from study subjects, having the study approved and subject to continuing review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and reporting to FDA safety information regarding the conduct of the trial.  Certain third parties have engaged or are engaging in the use of our treatment program and the collection of outcomes data in ways that may be considered to constitute a clinical trial, and that may be subject to FDA regulations and require IRB approval and oversight.  In addition, it is possible that use of our treatment program by individual physicians in treating their patients may be found to constitute a clinical trial or investigation that requires IRB review or submission of an IND or is otherwise subject to regulation by FDA.  The FDA has authority to inspect clinical investigation sites and IRBs, and to take action with regard to any violations.  Violations of FDA regulations regarding clinical trials can result in a range of actions, including suspension of the trial, prohibiting the clinical investigator from ever participating in clinical trials, and criminal prosecution.  Individual hospitals and physicians may also submit their use of our


treatment programs to their IRBs, which may prohibit or place restrictions on it.  FDA enforcement actions or IRB restrictions could adversely affect our business and the abilityabi lity of our customers to use our treatment programs.

The FDA has recently increased enforcement efforts regarding clinical trials, and we cannot assure you that the activities of our customers or others using our treatment programs will not come under scrutiny.

Failure to comply with FTC or similar state laws could result in sanctions or limit the claims we can make

Our promotional activities and materials, including advertising to consumers and professionals, and materials provided to licensees for their use in promoting our treatment programs, are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including claims which are false, misleading or inadequately substantiated. The FTC typically requires competent and reliable scientific tests or studies to substantiate express or implied claims that a product or service is safe or effective. If the FTC were to interpret our promotional materials as making express or implied claims that our treatment programs are safe or effective for the treatment of alcohol, cocaine or methamphetamine addiction, or any other claims, it may find that we do not have adequate substantiation for such claims. Allegations of a failure to comply with the FTC Act or similar laws enforced by state attorneys general and other state and local officials could result in administrative or judicial orders limiting or eliminating the claims we can make about our treatment programs, and other sanctions including substantial financial penalties.

Our business practices may be found to constitute illegal fee-splitting or corporate practice of medicine, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business

Many states, including California in which our principal executive offices and one of our managed treatment centerscenter is located, have laws that prohibit business corporations, such as us, from practicing medicine, exercising control over medical judgments or decisions of physicians, or engaging in arrangements with physicians such as employment, payment for referrals or fee-splitting. Courts, regulatory authorities or other parties, including physicians, may assert that we are engaged in the unlawful corporate practice of medicine by providing administrative and other services in connection with our treatment programs or by consolidating the revenues of the physician practices we manage, or that licensing our technology for a license fee that could be characterized as a portion of the patient fees, or subleasing space and providing turn-key businessbusin ess management to affiliated medical groups in exchange for management and licensing fees, constitute improper fee-splitting or payment for referrals, in which case we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, our contracts could be found invalid and unenforceable, in whole or in part, or we could be required to restructure our contractual arrangements. If so, we may be unable to restructure our contractual arrangements on favorable terms, which would adversely affect our business and operations.



Our business practices may be found to violate anti-kickback, physician self-referral or false claims laws, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business

The healthcare industry is subject to extensive federal and state regulation with respect to financial relationships and kickbacks involving healthcare providers, physician self-referral arrangements, filing of false claims and other fraud and abuse issues. Federal anti-kickback laws and regulations prohibit offers, payments, solicitations, or receipts of remuneration in return for (i) referring patients for items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs, or (ii) purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending any service, good, item or facility for which payment may be made by a federal health care program. In addition, subject to numerous exceptions, federal physician self-referral legislation, commonly known as the Stark law, generally prohibits a physician from referring patients forf or  certain designated health services reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid  from any entity with which the physician has a financial relationship, and many states have analogous laws. Other federal and state laws govern the submission of claims for reimbursement, or false claims laws. One of the most prominent of these laws is the federal Civil False Claims Act, and violations of other laws, such as the federal anti-kickback law or the FDA prohibitions against promotion of off-label uses of drugs, may also be prosecuted as violations of the Civil False Claims Act.

Federal or state authorities may claim that our fee arrangements, agreements and relationships with contractors, hospitals and physicians violate these laws and regulations. Violations of these laws may be punishable by monetary fines, civil and criminal penalties, exclusion from participation in government-sponsored healthcare programs and


forfeiture of amounts collected in violation of such laws. If our business practices are found to violate any of these provisions, we may be unable to continue with our relationships or implement our business plans, which would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We may be subject to healthcare anti-fraud initiatives, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business

State and federal governments are devoting increased attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers, and may take an expansive definition of fraud that includes receiving fees in connection with a healthcare business that is found to violate any of the complex regulations described above. While to our knowledge we have not been the subject of any anti-fraud investigations, if such a claim were made defending our business practices could be time consuming and expensive, and an adverse finding could result in substantial penalties or require us to restructure our operations, which we may not be able to do successfully.

Our use and disclosure of patient information is subject to privacy and security regulations, which may result in increased costs

In conducting research or providing administrative services to healthcare providers in connection with the use of our treatment programs, we may collect, use, disclose, maintain and transmit patient information in ways that will be subject to many of the numerous state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, storage, transmission and/or confidentiality of patient-identifiable health information, including the administrative simplification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH). The HIPAA Privacy Rule restricts the use and disclosure of patient information, and requires safeguarding that information. The HIPAA SecuritySecurit y Rule establishesand HITECH establish elaborate requirements for safeguarding patient information transmitted or stored electronically.  HIPAA applies to covered entities, which may include healthcare facilities and does include health plans that will contract for the use of our programs and our services. The HIPAA and HITECH rules require covered entities to bind contractors like us to compliance with certain burdensome HIPAA rule requirements known as business associate requirements and data security provision and reporting requirements. If we are providing management services that include electronic billing on behalf of a physician practice or facility that is a covered entity, we may be required to conduct those electronic transactions in accordance with the HIPAA and HITECH regulations governing the form and format of those transactions (HIPAA Transactions Rule).transactions. Services provided under our Catasys program also requires us to comply with HIPPA, HITECH and other privacy and security regulations  Other federal and state laws restricting the use and protecting the privacy and security of patient information also apply to our licensees directly and in some cases to us, either directly or indirectly. We may be required to make costly system purchases and modifications to comply with the HIPAA and HITECH rule requirements that are imposed on us and our failure to comply may result in liability and adversely affect our business.


Federal and state consumer protection laws are being applied increasingly by the FTC and state attorneys general to regulate the collection, use, storage, and disclosure of personal or patient information, through web sites or otherwise, and to regulate the presentation of web site content. Courts may also adopt the standards for fair information practices promulgated by the FTC, which concern consumer notice, choice, security and access. Numerous other federal and state laws protect the confidentiality and security of personal and patient information. Other countries also have, or are developing laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal or patient information and these laws could create liability for us or increase our cost of doing business.

Our business arrangements with health care providers may be deemed to be franchises, which could negatively impact our business operations

Franchise arrangements in the United States are subject to rules and regulations of the FTC and various state laws relating to the offer and sale of franchises.  A number of the states in which we operate regulate the sale of franchises and require registration of the franchise offering circular with state authorities and the delivery of a franchise offering circular to prospective franchisees.  State franchise laws often limit, among other things, the duration and scope of non-competitive provisions, the ability of a franchisor to terminate or refuse to renew a franchise and the ability of a franchisor to designate sources of supply.  Franchise laws and regulations are complex, apply broadly and are subject to interpretation by courts and government agencies.  Federal or state authorities or healthcarehealt hcare providers with whom we contract may claim that the agreements under which we license rights to our technology and trademarks and provide services violate these laws and regulations. Violations of these laws are punishable by monetary fines, civil and criminal penalties, and forfeiture of amounts collected in violation of such


laws. If our business practices are found to constitute franchises, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, our contracts could be found invalid and unenforceable, in whole or in part, or we could be required to restructure our contractual arrangements.  We may be unable to continue with our relationships or restructure them on favorable terms, which would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.  We may also be required to furnish prospective franchisees with a franchise offering circular containing prescribed information, and restrict how we market to or deal with healthcare providers, potentially limiting and substantially increasing our cost of doing business.

Risks related to our common stock

Delisting from The NASDAQ Stock Market has negatively affected the liquidity of our stock, subjected us to the “penny stock” rules making our stock more difficult to sell, and it may become increasingly more difficult to obtain accurate quotations of our common stock and it may become increasingly more difficult to find buyers to purchase our shares or market makers to support the stock price.  The stock price immediately declined in value upon the open of business on Friday, February 26, 2010, when quoted on the Over The Counter (OTC) Bulletin Board for the first time and the stock price may decline further if these difficulties are realized.
As previously reported in Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on May 19, 2009, August 28, 2009, September 21, 2009 and December 1, 2009, we failed to comply with various listing requirements of The NASDAQ Stock Market. The We disclosed we had received a letter from NASDAQ granting our request to remain listed on NASDAQ subject to the condition that, on or before February 24, 2010, we evidence stockholders’ equity of at least $10 million or achieve a market value of its listed securities of at least $50 million. On February 23, 2010, we notified NASDAQ of our inability to comply with the conditions set forth in the letter referenced above. On February 24, 2010, we received a letter from The NASDAQ Stock Market notifying us that we failed to meet its minimum stockholders’ equity of $2.5 million. The letter indicated that our stoc k will be suspended from trading on NASDAQ effective at the open of business on Friday, February 26, 2010. We did not and do not intend to appeal NASDAQ’s decision. We received notification from FINRA that our common stock will be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board beginning Friday, February 26, 2010. We intend to continue filing periodic reports with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Failure to maintain effective internal controls could adversely affect our operating results and the market for our common stock
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that we maintain internal control over financial reporting that meets applicable standards. We recently concluded that certain of our internal controls and procedures were inadequate. While we believe we have remediated this issue, as with many smaller companies with small staff, other material weaknesses in our financial controls and procedures may be discovered. If we are unable, or are perceived as unable, to produce reliable financial reports due to internal control deficiencies, inves tors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and operating results, which could result in a negative market reaction and adversely affect our ability to raise capital.
Approximately 25%23.2% of our stock is controlled by our chairman and chief executive officer, who has the ability to substantially influence the election of directors and other matters submitted to stockholders

Reserva Capital, LLC and Bonmore, LLC, whose sole managing member is our chairman and chief executive officer, beneficially own 13,600,000 shares of our common stock, which represent 24.7%23.2 % of our 55,074,00065,378,296 shares outstanding as of March 27, 2009.4, 2010. As a result, he has and is expected to continue to have the ability to significantly influence the election of our Board of Directors and the outcome of all other issues submitted to our stockholders. The interests of these principal stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders, and they may act in a manner that advances his best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders. One consequence to this substantial influence or control is that it may be difficultd ifficult for investors to remove management of the company. It could also deter unsolicited takeovers, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices.

Our stock price may be subject to substantial volatility, and the value of your investment may decline

Our common stock is tradedEffective at the open of business on Friday, February 26, 2010, our securities were delisted from The NASDAQ GlobalStock Market and trading volume may be limited or sporadic.in our shares was suspended  The market price of our common stock has experienced downward price pressure as a result, and may continue to experience, substantial volatility. Over 2008, our common stock has traded between $0.39 and $3.14 per share, on volume ranging from approximately 6,100 to 3.9 million shares per day. As a result, the current price for our common stock as quoted on NASDAQthe OTC Bulletin Board is not necessarily a less reliable indicator of our fair market value. The price at which our common stock will trade may fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including the number of shares available for sale in the market, quarterly variations in our operating results and actual or anticipated announcements of pilots and scientific studies of the effectiveness of our PROMETA Treatment Program, our Catasys Program, announcements regarding new or discontinued Catasys Progra m contracts, new products or services by us or competitors, regulatory investigations or determinations, acquisitions or strategic alliances by us or our competitors, recruitment or departures of key personnel, the gain or loss of significant customers, changes in the estimates of our operating performance, actual or threatened litigation, market conditions in our industry and the economy as a whole.

Volatility in the price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global MarketOTC Bulletin Board may depress the trading price of our common stock.  The risk of volatility and depressed prices of our common stock also applies to warrant holders who receive shares of common stock upon conversion.


Numerous factors, including many over which we have no control, may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock, including:

●  
announcements of new products or services by us or our competitors; current events affecting the political, economic and social situation in the United States and other countries where we operate;

●  
trends in our industry and the markets in which we operate;

●  
changes in financial estimates and recommendations by securities analysts;

●  
acquisitions and financings by us or our competitors;

●  
the gain or loss of a significant customer;

●  
quarterly variations in operating results;


●  
volatility in rates of exchanges rate between the US dollar and the currencies of the foreign countries in which we operate;

●  
the operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors may consider to be comparable; and

●  
purchases or sales of blocks of our securities.securities; and

●  issuances of stock.

Furthermore, stockholders may initiate securities class action lawsuits if the market price of our stock drops significantly, which may cause us to incur substantial costs and could divert the time and attention of our management.

Future sales of common stock by existing stockholders, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress our stock price

The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by, or the perceived possibility of sales by, our existing stockholders.  We have completed a number of private placements of our common stock and other securities over the last several years, and we have effective resale registration statements pursuant to which the purchasers can freely resell their shares into the market.  In addition, most of our outstanding shares are eligible for public resale pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  Approximately 15 million shares of our common stock are currently held by our affiliates and may be sold pursuant to an effective registration statement or in accordance with the volume and other limitations of Rule 144 or pursuant to other exempt transactions.  Future sales of commonco mmon stock by significant stockholders, including those who acquired their shares in private placements or who are affiliates, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress the price of our common stock.

Future issuances of common stock and hedging activities may depress the trading price of our common stock

Any future issuance of equity securities, including the issuance of shares upon direct registration, upon satisfaction of our obligations, compensation of vendors, exercise of outstanding warrants, could dilute the interests of our existing stockholders, and could substantially decrease the trading price of our common stock.  We currently have outstanding approximately 11 million warrantsoptions and options5.7 million warrants to acquire our common stock at prices between $0.59$0.28 and $9.20$8.00 per share.   We may issue equity securities in the future for a number of reasons, including to finance our operations and business strategy, in connection with acquisitions, to adjust our ratio of debt to equity, to satisfy our obligations upon the exercise of outstanding warrants or options or for other reasons.


Provisions in our certificate of incorporation, bylaws, charter documents and Delaware law could discourage a change in control, or an acquisition of us by a third party, even if the acquisition would be favorable to you, thereby and adversely affect existing stockholders

Our certificate of incorporation and the Delaware General Corporation Law contain provisions that may have the effect of making more difficult or delaying attempts by others to obtain control of our company, even when these attempts may be in the best interests of stockholders. For example, our certificate of incorporation also authorizes our Board of Directors, without stockholder approval, to issue one or more series of preferred stock, which could have voting and conversion rights that adversely affect or dilute the voting power of the holders of common stock. Delaware law also imposes conditions on certain business combination transactions with “interested stockholders.”

These provisions and others that could be adopted in the future could deter unsolicited takeovers or delay or prevent changes in our control or management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices. These provisions may also limit the ability of stockholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in their best interests.



We do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future, and accordingly you must rely on stock appreciation for any return on your investment

We have paid no cash dividends on our common stock to date, and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the continued development and growth of our business. As a result, we do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.  Further, any payment of cash dividends will also depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors, including contractual restrictions to which we may be subject, and will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors.

ITEM
ITEM 1B.                      UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

There are no unresolved written comments that were received from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s staff 180 days or more before the end of Hythiam’sour fiscal year relating to our periodic or current reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ITEM 2.                      PROPERTIES
ITEM 2.PROPERTIES

Information concerning our principal facilities, all of which arewere leased at December 31, 2008,2009, is set forth below:

Location
 Use
Approximate
Area in
Square Feet
11150 and 11100 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, California
 Principal executive and administrative offices 13,00022,000
1700 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, California
Medical office space4,000
 
1315 Lincoln Blvd.
Santa Monica, California
 Medical office space for The PROMETA Center Inc.to Overcome Addiction 5,400 

Our principal executive and administrative offices are located in Los Angeles, California and consist of leased office space totaling approximately 22,00013,000 square feet. Our base rent is currently approximately $75,000$44,000 per month, subject to annual adjustments, with aggregate minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2008,2009, totaling approximately $1.7$1.73 million. The initial term of the lease expires in December 2010, with an option to extend for five additional years.

In April 2005 we entered into a five-year lease for approximately 5,400 square feet of medical office space in Santa Monica, California, which is occupied by The PROMETA Center Inc.,to Overcome Addiction, which operates under a full service management agreement with us. Our base rent is currently approximately $21,000approximates $19,000 per month. In August 2006,May 2009, we entered into a five-yearan amendment to our lease for this facility calling for the deferral of a portion of the rent for a period of seven months. As a result of the amendment our rent was reduced by approximately 4,000 square feet$8,000 per month beginning June 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009. According to the terms of medical office space, located in San Francisco, California, at an initialthe agreement beginning January 1, 2010, the base rent and the deferred rent are due in installments with all rents to be paid prior to the termination of approximately $11,000 per month, which was occupied by The PROMETA Center, Inc., until it was closedthe lease in January 2008.  We are currently seeking to sublease this vacant space.August 2010. The minimum base rent and deferred rent for the two medical offices areoffice in Santa Monica is subject to annual adjustments, with aggregate minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2008,2009, totaling approximately $858,000.$240,000.

In NovemberAugust 2006, wethe Company entered into a five-year5 year lease agreement for approximately 4,000 square feet  of medical office space in Switzerland at an initial base rent of 4,052 Swiss Francs per month (approximately US$3,800 using the December 31, 2008 conversion rate).

In connection withfor a management services agreement that we executed with acompany managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, we assumedSan Francisco, CA.  The Company ceased operations at the obligationcenter in January 2008.  In the first quarter of 2009, the Company ceased making rent payments under the lease.  In November of 2009, the landlord filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking damages of at least $350,000, plus attorney fees and costs.  On March 23, 2010 the Company settled this lawsuit for two lease agreements at$200,000 to be paid in monthly installments from March 23, 2010 through February 2011.  If the Company fails to pay these amounts, the Company has stipulated that the landlord may file a current combinedjudgment against the Company in the amount of approximately $10,000 per month, which expire in May 2011.$278,000.

As we expand in the future, we may lease additional regional office facilities, as necessary, to service our customer base. We believe that the current office space is adequate to meet our current needs and that additional facilities will be available for lease to meet our future needs.








PART II

ITEM 5.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock is traded on The NASDAQ Global Marketthe OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “HYTM.”  As of March 27, 2009,26, 2010, there were 8986 record holders representing approximately 5,7006,314 beneficial owners of our common stock. Following is a list by fiscal quarters of the closing sales prices of our stock:

  Closing Sales Prices 
2008 High  Low 
4th Quarter $1.50  $0.39 
3rd Quarter  2.46   1.29 
2nd Quarter  2.95   1.38 
1st Quarter  3.14   1.18 
         
2007 High  Low 
4th Quarter $8.64  $2.68 
3rd Quarter  8.77   6.43 
2nd Quarter  8.71   6.53 
1st Quarter  10.21   6.48 

Dividends
  Closing Sales Prices
2009 High  Low
4th Quarter $0.77  $0.27
3rd Quarter  0.44   0.24
2nd Quarter  0.36   0.23
1st Quarter  0.68   0.18
        
2008 High  Low
4th Quarter $1.50  $0.39
3rd Quarter  2.46   1.29
2nd Quarter  2.95   1.38
1st Quarter  3.14   1.18

We have never declared or paid any dividends. We may, as our Board of Directors deems appropriate, continue to retain all earnings for use in our business or may consider paying dividends in the future.

ComparisonRecent Sales of 63-month cumulative total returnUnregistered Securities
Among Hythiam, Inc.,
In April 2010, the Russell 200 Indexholder of certain claims against us in the amount of $1,005,000, due for services provided to us which had not been paid, filed a complaint against us in California state court. On April 8, 2010 the court approved our settlement of the complaint in exchange for issuing 5,000,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended. In accordance with the approved settlement the number of shares is subject to adjustment 180 days subsequent to the issuance of the shares.  In addition, the owner of the claims will not sell more than the great er of 49,000 shares or 10% of the daily trading volume during that 180 day period.

In February 2010, we issued 650,000 restricted shares of common stock to a consultant for investor relation services to be performed beginning February 22, 2010 and ending May 22, 2010. These securities were issued without registration pursuant to the S&P Health Care Indexexemption afforded by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as a transaction by us not involving any public offering.

In January 2010, the holder of certain claims against us in the amount of approximately $230,000, due for services provided to us which have not been paid, filed a complaint against us in California state court. In February 2010 the court approved our settlement of the complaint in exchange for issuing 445,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended.
 

* The above graph measures the change of $100 invested in Hythiam, Inc. common stock based on its closing price of $7.10 on September 30, 2003 and its quarter-end and December 31 year-end closing price thereafter. Hythiam, Inc.'s relative performance is then compared with the Russell 2000 and S&P Health Care total return indices.


Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

None

       Number of
       securities
       remaining
       available for
 Number of     future issuance
 securities to be     under equity
 issued upon  Weighted-average  compenation
 exercise of  exercise price of  plans [excluding
 outstanding  outstanding  securities
 options, warrants  options, warrants  reflected
 and rights (a)  and rights (b)  in column (a)]
Equity Compensation plans approved by 12,562,456  $0.82   1,542,940
security holders          
Equity Compensation plans not approved          
by security holders -   -   -
Total 12,562,456  $0.82   1,542,940
Additional information is incorporated by reference to Part III of this report.



ITEM 6.                  SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected financial data set forth below, derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto (collectively, the Financial Statements), should be read in conjunction with the Financial Statements, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, included elsewhere in this report.Not applicable.

(In thousands, except per share amounts)For the years ended December 31, 
 2008   2007   2006  2005   2004 
Statement of Operations Data:                 
Revenues:                 
Behavioral health managed care services$35,156   $36,306 (a) $-  $-   $- 
Healthcare services 6,074    7,695    3,906   1,164    192 
Total revenues 41,230    44,001    3,906   1,164    192 
                       
Loss from operations (53,603)(f)  (47,531)(d)  (39,926)  (24,872)(e)  (11,945)
Loss on extinguishment of debt -    (741)(b)  -   -    - 
Other than temporary loss on marketable                      
securities (1,428)(g)  -    -   -    - 
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities 5,744 (c)  3,471 (c)  -   -    - 
Net loss (50,418)(f)  (45,462)   (38,298)  (24,038)   (11,775)
                       
Loss Per Share:                      
Net loss per share - basic and diluted$(0.92)  $(0.99)  $(0.96) $(0.77)  $(0.47)
Weighted average shares outstanding                      
 - basic and diluted 54,675    45,695    39,715   31,173    24,877 
                       
Cash Flows Data:                      
Net cash provided by (used in)                      
operating activities (29,446)  $(39,220)  $(28,499) $(18,819)  $(9,947)
Net cash provided by (used in)                      
investing activities 23,308    (4,091)   4,730   (22,206)   (10,913)
Net cash provided by financing                      
activities 5,882    48,759    26,053   40,442    21,416 
                       
 As of December 31, 
 2008   2007   2006  2005   2004 
Balance Sheet Data:                      
Cash, cash equivalents and marketable                      
securities$11,039 (h) $46,989   $43,447  $47,000   $27,479 
Total current assets 13,990    50,342    44,549   47,720    28,093 
Total assets 31,866    70,646    52,205   54,462    33,962 
Short-term debt 9,835    4,742    -   -    - 
Long-term debt 2,341    2,057 (a)  -   -    - 
Warrant liabilities 156    2,798 (c)  -   -    - 
Total liabilities 30,758    27,382    10,176   4,723    2,128 
Stockholders’ equity 1,108    43,264    42,029   49,739    31,834 
Book value per share$0.02   $0.80   $0.96  $1.27   $1.07 

(a)ITEM 7.We began consolidating CompCare’s operations on January 13, 2007.MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(b)
The $741,000 loss on extinguishment of debt resulted from a $5 million redemption of the Highbridge senior secured notes on November 7, 2007.  See further discussion in Note 6 – Debt Outstanding.
(c)The fair value of warrants issued in conjunction with the registered direct placement on November 7, 2007 was accounted for as a liability and was revalued at $156,000 and $2.8 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, resulting in a $5.7 and $3.5 million non-operating gain, respectively.
(d)
Includes a $2.4 million impairment loss related to the non-cash stock settlement reached with XINO Corporation in August 2007.  See further discussion in Note 5 – Intangible Assets.
(e)
We recorded an impairment charge of $272,000 in December 2005 to fully write off the cost of a patent for opiate addiction treatment.  See further discussion in Note 5 – Intangible Assets.
(f)
Includes goodwill impairment charge of $9.8 million in December 2008.  See further discussion in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, "Goodwill."
(g)An impairment charge of $1.4 million related to ARS was recognized in Q4 2008. The charge was deemed necessary after an analysis of other-than-temporary impairment factors, including the severity of decline in the ARS, the length of time that the estimated fair value of the


ARS had been below book value, our intent & ability to hold the ARS until they recover in value and current financial market conditions.  See further discussion in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Marketable Securities.
(h)Not including $10.1 million of auction-rate securities classified in long-term marketable securites.

ITEM 7.                  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Forward-Looking Statements

The forward-looking comments contained in the following discussion involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed here due to factors such as, among others, limited operating history, difficulty in developing, exploiting and protecting proprietary technologies, intense competition and substantial regulation in the healthcare industry. Additional factors that could cause or contribute to such differences can be found in the following discussion, as well as under Item 1A, “Risks Factors.”

OVERVIEW

General

We are a healthcare services management company, providing through our Catasys™Catasys® subsidiary specialized behavioral health management services for substance abuse to health plans.plans, employers and unions through a network of licensed and company managed health care providers.  The Catasys is focused on offering integrated substance dependence solutions,program was designed to address substance dependence as a chronic disease. The program seeks to lower costs and improve member health through the delivery of integrated medical and psychosocial interventions in combination with long term "care coaching," including our patented PROMETA®proprietary PROMETA® Treatment Program for alcoholism and stimulant dependence.Program. The PROMETA Treatment Program, which integratesintegrate s behavioral, nutritional, and medical components, is also available on a private-pay basis through licensed treatment providers and company managed treatment centers that offer the PROMETA Treatment Program, as well as other treatments for substance dependencies. We also research, develop, license and commercialize innovative and proprietary physiological, nutritional, and behavioral treatment programs. 

Our Strategy

Our business strategy is to provide quality treatmentintegrated medical and behavioral programs in a cost effective manner that will becometo help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations to impact both the standard-of-care for those suffering from alcoholismmedical and other substance dependencies, autismbehavioral health costs associated with substance-dependence and ADHD in a cost effective manner.the related co-morbidities. We intend to grow our business through implementing and increasing increased

adoption of our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions and our autism and ADHD solutions by managed care health plans, employers, unions and other third-party payors.  We also intend to grow our business through increased utilization of our PROMETA Treatment Program from within existing and new licensees and managed treatment centers.

Key elements of our business strategy include:

●  
Providing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to managed care health plans for reimbursement on a case rate or capitated basisbasis;

●  
Educating third-party payors on the disproportionately high cost of their substance dependent population; and

●  Demonstrating the potential for improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost effectiveness associated with using the PROMETA Treatment Program, through implementation of our Catasys programs with key managed care and other third-party payorspayors.

●  
Launching autism and ADHD specialty behavioral health products and programs that will be supported by CompCare through our ASO services agreement

●  
Expanding Catasys into other areas that can benefit from integrated behavioral and medical treatment and case management

●  
Expanding the base of our self-pay licensed treatment sites and managed treatment centers, focusing primarily on existing service areas

●  
Seeking additional scientific and clinical research data by leading research institutions and preeminent researchers in the field of alcohol and substance abuse to further validate the benefits of using the PROMETA Treatment Program

Effective January 12, 2007, we acquired a 50.3% controlling interest in Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare) through the acquisition of Woodcliff Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP (Woodcliff). Our consolidated financial statements include the business and operations of CompCare subsequent to this date.

CompCare provides managed care services in the behavioral health and psychiatric fields.  CompCare manages the delivery of a continuum of psychiatric and substance abuse services to commercial, Medicare and Medicaid members on behalf of employers, health plans, government organizations, third-party claims administrators, and commercial and other group purchasers of behavioral healthcare services.  The customer base for CompCare’s services includes both private and governmental entities. During the year ended December 31, 2008, CompCare provided services under capitated arrangements for Medicare patients in Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico, commercial patients in Georgia, Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial patients in Florida and Michigan, Medicaid and commercial patients in Indiana, Medicare and Medicaid patients in California, and Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP patients in Texas. CompCare’s Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP contracts are subject to agreements with their HMO clients whose contracts with the various governmental agencies may be subject to renegotiation at the election of the specific agency.Reporting

On January 20, 2009 we sold our interest in CompCare. Additionally, we entered into an administrative services only (ASO) agreement with CompCare to provide certain administrative services under CompCare’s NCQA accreditation, including but not limited to case managementWe manage and authorization services, in support of our newly launched specialty products and programs for autism and ADHD.  See further discussion under Recent Developments below.

Segment Reporting

We have conductedreport our operations through two business segments: healthcare services and behavioral health managed careand healthcare services. Our healthcare servicesThe behavioral health segment provides ourincludes Catasys and its integrated substance dependence autism and ACHD solutions marketed to health plans, employers and unions through a network of licensed and company managed healthcare providers, andproviders. The healthcare services segment provides licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer the PROMETA Treatment Program and other treatment programs, including a managed treatment centerscenter that areis licensed and/orand managed by us. In 2009, we revised our segments to reflect the disposal of our interest in Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare) and to reflect how our business is currently managed. Our behavioral health managed care services segment, which previously had been comprised entirely of the operations of our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, provides managed careis now presented in discontinued operations and is not a reportable segment (see Note 12— Discontinued Operations). Catasys operations were previously reported as part of healthcare services, but is now segregated and reported separately in the behavioral health, psychiatric and substance abuse fields.health. Prior years have been restated to reflect this revised presentation. A majority of our consolidated revenues and assets are earned or located within the United States.

Discontinued Operations

Healthcare Services

Catasys

In 2008On January 20, 2009 we developed and operationalizedsold our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions for third-party payors, andentire interest in our controlled subsidiary CompCare, a behavioral health managed care company in which we had acquired a majority controlling interest in January 2009 we launched additional Catasys specialty products2007, for autism and ADHD.aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5 million. We believe thatrecognized a gain of approximately $11.2 million from the sale of our Catasys offerings will addressCompCare interest, which is included in discontinued operations in our consolidated statement of operations for the largest segmentyear ended December 31, 2009.
LicensingResults of Operations

Table of Summary Financial Information
Under
The table below and the discussion that follows summarize our licensing agreements, we provide physiciansresults of operations and other licensed treatment providers access to our PROMETA Treatment Program, education and training in the implementation and use of the licensed technology and marketing support. The patient’s physician determines the appropriateness of the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program. We receive a feecertain selected operating statistics for the licensed technology and related services generally on a per patient basis. As of December 31, 2008, we had active licensing agreements with physicians, hospitals and treatment providers for 84 sites throughout the United States, with 49 sites contributing to revenuelast two fiscal years (amounts in 2008.  We will continue to enter into agreements on a selective basis with additional healthcare providers to increase the availability of the PROMETA Treatment Program, but only in markets we are presently operating or where such sites will provide support for our Catasys products.  As such revenues are generally related to the number of patients treated, keythousands):

HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
 Year Ended December 31,
(In thousands, except per share amounts)2009  2008 
      
Revenues     
Healthcare services$1,530  $6,074 
Total revenues 1,530   6,074 
        
Operating expenses       
Cost of healthcare services$509  $1,718 
General and administrative expenses 18,034   37,059 
Research and development -   3,370 
Impairment losses 1,113   9,775 
Depreciation and amortization 1,248   1,861 
Total operating expenses 20,904   53,783 
        
Loss from operations$(19,374) $(47,709)
        
Non-operating income (expenses)       
Interest & other income 941   804 
Interest expense (1,142)  (1,663)
Loss on extinguishment of debt (330)  - 
Gain on the sale of marketable securities 160   - 
Other than temporary impairment of       
marketable securities (185)  (1,428)
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities 341   5,744 
        
Loss from continuing operations before       
provision for income taxes (19,589)  (44,252)
Provision for income taxes 18   22 
Loss from continuing operations$(19,607) $(44,274)
        
Discontinued operations:       
Results of discontinued operations, net of tax 10,449   (6,144)
        
Net loss$(9,158) $(50,418)
        
Basic and diluted net income (loss) per share:       
Continuing operations$(0.34) $(0.81)
Discontinued operations 0.18   (0.11)
Net loss per share$(0.16) $(0.92)
        
Weighted number of shares outstanding 57,947   54,675 
36
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.

Summary of Consolidated Operating Results

indicatorsAs we continue to streamline our operations and increase the focus on managed care opportunities for our Catasys product offerings, actions we have taken to reduce expenses have led to continued declines in loss from operations in our continuing operations, compared to prior years. Our decision to exit markets that were not profitable and make significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel in our licensing operations, the curtailment of our financial performancemanaged treatment center operations (including terminating the management services agreements associated with our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas) and the shut-down of our international operations have resulted in lower revenues compared to the prior years.

 Loss from continuing operations before provision for taxes for the PROMETA Treatment Program will betwelve months ended December 31, 2009 amounted to $19.6 million compared to $44.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2008. Excluding the change in fair value of warrant liabilities, which amounted to a gain of $0.3 million in 2009 compared to a gain of $5.7 million in 2008, the impairment losses on intangibles, which amounted to $1.1 million in 2009 compared to $9.8 million in 2008, and the other-than-temporary impairment of marketable securities, which amounted to $185,000 in 2009 compared to $1.4 million in 2008, the loss from continuing operations declined by $24.6 million. The improvement was driven primarily by a $19.1 million decrease in general and administrative expenses, from the streamlining of operations as discussed above, a $3.4 million de crease in research and development costs, a $521,000 decrease in interest expense and $1.2 million decrease in cost of healthcare services. These improvements were partially offset by $4.5 million decline in revenues, a $330,000 loss on early extinguishment of debt, a $160,000 gain on the sale of marketable securities, and a $137,000 increase in interest income.

The year over year decline of $4.5 million in total revenues as of December 31, 2009 resulted mainly from the streamlining of our healthcare services operations as we continue to increase our focus on managed care opportunities and reposition ourselves in the marketplace. Included in the loss from continuing operations before provision for taxes for the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 were consolidated non-cash charges for depreciation and amortization expense of $1.3 million and $1.9 million, debt discount amortization of $330,000, and $0, and stock-based compensation expense of $4.6 million and $9.1 million, respectively.

In 2009, our loss before provision for income taxes included a $1.1 million impairment charge and a $185,000 other-than-temporary loss on marketable securities. The 2008 loss before provision for income taxes included a $9.8 million goodwill impairment charge, and a $1.4 million other-than-temporary loss on marketable securities. Additionally, the 2009 results reflect $4.6 million in share-based expense compared to $9.1 million in 2008. Excluding the impact of these charges, the loss before provision for income taxes decreased by $10.3 million in 2009 when compared to 2008.

The decline in total revenues resulted mainly from the impact of streamlining of our healthcare services operations during 2008 and 2009 to increase our focus on managed care opportunities, including the elimination of field and regional sales personnel and termination of our management services agreement associated with our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas.

Reconciliation of Segment Results

The following table summarizes and reconciles the loss from operations of our reportable segments to the loss before provision for income taxes from our consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:
(In thousands)For the year ended December 31, 
 2009  2008 
       
Healthcare services$(15,642) $(38,878)
Behavioral health (3,947)  (5,374)
Loss from continuing operations before       
provision for income taxes$(19,589) $(44,252)

Healthcare Services

The following table summarizes the operating results for healthcare services for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:
(In thousands, except patient treatment data)For the year ended December 31, 
 2009  2008 
Revenues     
U.S. licensees$559  $2,817 
Managed treatment centers 837   2,006 
Other revenues 134   1,251 
Total healthcare services revenues$1,530  $6,074 
        
Operating expenses       
Cost of healthcare services$509  $1,718 
General and administrative expenses       
Salaries and benefits 5,443   18,183 
Other expenses 9,485   13,502 
Research and development -   3,370 
Impairment losses 355   9,775 
Depreciation and amortization 1,165   1,861 
Total operating expenses$16,957  $48,409 
        
Loss from operations$(15,427) $(42,335)
Interest and other income 941   804 
Interest expense (1,142)  (1,663)
Loss on extinguishment of debt (330)  - 
Gain on the sale of marketable securities 160   - 
Other than temporary impairment on       
marketable securities (185)  (1,428)
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities 341   5,744 
Loss before provision for income taxes$(15,642) $(38,878)
        
PROMETA patients treated       
U.S. licensees 117   504 
Managed treatment centers 85   148 
Other 11   69 
  213   721 
        
Average revenue per patient treated (a)
       
U.S. licensees$4,386  $5,412 
Managed treatment centers 6,196   9,041 
Other -   8,449 
Overall average 5,511   6,455 
        
(a)  The average revenue per patient treated excludes administrative fees and other non-PROMETA patient revenues.
Year Ended December 31, 2009 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2008

Revenues

Revenue decreased by $4.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008,  primarily due to our decision to streamline our operations and focus on managed care opportunities in our behavioral health segment. We exited unprofitable territories and made significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel in our licensing operations, curtailed our managed treatment center operations (including terminating the

management services agreements associated with our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas) and shut-down of our international operations. These actions resulted in a decline in licensed sites contributing to revenue and in the number of facilities and healthcare providerspatients treated. The number of licensed sites that license our technology,contributed to revenues in 2009 decreased from 84 to 29 and the number of patients thattreated decreased by 70% in 2009 compared to 2008. The average revenue per patient treated at U.S. licensed sites and managed treatment centers decreased in 2009 compared to 2008, due to higher average discounts granted because of the economic downturn. Our revenue may decline further in 2010 due to the uncertain economy. We are treated by those providers using our PROMETA Treatment Program.

making ongoing efforts to reduce operating expenses which may result in exiting additional revenue generating territories.
Managed Treatment Centers
Cost of Healthcare Services

We currently manage two treatment centers under our licensing agreements, located in Santa Monica, California (dba The PROMETA Center, Inc.) and Dallas, Texas (Murray Hill Recovery, LLC). In January 2007, a second PROMETA Center was opened in San Francisco, which was subsequently closed in January 2008. We manageCost of healthcare services consists of royalties we pay for the business componentsuse of the treatment centers and license the PROMETA Treatment Program, and use ofcosts incurred by our consolidated managed treatment center for direct labor costs for physicians and nursing staff, continuing care expense, medical supplies and treatment program medicine costs. The decrease in these costs reflects the namedecrease in exchange for management and licensing fees under the terms of full business service management agreements. These centers offerrevenues from this treatment with the PROMETA Treatment Program for dependencies on alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines and also offer medical interventions for other substance dependencies.center.

The revenuesGeneral and expensesAdministrative Expenses

General and administrative expense includes share-based compensation expense and costs associated with streamlining our operations, which amounted to $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $31.7 million for the same period in 2008. Excluding such costs, total general and administrative expense decreased by $12.6 million in 2009 when compared to 2008, due to reductions in all expense categories, but mainly to decreases in salaries and benefits and outside services, resulting from the continued streamlining of these centers are includedoperations to focus on managed care opportunities in our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards applicable to variable interest entities. Revenues from licensed and managed treatment centers, including the PROMETA Centers, accounted for approximately 33% of our healthcare services revenues in 2008.behavioral health segment.

Research and Development and Pilot StudiesPrograms

To date, we have incurred approximately $12.6 million related toClinical studies undertaken were substantially completed in 2008 and no research and development includingexpense was recognized during 2009. In addition, we agreed to terminate funding for the grant that supported a research study on alcohol-dependent subjects as the site had been unable to recruit patients with the desired clinical profile in a timely manner and in light of the two additional alcohol studies that had been completed. Such expenses totaled $3.4 million in 2008, $3.3 million in 2007 and $3.1 million in 2006, respectively, in funding for commercial pilots and unrestricted grants for a number of clinical research studies by researchers in the field of substance dependence and leading research institutions to evaluate the efficacy of the PROMETA Treatment Program in treating alcohol and stimulant dependence.  We plan to incur approximately $400,000 in 2009 for unrestricted research grants and commercial pilots.

2008.
Pilot programs are used in conjunction with drug court systems, state programs and managed care organizations to allow such programs to evaluate the outcomes and cost effectiveness of the PROMETA Treatment Program. The focus of these pilot programs is to assist such organizations in assessing the impact on their population, and as a result, the method, manner, timing, participants and metrics may change and develop over time, based on initial results from the particular program, other pilots, and research studies. We generally do not provide updates on status after a pilot is initially announced.

International

In 2007, we expanded our operations into Europe with our Swiss foreign subsidiary commencing operations in the first quarter of 2007. However, in 2008 we decided to substantially curtail our foreign operations to reduce costs and focus on our Catasys product offerings.


Recent Developments
 
Impairment Losses

On January 20, 2009 we sold our entire interest in our majority-owned, controlled subsidiary CompCare for aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5 million. We expect to recognize a gain of approximately $11.2 million from the sale of our CompCare interest, which will be included in our Consolidated Statement of OperationsImpairment charges for the three month period ending Marchyear ended December 31, 2009. Additionally, we entered into an administrative services only (ASO) agreement with CompCare2009 included $122,000 for assets related to provide certain administrative services under CompCare’s NCQA accreditation, including but not limited to case management and authorization services, in support of our newly launched specialty products and programs for autism and ADHD.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, we have initiated actions to reduce our operating expenses by an additional $10.2 million from the third quarter 2008 expenditure level, resulting in total budgeted operating expenses of approximately $17.7 million for 2009. The actions we took included significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel and related corporate support personnel, curtailment of our international operations, a reduction in outside consultant expense and overall reductions in overhead costs.
In May 2008, we entered into an agreement with a CIGNA HealthCare affiliate to be reimbursed for providing our PROMETA based substance dependence treatment program in Texas. The program became effective July 1, was initially offered through our managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, when we terminated the management services agreement and is now being expanded into Houston and Los Angeles. The program will not require any significant infrastructure investment by us$233,000 for intellectual property related to supportadditional indications for the agreement. Medical and psychosocial treatment is being provided by our licensed providers to CIGNA HealthCare members, and although we anticipate expansion throughout Texas, the clinical and financial impactuse of the program will be evaluated with the objectivePROMETA Treatment Program that are currently non-revenue-generating, both of continued expansion beyond Texas.
Behavioral Health Managed Care Serviceswhich resulted from impairment testing as of March 31, 2009.

Our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, typically enters into contracts on an annual basis to provide managed behavioral healthcareInterest and substance abuse treatment to clients’ members. Arrangements with clients fall into two broad categories: capitation arrangements, where clients pay CompCare a fixed fee per member per month, and fee-for-service and administrative service arrangements where CompCare may manage behavioral healthcare programs or perform various managed care services.  Approximately $34.1 million and $35.2 million, or 97% of CompCare’s revenues for both the year ended December 31, 2008 and the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, respectively, were derived from capitation arrangements. Under capitation arrangements, CompCare receives premiums from clients based on the number of covered members as reported by the clients. The amount of premiums received for each member is fixed at the beginning of the contract term. These premiums may be subsequently adjusted, up or down, generally at the commencement of each renewal period.Other Income

Effective January 1, 2007, CompCare commenced a contract with a health plan to provide behavioral healthcare services to approximately 250,000 Medicaid recipients in Indiana. This contract amounted to $17.8 millionInterest and $15 million, respectively, in revenueother income for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased by $137,000 compared to the same period in 2008 due to decreases in the invested balance of marketable securities and a decrease in interest rates, partially offset by the period January 13 thoughvalue of a put option associated with our auction rate securities (ARS).

Interest Expense

Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2007. This contract accounted for approximately 51%,2009 decreased by $521,000 compared to the same period in 2008 due to lower average debt balances on both our senior secured note and UBS line of CompCare’s annual revenue in 2008. As discussed in “Recent Developments” below, CompCare ceased providing behavioral health services tocredit, and by the effect of lower interest rates during this client effective on December 31, 2008.same period.

Seasonality of Business

Historically, CompCare’s managed care plans have experienced increased member utilization during the months of March, April and May, and consistently lower utilization by members during the months of June, July,


and August.  Such variationsLosses from Extinguishment of Debt

We recognized $330,000 in member utilization impact the costslosses on extinguishment of care during these months, generally having a negative impact on gross margins and operating profitsdebt during the former period, and a positive impact on gross margins and operating profits during the latter period.

Concentration of Risk

Over eighty percent of CompCare’s operating revenue is currently concentrated, and has been concentrated in past fiscal periods, in contracts with four to seven health plans to provide behavioral healthcare services under commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP plans. The terms of each contract are generally for one-year periods and are automatically renewable for additional one-year periods unless terminated by either party. The loss of one or more of these clients, without replacement by new business, may adversely impact CompCare’s financial results.

Recent Developments

On January 1, 2009, CompCare began providing behavioral health services for approximately 173,000 Medicaid recipients under contracts with two affiliated health plans in the states of Michigan and Illinois.  The contracts are expected to generate approximately $1.2 million in annual revenue and are for one-year terms with automatic one-year renewals.

Through its newly formed, majority owned subsidiary, CompCare de Puerto Rico, Inc., CompCare began providing, on December 1, 2008, behavioral health services to approximately 9,000 members of a health plan located in Puerto Rico. Effective January 1, 2009, CompCare also initiated pharmaceutical management services for the plan’s members. Services under the contract are expected to generate approximately $1.0 million of annual revenue. The contract is for a term of three years with automatic one-year renewals.

As ofyear ended December 31, 2008, CompCare ceased providing behavioral health services to 278,000 Medicaid members2009, resulting from pay-downs of its major Indiana HMO client, which had decided to manage its membership through its own provider delivery system. Revenues from this client accounted for $17.8$1.4 million or 51%and $318,000 on our senior secured note in February and September 2009, respectively. Such losses included accelerated amortization of CompCare's operating revenue, and $15.0 million, or 40%, of CompCare’s operating revenuesdebt discount totaling $208,000 for the year ended December 31, 2008 and2009.

Gain on the period from January 13 to December 31, 2007, respectively. Sale of Marketable Securities

In addition, CompCare’s contract with a Maryland HMO coveringAugust 2009, $1.1 million of our ARS was redeemed at par by the issuer, resulting in proceeds of approximately 11,000 Medicare members ended December 31, 2008. This contract accounted for $1.9 million, or 5%, and $1.3 million or 4%and a gain of CompCare's revenues for the year ended December 31, 2008 and the period from January 13 to December 31, 2007, respectively.

In October 2008, CompCare was awarded full accreditation by the NCQA.  NCQA accreditation validates that CompCare meets managed behavioral healthcare organization (MBHO) accreditation standards that govern quality improvement, utilization management, provider credentialing, members’ rights and responsibilities, and preventative care.  These standards confirm that an MBHO is founded on principles of quality and is continuously improving the clinical care and services it provides.  Full accreditation is granted for a period of three years to those plans that meet the NCQA’s rigorous standards.approximately $160,000.

How We Measure Our Results

Our healthcare services revenues to date have been primarily generated from fees that we charge to hospitals, healthcare facilities and other healthcare providers that license our PROMETA Treatment Program, and from patient service revenues related to our licensing and management services agreements with managed treatment centers. Our technology license and management services agreements provide for an initial fee for training and other start-up related costs, plus a combined fee for the licensed technology and other related services, generally set on a per-treatment basis, and thus a substantial portion of our revenues is closely related to the number of patients treated. Patients treated by managed treatment centers generate higher average revenues per PROMETA patient than our other licensed sites due to consolidation of their gross patient revenues in our financial statements.  Key indicators of our financial performance will be the number of health plans and other organizations that contract with us for our Catasys products, the number of managed care lives covered by such plans, and the number of facilities and healthcare providers that contract with us to license our technology and the number of patients that are treated by those providers using the PROMETA Treatment Program. Additionally, our financial results will depend on our ability to expand the adoption of Catasys and the PROMETA Treatment Program among government and other third


party payer groups, and our ability to effectively price these products, and manage general, administrative and other operating costs.

For behavioral health managed care services, our largest expense to date has been CompCare’s cost of behavioral health managed care services that it provides, which is based primarily on its arrangements with healthcare providers. Since CompCare’s costs are subject to increases in healthcare operating expenses based on an increase in the number and frequency of the members seeking behavioral health care services, CompCare’s profitability depends on its ability to predict and effectively manage healthcare operating expenses in relation to the fixed premiums it receives under capitation arrangements.  Providing services on a capitation basis exposes CompCare to the risk that its contracts may ultimately be unprofitable if CompCare is unable to anticipate or control healthcare costs.   Estimation of healthcare operating expense is one of our most significant critical accounting estimates. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Estimates.”

CompCare currently depends upon a relatively small number of customers for a significant percentage of its behavioral health managed care operating revenues. A significant reduction in sales to any of CompCare’s large customers or a customer exerting significant pricing and margin pressures on CompCare would have a material adverse effect on CompCare's consolidated results of operations and financial condition. In the past, some of CompCare’s customers have terminated their arrangements or have significantly reduced the amount of services requested (see Note 12 —Major Customers/Contracts).

Results of Operations

Table of Summary Financial Information

The table below and the discussion that follows summarize our results of operations and certain selected operating statistics for the last three fiscal years (amounts in thousands):

(In thousands) Year Ended December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
Revenues         
Behavioral health managed care services $35,156  $36,306  $- 
Healthcare services  6,074   7,695   3,906 
Total revenues  41,230   44,001   3,906 
             
Operating Expenses            
Behavioral health managed care expenses  36,496   35,679   - 
Cost of healthcare services  1,718   2,052   818 
General and administrative expenses  40,741   45,554   38,680 
Impairment loss  -   2,387   - 
Research and development  3,370   3,358   3,053 
Goodwill Impairment  9,775   -   - 
Depreciation and amortization  2,733   2,502   1,281 
Total operating expenses  94,833   91,532   43,832 
             
Loss from operations  (53,603)  (47,531)  (39,926)
             
Interest income  830   1,584   1,630 
Interest expense  (1,939)  (2,190)  - 
Other than temporary loss on marketable securities  (1,428)  -   - 
Loss on extinguishment of debt  -   (741)  - 
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities  5,744   3,471   - 
Other non-operating expense, net  5   32   - 
Loss before provision for income taxes $(50,391) $(45,375) $(38,296)

Includes results of CompCare, as reported in our behavioral health managed care segment, which was sold in January 2009.


Summary of Consolidated Operating Results

In 2008, our loss before provision for income taxes included a $9.8 million goodwill impairment charge, a $1.4 million other-than-temporary loss on marketable securities and $3.1 million in costs to streamline our operations. The 2007 loss before provision for income taxes includes a $2.4 million impairment charge related to intangible assets. Additionally, the 2008 results reflect $8.6 million in share-based expense compared to $2.6 million in 2007. Excluding the impact of these charges, the loss before provision for income taxes decreased by $12.9 million in 2008 when compared to 2007, primarily due to a $13.2 million reduction in total operating expenses and a $2.3 million increase in income from the change in fair value of warrant liabilities, partially offset by a $2.8 million decline in total revenues.
The decline in total revenues resulted mainly from the impact of streamlining of our healthcare services operations during 2008 to increase our focus on disease management and managed care opportunities, which included the elimination of field and regional sales personnel and closing of the PROMETA Center in San Francisco, as well as the loss of contracts and decline in membership in behavioral health managed care services.
The reduction in total operating expenses also resulted mainly from the streamlining in healthcare services operations, which accounted for a $13.9 million decrease in operating expenses in that segment compared to 2007 (excluding the impact of impairment charges, costs to streamline our operations and share-based expense), partially offset by an increase in claims expense in behavioral health managed care services.
The 2007 loss before provision for income taxes includes the $2.4 million impairment charge and $2.6 million of share-based expense and the 2006 results include $3.7 million of share-based expense. Excluding the impact of these charges, the loss before provision for income taxes in 2007 increased by $5.9 million compared to 2006, due to the inclusion of a $4.1 million loss from CompCare’s operations, a $6.1 million increase in operating expenses in healthcare services, $2.2 million increase in interest expense on debt outstanding and a $741,000 loss on extinguishment of debt, partially offset by a $3.8 million increase in revenues from healthcare services and favorable $3.5 million fair value adjustment of the warrant liability. We acquired a majority controlling interest in CompCare, resulting from our acquisition of Woodcliff on January 12, 2007, and began including its results in our consolidated financial statements subsequent to that date. These results are reported in our behavioral health managed care services segment.
Our healthcare services revenues virtually doubled in 2007, when compared to 2006. The increase was due to the increase in the number of patients treated at our U.S. licensed sites and at our managed treatment centers, administrative fees from new licensees and other revenues from the commencement of international operations and licenses with government agencies and other third-party payors.
Excluding the impact of CompCare, impairments and share-based expense, operating expenses increased by approximately $6.1 million in 2007 when compared to the same period in 2006. The increase is due mainly to the increase in the number of our sales field personnel, the expansion in number of licensees, the strengthening and expansion in our management and support teams, an increase in funding of clinical research studies and investment in development of additional markets for our services, including managed care, statewide agencies, criminal justice systems and other third-party payors as well as international opportunities.
We incurred approximately $1.9 million of interest expense during the year ended December 31, 2007 associated with the CompCare acquisition-related financing with Highbridge International LLC (Highbridge) that originally consisted of the issuance of a $10 million senior secured note and warrants to purchase our common stock.

Reconciliation of Segment Results

The following table summarizes and reconciles the loss from operations of our reportable segments to the loss before provision for income taxes from our consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006:

(In thousands) Year Ended December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
          
Healthcare services $(44,252) $(41,270) $(38,296)
Behavioral health managed care services  (6,139)  (4,105)  - 
Loss before provision for income taxes $(50,391) $(45,375) $(38,296)



Healthcare Services

The following table summarizes the operating results for healthcare services for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006:

(In thousands, except patient treatment data) December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
Revenues         
U.S. licensees $2,817  $3,807  $2,650 
Managed treatment centers (a)  2,006   2,416   1,137 
Other revenues  1,251   1,472   119 
Total revenues  6,074   7,695   3,906 
             
Operating Expenses            
Cost of healthcare services  1,718   2,052   818 
General and administrative expenses     
Salaries and benefits  21,392   21,272   16,212 
Other expenses  15,667   20,561   22,468 
Impairment loss  -   2,387   - 
Goodwill impairment  9,775   -   - 
Research and development  3,370   3,358   3,053 
Depreciation and amortization    1,861    1,578    1,281 
Total operating expenses  53,783   51,208   43,832 
             
Loss from operations  (47,709)  (43,513)  (39,926)
             
Interest income  804   1,439   1,630 
Interest expense  (1,663)  (1,926)  - 
Other than temporary loss on marketable securities  (1,428)  -   - 
Loss on extinguishment of debt  -   (741)  - 
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities  5,744   3,471   - 
Loss before provision for income taxes $(44,252) $(41,270) $(38,296)
             
PROMETA Patients Treated            
U.S. licensees  504   559   427 
Managed treatment centers (a)  148   239   140 
Other  69   124   15 
   721   922   582 
Average revenue per PROMETA patient treated (b) 
U.S. licensees $5,412  $5,444  $5,915 
Managed treatment centers (a)  9,041   8,840   8,121 
Other  8,449   5,810   2,463 
Overall average  6,455   6,374   6,357 

(a)Includes managed and/or licensed PROMETA Centers.
(b)
The average revenue per patient treated excludes administrative fees and other non-PROMETA patient revenues.

Year Ended December 31, 2008 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2007

Revenues

Revenues for the year ended December 31, 2008 decreased $1.6 million compared to 2007, mainly due to a $656,000 decrease in administrative fees earned from new licensees, a decline in the number of sites contributing to revenue, a decease in the number of patients treated at U.S.-licensed sites and managed treatment centers and a $222,000 decrease in revenues from third party payors and international locations, partially offset by increases in non-PROMETA treatments at managed treatment centers. The number of licensed sites contributing to revenue


amounted to 49 in 2008 compared to 70 in 2007. The number of patients treated at U.S.-licensed sites decreased to 505 patients in 2008 from 559 in 2007, resulting in a $310,000 decline in revenues. The number of patients treated at managed treatment centers decreased to 148 in 2008 from 239 in 2007, resulting in a $775,000 decline in revenue. The average revenue per treatment remained relatively unchanged at U.S. licensed sites, but increased slightly, by 2%, at managed treatment centers in 2008 compared to 2007. The increase in other treatment revenues at managed treatment centers was driven mainly by revenue from the new center in Dallas, Texas, which commenced operations in August 2007. The decrease in other revenues resulted principally from a decline in revenues from government payors. Our revenue may be further impacted in first quarter of 2009 by market conditions due to the uncertain economy, and also as we maintain our commitment to reduce operating expenses in components of healthcare services that are revenue generating, but unprofitable.

Operating Expenses

Total operating expenses amounted to $53.8 million in 2008 and include a $9.8 million impairment charge related to the goodwill assigned to healthcare services (following the acquisition of CompCare in 2007). We concluded that the goodwill had become fully impaired as part of our fourth quarter impairment testing, mainly resulting from the decline in the value of the reporting unit that arose from the downward re-pricing of risk that occurred broadly in the equity markets and affected the reporting unit in the quarter.  Additionally, 2008 expense includes $8.5 million of share-based expense (in addition to the $596,000 of share-based expense included in costs associated with streamlining our operations).
Also, 2008 expenses included $3.1 million (including $596,000 in share-based expense) in costs associated with actions taken to streamline our operations in January, April and the fourth quarter of 2008 to increase our focus on managed care opportunities. In January 2008, the actions we took to streamline operations included significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel and related corporate support personnel, closing the PROMETA Center in San Francisco, and reducing overall overhead costs and the number of outside consultants, all of which resulted in an overall reduction of operating expenses by 25% to 30% for the remainder of 2008. In April 2008, we took further action to streamline our operations by reducing total operating expenses an additional 20% to 25% for the remainder of 2008. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, we initiated actions to reduce our operating expenses by an additional $10.2 million from the third quarter 2008 expenditure level, resulting in total budgeted operating expenses of approximately $17.7 million for 2009.
Total operating expenses in 2007 amounted to $51.2 million and included a $2.4 million impairment charge related to the non-cash stock settlement reached with XINO Corporation (see discussion below) and $2.5 million in share-based expense.

Excluding the impact of the impairment charges, costs associated with streamlining our operations and share-based expense, operating expenses decreased by $13.8 million in 2008, compared to the same period in 2007, primarily due to a $13.8 million decrease in general and administrative expenses and a $334,000 decrease in costs of healthcare services, partially offset by a $283,000 increase in depreciation & amortization.

Cost of healthcare services consists of royalties we pay for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program, and costs incurred by our consolidated managed treatment centers (including PROMETA Centers) for direct labor costs for physicians and nursing staff, continuing care expense, medical supplies and treatment program medicine costs. The decrease in these costs primarily reflects the decrease in revenues from these treatment centers.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and benefits expense and other operating expense, including support and occupancy costs, outside services and marketing. Excluding the impairment and costs associated with streamlining our operations, general and administrative expenses decreased by $13.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the same period in 2007, due to decreases in all categories of expense. Salaries and benefits expense decreased by $6.0 million in 2008 compared to 2007, due to the decrease in personnel from 160 employees at December 31, 2007 to 81 employees at December 31, 2008, as we eliminated manager and staff positions in the field supporting our licensed sites and decreased our corporate staff supporting operations, research, sales and marketing efforts, new business initiatives and general and administrative functions. Support and occupancy costs, such as insurance, rent and travel costs, decreased by $2.6 million in 2008 compared to 2007 due to the overall decrease in staffing and corporate infrastructure. Costs related to outside services, such as


audit, legal, investor relations, marketing, business development, advertising and other consulting expenses decreased by $4.7 million in 2008 compared to 2007. Overall consulting expense declined by $1.7 million, advertising expense decreased by $1.5 million and legal costs were reduced by $927,000, compared to 2007.

Research and development expense remained relatively unchanged in 2008, compared to 2007.

Interest Income

Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2008 decreased compared to the same period in 2007 due to a decrease in the average invested balance of cash equivalents and marketable securities, and a decrease in average interest rates.

Interest Expense

Interest expense primarily relates to debt outstanding, which includes the $5 million amended senior secured note issued to Highbridge, the $5.8 million UBS line of credit and the CompCare convertible notes. The note issued to Highbridge bears interest at a rate equal to prime plus 2.5% (6.50% at December 31, 2008) and the UBS line of credit bears interest at a rate equal to the 91-day U.S. Treasury bill rate plus 120 basis points. For the year ended December 31, 2008, interest expense decreased by $263,000 when compared to the prior year, primarily from a lower average amount of debt outstanding and a decline in average interest rates.

Other than Temporary Loss on Marketable Securities

An impairment chargeImpairment charges of $1.4 million$185,000 related to certain of our auction rate securities portfolio (ARS) wasARS were recognized induring the fourth quarter of 2008.  ARS with an original par value of $11.5 million were written down to an estimated fair value of $10.1 million as ofyear ended December 31, 2008.2009. The charge wascharges were based on valuations of the securities performed by management at each balance sheet reporting date in 2009, including December 31, 2009, and were deemed necessary after an analysis of other-than-temporary impairment factors, includingmost notably, the severity of decline inlikelihood that we will be required to sell the ARS the length of time that the estimated fair value of the ARS had been below book value, our intent and ability to hold the ARS untilbefore they recover in value and current financial market conditions.value.

Change in Fair Value of Warrant Liability
Liabilities

WarrantsWe issued warrants in connection with aour registered direct stock placementplacements completed onin November 7, 2007 and warrants issuedSeptember 2009, and the amended and restated senior secured note in connection with the Highbridge note issued on January 18, 2007 and amended on July 31, 2008,2008. The warrants are being accounted for as liabilities in accordance with EITF 00-19, Financial Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments IndexedStandards Board (FASB) accounting rules, due to provisions in some warrants that protect the holders from declines in our stock price and Potentially Settled in, a Company’s Own Stock (EITF 00-19), based on an analysis of the terms and conditions of the warrant agreement.

The fair valuerequirement to deliver registered shares upon exercise of the warrants, issued in connection with the November 7, 2007 registered direct stock placement (five-year warrants to purchase approximately 2.4 million shares ofwhich is considered outside our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75) amounted to $49,000 and $2.8 million on December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, resulting in a $2.7 million non-operating gain in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for 2008. For the warrants issued in connection with the Highbridge note (five-year warrant to purchase approximately 1.3 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.15, based on amended terms), the estimated fair value amounted to $1.8 million on the date of issuance and $107,000 at December 31, 2008, resulting in a $1.7 million non-operating gain in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for 2008. Additionally, we recognized $1.3 million for the change in valuation related to prior periods, after the classification of the original warrants was reassessed at the date of amendment and reclassified from additional paid-in capital to liabilities. Bothcontrol.  The warrants are being valued atmarked-to-market each reporting period, using the Black-Scholes pricing model, to determine the fair market value per share.  We will continue to mark the warrants to market value each quarter-end until they are completely settled.settled or expire.

Year Ended December 31, 2007 ComparedThe change in fair value of the warrants amounted to Year Ended December 31, 2006

Revenues

Revenuesa net gain of $341,000 for the year ended December 31, 2007 virtually doubled2009, compared to 2006, due to an increase in the numbera net gain of patients treated across all of our markets, expansion of the number of contributing licensees,


administrative fees from new licensees and other revenues from the commencement of international operations and licenses with third-party payors. The number of PROMETA patients treated increased by 58% in 2007 compared to 2006. The number of licensed sites that contributed to revenues increased to 70$5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 41 sites contributing to revenues in 2006, including two new PROMETA Centers that were opened in San Francisco and New Jersey in January 2007, and the addition of a managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, in August 2007.  The average revenue per patient treated at U.S. licensed sites in 2007 decreased compared to 2006 due to higher average discounts granted by our licensees resulting principally from the launch of a patient assistance program with our licensees, new site training and business development initiatives. The average revenue for PROMETA patients treated at the managed treatment centers increased in 2007 from 2006 due to a lower percentage of discounted and training patients, and is higher than our other licensed sites due to the consolidation of their gross patient revenues in our financial statements. Other revenues in 2007 consisted of revenues from our international operations and third-party payors. International revenues in 2007 include the commencement of operations in Europe in the first quarter of 2007 and revenues from Panama commencing in September 2007.

Operating Expenses

Total operating expenses increased by $7.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, as we incurred a $2.4 million impairment loss related to the non-cash stock settlement reached with XINO Corporation, increased the number of our sales field personnel, expanded the number of licensees, strengthened and expanded our management and support teams, increased funding for clinical research studies and invested in development of additional markets for our services, including managed care, statewide agencies, criminal justice systems and other third-party payors as well as international opportunities.2008.
Behavioral Health

Cost ofOur behavioral healthcare services consists of royalties we pay for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program, and costs incurred by our consolidated managed treatment centers (including PROMETA Centers) for direct labor costs for physicians and nursing staff, continuing care expense, medical supplies and treatment program medicine costs. The increasecommenced in these costs primarily reflects the increase in revenues from these treatment centers, including the new sites added in 2007 discussed above.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and benefits expense and other operating expense, including support and occupancy costs, outside services and marketing. General and administrative expenses increased by $3.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, due mainly to an increase in salaries and benefits expenses and support and occupancy costs, partially offset by reductions in certain outside services costs and advertising expenses. Salaries and benefits expenses increased by $5.1 million in 2007 compared to 2006, due to the increase in personnel from 120 employees at December 31, 2007 to approximately 160 employees at December 31, 2007, as we added managers and staff in the field to support our licensed sites, increased our corporate staff to support our rapid growth in operations, research, sales and marketing efforts, new business initiatives and general and administrative functions. Support and occupancy costs, such as insurance, rent and travel costs, increased by $2.5 million in 2007 compared to 2006 due to the growth of our business and the resulting overall increase in staffing and corporate infrastructure to support this growth.  Costs related to outside services, such as audit, legal, investor relations, marketing, business development and other consulting expenses and non-cash stock-based compensation charges for services received from non-employees, decreased by $1.9 million in 2007 compared to 2006. Advertising expense declined to $872,000 from $3.4 million in 2006, primarily due to increased costs for a drug addiction awareness campaign for PROMETA in the first half of 2006.

The impairment loss of $2.4 million resulted from the non-cash settlement agreement reached with XINO Corporation in August 2007 to release 310,000 of the 360,000 shares of our common stock previously issued to XINO in 2003 in connection with our acquisition of a patent for a treatment method for opiate addition, which has never been utilized in our business plan.

Research and development expense increased by $306,000 in 2007 compared to 2006 due to an increase in funding for unrestricted grants for research studies to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of our PROMETA Treatment Program and the commencement of additional commercial pilot studies.



Interest Income

Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2007 decreased compared to the same period in 2006 due to a decrease in the average invested balance of cash equivalents and marketable securities, and a decrease in average interest rates.

Interest Expense

Interest expense primarily relates to the $10 million senior secured note issued on January 17, 2007 to finance the CompCare acquisition, accrued at a rate equal to prime plus 2.5% (9.75% at December 31, 2007). For the year ended December 31, 2008, interest expense includes $949,000 in amortization of the $1.4 million discount resulting from the value allocated to the warrants issued with the debt and related borrowing costs.  As discussed more fully in Note 6 – Debt Outstanding, we entered into a redemption agreement to redeem $5 million in principal related to the senior secured notes as part of the securities offering completed on November 7, 2007.

Loss on Extinguishment of Debt

The loss on extinguishment of debt of $741,000 was due to a redemption agreement with Highbridge to redeem $5 million in principal related to the senior secured notes as part of our securities offering completed on November 7, 2007. The loss represents the difference between the reacquisition price, which included $350,000 for an early redemption penalty, and the net carrying amount of the principal amount being redeemed and related deferred costs of issuance.

Change in Fair Value of Warrant Liability

We issued five-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 2.4 million additional shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share in connection with a registered direct stock placement completed on November 7, 2007. The proceeds attributable to the warrants, based on the fair value of the warrants at the date of issue, amounted to approximately $6.3 million, and was accounted for as a liability in accordance with EITF 00-19. The warrant liability was revalued at $2.8 million at December 31, 2007, resulting in a $3.5 million non-operating gain to the statement of operations. We will continue to mark the warrants to market value each quarter-end until they are completely settled.



Behavioral Health Managed Care Services

2008. The following table summarizes the operating results for behavioral health managed care services for the yearyears ended December 31, 20082009 and the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, which consisted entirely of the operations of CompCare subsequent to our acquisition of a majority controlling interest in CompCare on January 12, 2007 and related purchase accounting adjustments. CompCare’s operating results for periods prior to the acquisition are not included in our consolidated financial statements.  In January 2009, we sold our interest in CompCare.2008:

   For the year ended 
(in thousands) December 31, 
   2009  2008 
        
Revenues $-  $- 
         
Operating Expenses     
 General and administrative expenses       
 Salaries and benefits $2,651  $3,209 
 Other expenses  455   2,165 
 Impairment charges  758   - 
 Depreciation and amortization  83   - 
 Total operating expenses $3,947  $5,374 
          
Loss before provision for income taxes $(3,947) $(5,374)
     For the period 
  For the year  January 13 
  ended  through 
(In thousands) December 31,  December 31, 
  2008  2007 
Revenues      
Capitated contracts $34,117  $35,226 
Non-capitated contracts  1,039   1,080 
Total revenues  35,156   36,306 
         
Operating Expenses        
Claims expense  30,492   29,041 
Other behavioral health managed care services expense  6,004   6,638 
Total healthcare operating expense  36,496   35,679 
General and administrative expenses  3,682   3,721 
Depreciation and amortization  872   923 
Loss from operations  (5,894)  (4,017)
         
Other non-operating income, net  5   32 
Interest income  26   143 
Interest expense  (276)  (263)
Loss before provision for income taxes $(6,139) $(4,105)
         
Total membership  959,000   1,025,000 
Medical Loss Ratio (1)  89%  82%

(1) Medical loss ratio reflects claims expenses as a percentage of revenue of capitated contracts.

Year Ended December 31, 2008 Compared to Period January 13, 2007 through December 31, 2007

Revenues

Operating revenues from capitated contracts decreased by $1.1 million, or approximately 3%, for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the period January 13 through December 31, 2007. The decline stems mainly from the loss of two clients in Indiana and one in Texas accounting for approximately $5.7 million of revenue during the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, compared to $37,000 during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was partially offset by revenue attributable to twelve more days in the 2008 period, accounting for approximately $1.2 million, and $3.7 million of additional business from four existing customers in Indiana, Maryland and Michigan. The decrease in non-capitated revenue is primarily attributable to the loss of business from customers in Indiana and Texas.

Operating Expenses

For the year ended December 31, 2008, claims expense on capitated contracts increased by approximately $1.5 million when compared to the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, due to a higher medical loss ratio


experienced with the major Indiana HMO client and the additional twelve days included in our consolidated financial statements for the 2008 period relative to 2007. Claims expense as a percentage of capitated revenues increased from 83.5% for the period January 13 through
Year Ended December 31, 20072009 Compared to 89.4%Year Ended December 31, 2008

Revenues

Revenues in 2009 and 2008 were insignificant as we were in the process of launching this segment of the business.

General and Administrative Expenses

Total general and administrative expenses decreased by $2.3 million in 2009 when compared to 2008, due mainly to a $1.2 million reduction in consulting and outside services expense, a $558,000 decrease in salaries and a $515,000 decline in other general expenses.

Impairment Losses

After performing a quarterly impairment analysis at the end of the first quarter of 2009, we determined that the carrying value of software related to our disease management program was not recoverable and was fully impaired. We recognized an impairment charge of $758,000 related to this capitalized software in the first quarter of fiscal 2009.

Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2008 due to a high medical loss ratio experienced with CompCare's major Indiana client.

The decline in other healthcare expenses (which are attributable to servicing both capitated and non-capitated contracts) in 2008 compared2009 consisted of depreciation of the capitalized software prior to the period January 13 through December 31, 2007,impairment discussed above. There was due mainly to staff decreasesno depreciation during the same periods in response to the loss of revenues in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

General and administrative expenses decreased slightly in 2008 compared to the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, due primarily to the impact of cost-reduction efforts in the third and fourth quarter of 2008, the $416,000 in severance costs incurred from the retirement of CompCare’s former CEO in 2007, $239,000 in costs and expenses incurred in 2007 relating to the acquisition and proposed merger between our company and CompCare and for legal services in defense against two class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger that have subsequently been dismissed. The decreases were partially offset by the impact of twelve more days in 2008 compared to the period in the prior year, increased consulting fees for compliance and information system management services, $80,000 in additional compensation expense from stock options due to option grants subsequent to September 30, 2007, and increased financial advisory fees. General and administrative expense as a percentage of operating revenue was approximately 10% for both 2008 and the period January 13, 2007 to December 31, 2007.

Depreciation and amortization in 2008 and the period January 13 through December 31, 2007 includes $719,000 and $775,000, respectively, of amortization related to the fair value attributable to managed care contracts and other identifiable intangible assets acquired as part of the CompCare acquisition.

Interest Income

Interest income for 2008 decreased compared to the period January 13 through December 31, 2007 due to a decline in the average balance of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, and in average investment yields.

Interest Expense

Interest expense primarily relates to the $2.2 million in 7.5% convertible subordinated debentures at CompCare and includes approximately $84,000 and $78,000 of amortization related to the purchase price allocation adjustment related to the CompCare acquisition for 2008 and the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, respectively.2008.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Liquidity and Going Concern

As of December 31, 2008,March 29, 2010, we had a balancecash on hand of approximately $11.0 million in cash, cash equivalents and current marketable securities,$1.9 million. At presently anticipated rates of which approximately $1.1 million was held by CompCare. In addition,spending, we had approximately $10.1 million (net of $1.4 million impairment charge for other than temporary decline in value) of ARS, which are classified in long-term assets as of December 31, 2008.

 ARS are variable-rate instruments with longer stated maturities whose interest rates are reset at predetermined short-term intervals through a Dutch auction system. However, commencing in February 2008, auctions for these securities have failed, meaning the parties desiringwill need to sell securities could not be matched with an adequate number of buyers, resulting in our having to continue to hold these securities. We believe that we ultimately should be able to liquidate all of our ARS investments without significant loss because the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government. However, current conditions in the ARS market make it likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls or refinances the securities, or they mature. As a result of the current turmoil in the credit markets, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist. Based on the foregoing, we believe at the current time that our ARS investments most likely cannot be sold at parobtain additional funds within the next 12 months. Therefore, we have classified the ARS investments in long-term assets at December 31, 2008.


In October 2008, UBS made a “Rights” offering90 days to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all auction-rate securities held by us inavoid drastically curtailing or ceasing our UBS account. The Rights permit us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. As discussed below in “Capital Structure & Financing Activities” below, UBS has provided us, as part of the offering, a line of credit equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. The line of credit has certain restrictions described in the prospectus.operations. We accepted this offer on November 6, 2008.

Due to our current financial condition, we are no longer able to conclude that we have the ability to hold the ARS until we are able to recover full value for them. Accordingly, we recorded a $1.4 million impairment charge for other than temporary decline in value of the ARS as of December 31, 2008. If current market conditions deteriorate further, the credit rating of the ARS issuers deteriorates, or the anticipated recovery in the market values does not occur, we may be required to make further adjustments to the carrying value of the ARS through impairment charges in the Consolidated Statement of Operations, and any such impairment adjustments may be material.

As of December 31, 2008, we had a working capital deficit of approximately $11.5 million, of which $5.6 million is related to CompCare, which was sold on January 20, 2009. Additionally, our working capital deficit is impacted by $5.7 million of outstanding borrowings under the UBS line of credit that is payable on demand and classified in current liabilities, but are secured by $10.1 million of ARS investments that are classified in long-term assets as discussed above.  We have incurred significant net losses and negative operating cash flows since our inception. We expect to continue to incur net losses and negative operating cash flows for at least the next twelve months. As of December 31, 2008, these conditions raised substantial doubt from our auditors asexplore alternative ways to our ability to continue as a going concern. Our ability to fund our ongoing operations and continue as a going concern is dependent on raising additional capital, signing and generating revenue from new contracts for our Catasys managed care programs and the success of management’s plans to increase revenue and continue to decrease expenses.   In the fourth quarter of 2008, management took actions that resulted in reducing annual operating expenses by $10.2 million compared to the third quarter of 2008.  In addition, management currently has plans for additional cost reductions from the elimination of certain positions in our licensee and PROMETA Center operations and related corporate staff and a reduction in certain support and occupancy costs, consulting and other outside services if required. Also, we have renegotiated certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms. We have also negotiated and plan to negotiate more favorable payment terms with vendors, which include negotiating settlements for outstanding liabilities. We may exit additional markets in our licensee and PROMETA Center operations to reduce costs or if management determines that those markets will not provide short term profitability. Additionally, we are pursuing new Catasys contracts, additionalraise capital and will consider liquidatingsettle our ARS, if necessary. obligations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts to generate, increase, or maintain revenue. We have been in discussions with third parties regarding financing that management anticipates would, if concluded, meet our capital needs. We may not be successful in raisingrevenue; or raise necessary funds on acceptable terms or at all, and we may not be able to offset this by sufficient reductions in expenses and increases in revenue. If this occurs, we may be unable to meet our cash obligations as they become due and we may be required to further delay or reduce operating expenses and curtail our operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us.us, or we may be unable to continue as a going concern.

Our ability to fund our ongoing operations and continue as a going concern is dependent on raising additional capital, signing and generating revenue from new contracts for our Catasys managed care program and the success of management’s plans to increase revenue and continue to decrease expenses. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, and continuing in each quarter of 2009, management has taken actions that have resulted in reducing annual operating expenses. These efforts have resulted in reductions in operating expenses of approximately $33 million from 2008 levels. The actions we took included elimination of certain positions in our licensee and managed treatm ent center operations and related corporate support personnel, curtailment of our international operations, a reduction in certain support and occupancy costs, a reduction in outside consultant expense and overall reductions in overhead costs. In addition, we took further actions throughout 2009 to streamline our operations and increase the focus on managed care opportunities. Also, we have renegotiated certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more favorable terms. We have negotiated and plan to negotiate settlements for outstanding liabilities. We have exited certain markets in our licensee operations that we have determined will not provide short-term profitability.

 
CompCare
36


We may exit additional territories in our licensee operations and further curtail or restructure our company managed treatment center to reduce costs if management determines that those territories will not provide short-term profitability.

Subsequent to year-end we settled claims for outstanding payables in the amount of $1,235,000 by issuing 5,455,000 shares of our common stock. Such settlement was approved by the court pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended.
In September 2009, we raised approximately $7 million in a registered direct equity financing with select institutional investors. We are pursuing additional new Catasys contracts and additional capital.

 In February 2008, the market for ARS effectively ceased when the vast majority of auctions failed and prevented holders from selling their investments. Although the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market conditions it is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the issuer calls the securities. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or does not exist. In October 2008, UBS made a rights offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all ARS held by us in our UBS account. The rights offering permits us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. We accepted this offer in November 2008. Because of our ability to sell the ARS under the UBS rights offering, the ARS investments have been classified in current assets at December 31, 2009. In August 2009, $1.1 million of our ARS was redeemed at par by the issuer, resulting in proceeds of approximately $1.3 million and a gain of approximately $160,000. As discussed below in Capital Structure & Financing Activities, all of the proceeds were used to pay down the UBS line of credit facility.

As part of the rights offering, UBS provided to us a line of credit equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. At December 31, 2008, CompCare had net cash on hand of approximately $1.1 million, a working capital deficit of $5.7 million and a stockholders’ equity deficit of $9.2 million. On January 20, 2009, we sold our entire interesthad $6.5 million of outstanding borrowing under the UBS line of credit that is payable on demand and is secured by the ARS. We granted additional redemption rights in CompCare for grossconnection with the amendment of the senior secured note that would require us to use any margin loan proceeds in excess of $1.5$5.8 million and as a result we are under no obligation to provide CompCare with any form if financing or cash investment.pay down the principal amount of the senior secured note. The line of credit has certain restrictions described in the UBS rights offering prospectus.

Cash Flows

NetWe used $13.4 million of cash used infor continuing operating activities included $24.0during the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $24 million and $41.3 million for healthcare services operations during 2008 and 2007, respectively. The primary source of fundsthe same period in our healthcare services operations includes revenue from licensing the PROMETA Treatment Program and managed treatment centers and revenues from government and third-party payors.2008. Use of funds in operating activities include general and administrative expense, (excludingexcluding share-based expense),expense, provision for doubtful accounts and loss on disposition of assets, the cost of healthcare services revenue and research and development costs, which totaled approximately $32.6$6.4 million in 2008,2009, compared to $44.7$15.6 million for 2007.in 2008. The decrease in net cash used between 2008 and 2007 reflects the decline in such expenses, resulting mainly from our efforts to streamline operations, as described below.above.
In January 2008, we streamlined our healthcare services operations to increase our focus on managed care opportunities, which resultedCapital expenditures in an overall reduction of 25% to 30% of operating expenses from prior levels. The actions we took included significant reductions in field and regional sales personnel and related corporate support personnel, closing the PROMETA Center in San Francisco and reducing overall overhead costs and the number of outside consultants. In April 2008 we continued to streamline our operations by reducing future monthly costs an additional 20% to 25%2009 were $40,000, compared to the three months ended March 31,$993,000 in 2008. Following the streamlining actions taken in January 2008 and April 2008, general and administrative expense (excluding share-based expense), cost of healthcare services revenue and research and development costs were $6.1 million in the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2008, compared to $10.7 million, $8.5 million and $7.3 million in the first, second and third quarters of 2008, respectively, and an average of $11.2 million per quarter in 2007. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, we have initiated actions to reduce our operating expenses by an additional $10.2 million from the third quarter 2008 expenditure level, resulting in total budgeted operating expenses of approximately $17.7 million for 2009.

We recorded approximately $3.1 million in costs associated with these actions during 2008, which primarily represent severance and related benefits and costs incurred to close the San Francisco PROMETA Center and international operations. All such costs are included in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

During 2008, we expended approximately $993,000 in capital expenditures for the development of our information systems and other equipment needs. We expect our capital expenditures to be approximately $40,000 during 2009. Our future capital requirements will depend upon many factors, including progress with our marketing efforts, the time and costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining and enforcing patent claims and other proprietary rights, the necessity of, and time and costs involved in obtaining, regulatory approvals, competing technological and market developments, and our ability to establish collaborative arrangements, effective commercialization, marketing activities and other arrangements.

Other

Additionally, we have received $2.0 millionAs discussed above, our current plans call for expending cash at a rate of approximately $650,000 per month, excluding short-term debt, non-current accrued liability payments and $1.7 millionthe impact of proceeds from exercises of stock options and warrants during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. There were no exercises of stock options and warrants during 2008.

Investment in CompCare

In January 2007, we acquired all of the outstanding membership interests of Woodcliffmanagement’s plans for $9 million in cash and approximately 215,000 shares of our common stock. Woodcliff owns 1,739,000 shares of common stock and 14,400 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of CompCare, the conversion of which would result in us owning over 50% the outstanding shares of common stock of CompCare as of that date. The preferred stock has voting rights and, combined with the common shares held by us, gives us voting control over CompCare.  The preferred stock gives us rights, including:

●  
The right to designate the majority of CompCare’s Board of Directors
●  
Dividend and liquidation preferences, and
●  
Anti-dilution protection.

In addition, without our consent, CompCare is prevented from engaging in any of the following transactions:additional cost reductions.
 
●  
Any sale or merger involving a material portion of assets or business
●  
Any single or series of related transactions in excess of $500,000, and
●  
Incurring any debt in excess of $200,000.

We received $10 million in proceeds from the issuance of a secured note to finance the cash portion of the CompCare acquisition. See discussion in “Highbridge Senior Secured Note” below.

Our controlling interest in CompCare did not require any material amount of additional cash investment or expenditures by us in 2008, other than expenditures made by CompCare from its existing cash reserves and cash flow from its operations.
 
Pursuant to a stock purchase agreement between WoodCliff (our wholly-owned subsidiary) and Core Corporate Consulting Group, Inc (CCCG), dated January 14,On September 17, 2009, and effective as of January 20, 2009, we have disposed of our entire interest in our controlled subsidiary Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare), consisting of 14,400 shares of Class A Series Preferred Stock, and 1,739,130 shares of common stock of CompCare held by Woodcliff, for aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5 million. We expect to recognize a gain of approximately $11.2 million from the sale of our CompCare interest, which will be included in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three month period ending March 31, 2009.

CompCare Cash Flow

During the year ended December 31, 2008, CompCare's net cash and cash equivalents decreased by $5.2 million.  Net cash used in behavioral health managed care operations totaled $5.5 million, attributable primarily to payment of claims on the Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Maryland contracts which have experienced high utilization of services by members.  Approximately $1.5 million of the total cash usage was due to a timing difference in the monthly capitation remittance from CompCare’s large Indiana client, which was received in January 2009.  In addition, approximately $0.7 million in cash was used to pay accrued claims payable relating to three contracts that terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2007, and $416,000 was used to make a contractually required severance payment to CompCare’s former Chief Executive Officer.  Cash used in investing activities is comprised of $48,000 in additions to property and equipment offset by $27,000 in proceeds from payments received on notes receivable.  Cash provided by financing activities consists primarily of $163,000 in net proceeds from the issuance of common stock and $200,000 from the issuance of a convertible promissory note in September 2008, providing additional funds for working capital purposes.  Other cash flows from financing activities consist of repayment of debt of $55,000.

At December 31, 2008, CompCare had a working capital deficit of $5.7 million and a stockholders’ deficit of $9.2 million.  During June and July of 2008, CompCare reduced its usage of consultants and temporary employees and eliminated certain staffing positions.  In addition CompCare implemented a 10% salary reduction for employees at the vice president level and above and reduced outside directors fees by 10%. CompCare has also requested rate increases from several of its existing clients. In February 2009, CompCare obtained additional equity financing in the amount of $1.6 million through the sale of 6.4 million shares of its unregistered common stock to two investors.

The unpaid claims liability for managed care services is estimated using an industry-accepted actuarial paid completion factor methodology and other statistical analyses. These estimates are subject to the effects of trends in utilization and other factors.  Although considerable variability is inherent in such estimates, CompCare believes that the unpaid claims liability is adequate. However, actual results could differ from the $6.8 million claims payable amount reported as of December 31, 2008.

Capital Structure & Financing Activities

Public and Private Placement Stock Offerings

We have financed our operations, since inception, primarily through the sale of shares of our common stock in public and private placement stock offerings.  The following table sets forth a summary of our equity offering proceeds, net of expenses, since our inception (in millions):

DateTransaction Type Amount 
September 2003Private Placement $21.3 
December 2004Private Placement  21.3 
November 2005Public Offering  40.2 
December 2006Private Placement  24.4 
November 2007Registered Direct Placement  42.8 
   $150.0 

On November 7, 2007, we completed a registered direct placement with select institutional investors, in which we issued an aggregate of 9,635,0009,333,000 shares of common stock at a price of $4.79$0.75 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $46.2 million,


with select institutional investors.$7 million. We also issued five-yearthree-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 2.4 million2,333,000 additional shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75$0.85 per share. Included in the gross proceeds was $5.35 million from the conversion of $5 million of the senior secured notes issued to Highbridge (see discussion below), which includes $350,000 based on a redemption price of 107% of the principal amount being redeemed pursuant to a redemption agreement entered into with Highbridge in November 2007. The fair value of the warrants at the date of issue was estimated at $6.3 million,$814,000, and this portion of the proceeds was accounted for as a liability in accordance with EITF 00-19.since accounting rules require us to presume a cash settlement of the warrants because there is a requirement to deliver registered shares of stock upon exercise, which is considered outside our control. We incurred approximately $3.2 million$883,000 in fees to placement agents and other transactiontransa ction costs in connection with the transaction.

In December 2006, wetransaction, which includes approximately $184,000 relating to 560,000 warrants issued 3,573,000 sharesto placement agents, representing the estimated fair value on the date of common stock at a price of $7.30 per share in a closed private placement offeringissue. These warrants are also being accounted for a total of $26.1 million in proceeds from funds affiliated with existing investors and accredited institutional investors. We paid $1.8 million in placement fees to the underwriters in connection with the transaction.

In November 2005, we completed an underwritten equity offering of 9,200,000 shares at a price of $4.75 per share for a total of $43.7 million in proceeds.  We paid $3.1 million in placement fees to the underwriters in connection with the transaction.as liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet.

Highbridge Senior Secured Note
 
In January 2007, to finance theour acquisition of a majority controlling interest in CompCare, acquisition, we entered into a securities purchase agreement pursuant to which we sold to Highbridge International LLC (Highbridge) (a) $10 million original principal amount of a senior secured notesnote and (b) warrants to purchase up to approximately 250,000 shares of our common stock (adjusted to 285,000285,185 shares as of December 31, 2007). The note bears interest at a rate of prime plus 2.5%, interest payable quarterly commencing on April 15, 2007, and maturesoriginally matured on January 15, 2010, The note was redeemable at our option anytime prior to maturity at a redemption price ranging from 103% to 110% of the principal amount during the first 18 months and was originally redeemable at the option of Highbridge beginning on July 18, 2008.

Total original funds received of $10.0 million were allocated to the warrant and the senior secured note in the amounts of $1.4 million and $8.6 million, respectively, in accordance with their relative fair values as determined at the date of issuance. The value allocated to the warrant was treated as a discount to the note and was amortized to interest expense over the 18 month period between the date of issuance (January 17, 2007) and the date that Highbridge first had the right to redeem the note (July 18, 2008), using the effective interest method. In addition, we paid a $150,000 origination fee and incurred approximately $150,000 in other costs associated with the financing, which were allocated to the warrant and senior secured note in accordance with the relative fair values assigned to these instruments, and was deferred and also amortized over the same 18-month period.

The original warrant issued had a term of five years, and was initially exercisable at $12.01 per share, or 120% of the $10.01 closing price of our common stock on January 16, 2007. Pursuant to an anti-dilution adjustment clause in the note, the exercise price of the warrant was adjusted to $10.52 per share and the number of shares was adjusted to 285,185. The warrant is subject to further adjustments if we sell or are deemed to have sold shares at a price below the adjusted exercise price per share, and will be proportionately adjusted for stock splits or dividends. Similarly, if we were to issue convertible debt, the anti-dilution adjustment would also be triggered should the conversion price be less than it current price per share.

We entered into a redemption agreement with Highbridge to redeem $5 million in principal related to the senior secured note as part of our securities offering completed on November 7, 2007. Included in the gross proceeds received on that date was $5.35 million for the conversion of $5 million of the senior note, which also included payment of $350,000 for an early redemption penalty, based on a redemption price of 107% of the principal amount being redeemed pursuant to the redemption agreement. The $350,000 is included as part of the reacquisition cost of the notes and the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the principal amount redeemed was recognized as a loss of $741,000 on extinguishment of debt in our statement of operations during the year ended December 31, 2007.

On July 31, 2008, we amended the note to extend, from July 18, 2008 to July 18, 2009, the optional redemption date exercisable by Highbridge for the $5 million remaining under the  Note,note, and remove certain restrictions on our ability to obtain a margin loan on our ARS. In connection with this extension, we granted Highbridge additional

redemption rights in the event of certain strategic transactions or other events generating additional liquidity for us, including, without limitation, the conversion of some or all of our ARS into cash. We also granted Highbridge a right of first refusal relating to the disposition of our ARS and amended the existing warrant held by Highbridge for 285,185 shares of our common stock at $10.52 per share. The expiration da te of the warrant was amended warrant expiresto five years from the amendment date and is exercisable for 1,300,0001.3 million shares of our common stock at a price per share of $2.15, priced off of the $2.14 closing price of our common stock on July 22, 2008. The terms of the amended warrant required that it be accounted for as a liability in accordance in EITF 00-19FASB accounting rules and the fair value amounted to $1.8 million at the date of amendment. The interest terms of the note remained unchanged at a rate of prime plus 2.5%, which amounted to a current interest rate at December 31, 20082009 of 5.75% and the note is classified in short-term liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet.

PursuantOn August 11, 2009, we amended and restated the senior secured note with Highbridge to EITF 96-19, Debtor’s Accounting forextend the maturity date from January 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010, and Highbridge agreed to give up its optional redemption rights. We also committed to exercising our right to sell our ARS in accordance with the terms of the rights offering by UBS, who sold them to us, and use the proceeds from the sale to redeem the note. If we borrow or raise capital, we will use all or a Modification or Exchangeportion of Debt Instruments,the funds raised to redeem the note at 110%. We also amended all 1.8 million warrants that had been previously issued to Highbridge to purchase shares of our common stock (including 1.3 million issued in conjunction with the amended and restated note in 2008 and 540,000 issued in conjunction with the November 2007 registered direct financing), to change the exercise price to $0.28 per share, and extend the expiration date to five years from the amendment date.


During the year ended December 31, 2009, we drew down additional proceeds under the UBS line of credit facility, and used the proceeds to reduce the principal balance on our senior secured note with Highbridge. We made an additional $318,000 pay down on the senior secured note in September 2009, using proceeds that we received from the registered direct stock financing that was considered to have substantially different terms and was accounted forcompleted in the same manner as amonth. We recognized losses of $330,000 on extinguishment of debt extinguishment. The difference between the fair value of the amended debt and the carrying value of the original debt amounted to $1.7 million and was recognized as a debt extinguishment gain. The incremental fair value of the amended warrant compared to the original warrant, treated as consideration granted by us for the amendment, amounted to $1.7 million on the date of amendment and was accounted for as a debt extinguishment loss since the amendment is being accounted for as a debt extinguishment. The gain and loss on the debt extinguishment offset each other and netted to a zero amount. The difference between the fair value and principal amount of the amended debt, amounting to $1.7 million, is being treated as a discount to the note and is being amortized to interest expense over a 12-month period, until the July 18, 2009 optional redemption date. The warrant liability was revalued at $107,000 at December 31, 2008, resulting in $1.7 million non-operating gainfrom these pay downs, which are included in our Consolidated Statement of Operationsloss from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. We will continue to re-measure the warrants at fair value each reporting period until they are completely settled or expire.2009.

The senior secured note restricts any new debt offerings so that we are only able to issueother than unsecured subordinated debt so long as thecalling for principal payments are beyond the maturity of the senior secured note  (January(July 15, 2010) and thean interest rate that is not greater than the senior secured note rate (Prime+(prime plus 2.5%). The new debt cannot have call rights during the senior secured note term and Highbridge must consent to the issuance of new debt.

In connection with the financing, we entered into a security agreement granting Highbridge a first-priority perfected security interest in all of our assets owned at the date of the original note or acquired thereafter. We also entered into a pledge agreement with Highbridge, as collateral agent, pursuant to which we delivered equity interests evidencing 65% of our ownership of our foreign subsidiaries. In the event of a default, the collateral agent is given broad powers to sell or otherwise deal with the pledged collateral. There are no material financial covenant provisions associated with the senior secured note.

UBS Line of Credit

In May 2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS, provided us with a demand margin loan facility collateralized by our ARS, which allowed us to borrow up to 50% of the UBS-determined market value of our ARS.

As discussed above in “Liquidity,”Liquidity and Going Concern, UBS made a “Rights”rights offering to its clients in October 2008, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all ARS held in our UBS account. As part of the offering, UBS has provided us a line of credit, (replacing the demand margin loan), subject to certain restrictions as described in the rights prospectus, equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS, until they are purchased by UBS. We accepted the UBS offer on November 6, 2008.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, the outstanding balance on our line of credit was $5.7$6.5 million. In August 2009, we paid down $1.3 million on the UBS line of credit, using 100% of the proceeds received from the redemption of certain ARS by the issuer, at par. The loan is subject to a rate of interest based upon the current 91-day90-day U.S. Treasury bill rate plus 120 basis points, payable monthly, and is carried in short-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.

consolidated balance sheet.
54


CompCare

Debt outstanding also includes 7.5% convertible subordinated debentures of CompCare with a remaining principal balance of $2,244,000. As part of the acquisition-related purchase price allocation, an adjustment of $266,000 was made at the date of acquisition to reduce the carrying value of this debt to its estimated fair value. This adjustment was treated as a discount and is being amortized over the remaining contractual maturity term of the note (April 2010) using the effective interest method.

On September 3, 2008, CompCare entered into a purchase agreement with an investor, in which it issued 200,000 shares of CompCare common stock and a $200,000 convertible promissory note for aggregate consideration of $250,000. CompCare intends to use the net proceeds from the sale of stock and the promissory note for working capital and general corporate purposes. The promissory note matures August 31, 2011 and bears interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, payable monthly in arrears. The promissory note is convertible into CompCare common stock at the rate of $0.25 per share.

As discussed above, we sold our interest in CompCare in January 2009.

Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments

The following table sets forth a summary of our material contractual obligations and commercial commitments as of December 31, 20082009 (in thousands):

Contractual Obligations Total  Less than 1 year  1-3 years  3-5 years  More than 5 years 
Debt obligations, including interest (4) $13,494  $11,165  $2,329  $-  $- 
Claims payable (1)  6,791   6,791   -   -   - 
Reinsurance claims payable (2)  2,526   -   2,526   -   - 
Capital lease obligations (5)  351   191   160   -   - 
Operating lease obligations (3)  3,977   1,756   2,206   15   - 
Contractual commitments for clinical studies  2,910   1,257   1,653   -   - 
  $30,049  $21,160  $8,874  $15  $- 
    Less than 1 - 3 3 - 5 More than
Contractual Obligations Total 1 year years years 5 years
Outstanding debt obligations $9,932 $9,932  -  -  -
Capital lease obligations  119  65  54  -  -
Operating lease obligations  1,726  1,533  193  -  -
Clinical studies  1,473  1,473  -  -  -
Total $13,250 $13,003 $247 $- $-
 
(1)  These CompCare claim liabilities represent the best estimate of benefits to be paid under capitated contracts and consist of reserves for claims and IBNR. Because of the nature of such contracts, there is typically no minimum contractual commitment associated with covered claims. Both the amounts and timing of such payments are estimates, and the actual claims paid could differ from the estimated amounts presented.
(2)  This item represents a CompCare liability relating to denied claims for a terminated reinsurance contract.  Any adjustment to the reinsurance claims liability would be accounted for in the statement of operations in the period in which the adjustment is determined.
(3)  Operating lease commitments for our and CompCare’s corporate office facilities, two PROMETA Centers, including deferred rent liability, a managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas and facilities related to our international operations. These amounts include $1.1 million related to CompCare, which was sold in January 2009.
(4)  Includes $2.5 million related to CompCare, which was sold in January 2009.
(5)  Includes $141,000 related to CompCare, which was sold in January 2009.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements.

Legal ProceedingsEffects of Inflation

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business.  As of the date of this report, we are not currently involved in any legal proceeding that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.


Our most liquid assets are cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities.equivalents. Because of their liquidity, these assets are not directly affected by inflation. Because we intend to retain and continue to use our equipment, furniture and fixtures and leasehold improvements, we believe that the incremental inflation related to replacement costs of such items will not materially affect our operations. However, the rate of inflation affects our expenses, such as


those for employee compensation and contract services, which could increase our level of expenses and the rate at which we use our resources.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.States (GAAP). GAAP require management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that may not be readily apparent from other sources. On an on-going basis, we evaluate the appropriateness of our estimates and we maintain a thorough process to review the application of our accounting policies. Our actual results may differ from these estimates.

We consider our critical accounting estimates to be those that (1) involve significant judgments and uncertainties, (2) require estimates that are more difficult for management to determine, and (3) may produce materially different results when using different assumptions. We have discussed these critical accounting estimates, the basis for their underlying assumptions and estimates and the nature of our related disclosures herein with the audit committee of our Board of Directors. We believe our accounting policies specificrelated to behavioral health managed care services revenue recognition, managed care premium deficiencies, accrued claims payable and claims expense for managed care services, share-based compensation expense, the impairment assessments for goodwill and other intangible assets, and valuation of marketable securities and estimation of the fair value of warrant liabilities involve our most significant judgments and estimates that are material to our consolidated financial statements. They are discusseddisc ussed further below:

Managed Care Services Revenue Recognition

CompCare provides managed behavioral healthcare and substance abuse services to recipients, primarily through subcontracts with HMOs.  Revenue under the vast majority of these agreements is earned and recognized monthly based on the number of covered members as reported to us by our clients regardless of whether services actually provided are lesser or greater than anticipated when we entered into such contracts (generally referred to as capitation arrangements). The information regarding qualified participants is supplied by CompCare’s clients and CompCare reviews membership eligibility records and other reported information to verify its accuracy in determining the amount of revenue to be recognized. Consequently, the vast majority of our managed behavioral healthcare revenue is determined by the monthly receipt of covered member information and the associated payment from the client, thereby removing uncertainty and precluding us from needing to make assumptions to estimate monthly revenue amounts.

CompCare may experience adjustments to its revenues to reflect changes in the number and eligibility status of members subsequent to when revenue is recognized. Subsequent adjustments to CompCare’s revenue have not been material in the past.

Premium Deficiencies

CompCare accrues losses under capitated contracts when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. CompCare performs this loss accrual analysis on a specific contract basis taking into consideration such factors as future contractual revenue, projected future healthcare and maintenance costs, and each contract's specific terms related to future revenue increases as compared to expected increases in healthcare costs. The projected future healthcare and maintenance costs are estimated based on historical trends and CompCare’s estimate of future cost increases.

At any time prior to the end of a contract or contract renewal, if a capitated contract is not meeting its financial goals, CompCare generally has the ability to cancel the contract with 60 to 90 days written notice.  Prior to cancellation, CompCare will usually submit a request for a rate increase accompanied by supporting utilization data.  Although CompCare’s clients have historically been generally receptive to such requests, no assurance can be given that such requests will be fulfilled in the future in CompCare’s favor.  If a rate increase is not granted, CompCare has the ability to terminate the contract and limit its risk to a short-term period.


On a quarterly basis, CompCare performs a review of its portfolio of contracts for the purpose of identifying loss contracts (as defined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Audit and Accounting Guide – Health Care Organizations) and developing a contract loss reserve, if applicable, for succeeding periods. At December 31, 2008, CompCare believes no contract loss reserve for future periods is necessary for these contracts.

Accrued Claims Payable and Claims Expense

Behavioral health managed care operating expenses are composed of claims expense and other healthcare expenses.  Claims expense includes amounts paid to hospitals, physician groups and other managed care organizations under capitated contracts. Other healthcare expenses include items such as information systems, provider contracting, case management and quality assurance, attributable to both capitated and non-capitated contracts.

The cost of behavioral health services is recognized in the period in which an eligible member actually receives services and includes an estimate of IBNR. CompCare contracts with various healthcare providers including hospitals, physician groups and other managed care organizations either on a discounted fee-for-service or a per-case basis.  CompCare determines that a member has received services when it receives a claim within the contracted timeframe with all required billing elements correctly completed by the service provider.  CompCare then determines whether (1) the member is eligible to receive such services, (2) the service provided is medically necessary and is covered by the benefit plan’s certificate of coverage, and (3) the service has been authorized by one of CompCare’s employees.  If all of these requirements are met, the claim is entered into CompCare’s claims system for payment and the associated cost of behavioral health services is recognized. If the claim is denied, the service provider is notified and has appeal rights under their contract with CompCare.

Accrued claims payable consists primarily of CompCare’s reserves established for reported claims and IBNR, which are unpaid through the respective balance sheet dates. CompCare’s policy is to record management’s best estimate of IBNR. The IBNR liability is estimated monthly using an actuarial paid completion factor methodology and is continually reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, to reflect any change in the estimated liability as more information becomes available. In deriving an initial range of estimates, CompCare’s management uses an actuarial model that incorporates past claims payment experience, enrollment data and key assumptions such as trends in healthcare costs and seasonality. Authorization data, utilization statistics, calculated completion percentages and qualitative factors are then combined with the initial range to form the basis of management’s best estimate of the accrued claims payable balance.

At December 31, 2008, CompCare’s management determined its best estimate of the accrued claims liability to be $6.8 million. Approximately $3.4 million of the accrued claims payable balance at December 31, 2008 is attributable to the major HMO contract in Indiana that started January 1, 2007 and terminated on December 31, 2008.  

Accrued claims payable at December 31, 2008 and 2007 comprises approximately $1.6 million and $1.1 million of submitted and approved claims, which had not yet been paid, and $5.2 million and $4.4 million for IBNR claims, respectively.

Many aspects of the managed care business are not predictable with consistency, and therefore, estimating IBNR claims involves a significant amount of management judgment.  Actual claims incurred could differ from the estimated claims payable amount presented.  The following are factors that would have an impact on CompCare’s future operations and financial condition:

●  
Changes in utilization patterns
●  
Changes in healthcare costs
●  
Changes in claims submission timeframes by providers
●  
Success in renegotiating contracts with healthcare providers
●  
Occurrence of catastrophes
●  
Changes in benefit plan design
●  
The impact of present or future state and federal regulations.



A 5% increase or decrease in assumed healthcare cost trends from those used in the calculations of IBNR at December 31, 2008, could increase or decrease CompCare’s claims expense by approximately $127,000.below.

Share-based expense

Commencing January 1, 2006, we implemented the changes that the FASB issued related to the accounting provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 123Rfor stock options, on a modified-prospective basis to recognize share-based compensation for employee stock option awards in our statements of operations for future periods. We accountedaccount for the issuance of stock, stock options and warrants for services from non-employees in accordance with SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation and FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 96-18, Accounting For Equity Instruments That Are Issued To Other Than Employees For Acquiring Or In Conjunction With Selling Goods Or Services. Webased on an estimate of the fair value of options and warrants issued using the Black-Scholes pricing model. This model’s calculations include the exercise price, the market price of shares on grant date, weighted average assumptions for risk-free interest rates, expected life of the option or warrant, expected volatility of our stock and expected dividend yield.

The amounts recorded in the financial statements for share-based expense could vary significantly if we were to use different assumptions. For example, the assumptions we have made for the expected volatility of our stock price have been based on the historical volatility of our stock, and the stock of other public healthcare companies, measured over a period generally commensurate with the expected term, since we have a limited history as a public company and complete reliance on our actual stock price volatility would not be meaningful.term. If we were to use a different volatility than the actual volatility of our stock price, there may be a significant variance in the amounts of share-based expense from the amounts reported. Based on the 20082009 assumptions used for the Black-Scholes pricing model, a 50% increase in stock price volatility would have increased the fair values of options by approximately 25%. The weighted average expected option term forf or 2009, 2008 2007 and 20062007 reflects the application of the simplified method set out in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, which defines the life as the average of the contractual term of the options and the weighted average vesting period for all option tranches.

From time to time, we have retained terminated employees as part-time consultants upon their resignation from the company. Because the employees continued to provide services to us, their options continued to vest in accordance with the original terms. Due to the change in classification of the option awards, the options were considered modified at the date of termination in accordance with SFAS 123R.termination. The modifications were treated as exchanges of the original awards in return for the issuance of new awards. At the date of termination, the unvested options were no longer accounted for as employee awards under SFAS 123R and were accounted for as new non-employee awards under EITF 96-18.awards. The accounting for the portion of the total grants that have already vested and have been previously expensed as equity awards is not changed.chang ed.

Goodwill

In accordance with SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, goodwill is not amortized, but instead is subject to impairment tests. Our policy is to evaluate goodwill assigned to both our healthcare services and behavioral health managed care reporting units for impairment annually, at each year-end and between annual evaluations, if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of goodwill below its carrying amount.

There are two steps in applying the goodwill impairment test per SFAS 142. The first step is to determine whether there is a potential impairment. The fair values of our two reporting units are compared to the reporting unit’s carrying book value amounts, including the goodwill. If the fair values of our reporting units exceed their carrying amounts, then the goodwill associated with the reporting unit is considered not to be impaired and the second step of the impairment test is unnecessary. If the carrying amounts of our reporting units exceed their fair value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test shall be performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step of the goodwill impairment test, used to measure the amount of impairment loss, compares the implied fair value of reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss shall be recognized in an amount equal to that excess. In estimating the fair value of the reporting units, we consider both the income and market approaches to fair value determination. The income approach is based on a discounted cash flow methodology, in which we make our best assumptions regarding future cash flows and a discount rate to be applied to the cash flows


to yield a present, fair value of the reporting unit. The market approach is based primarily on reference to transactions involving the company’s common stock and the quoted market prices of our common stock.

Due to the decline in trading price of Hythiam’s and CompCare’s common stock during 2008, and the resulting lower valuation of our reporting units relative to their book value, we have tested goodwill for impairment at each quarter-end without exception. However, in January 2009, as part of our fourth quarter impairment testing, we concluded that the goodwill in our healthcare services reporting unit had been impaired mainly resulting from the decline in the value of the reporting unit that arose from the downward re-pricing of risk that occurred broadly in the equity markets and affected the reporting unit in the quarter. Based on a valuation of our healthcare services reporting unit, utilizing the income approach, the estimated, implied fair value of the goodwill was determined to be fully impaired and the $9.8 million carrying value was recorded as an impairment charge in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2008.

In reviewing the $493,000 of goodwill relating to the behavioral health managed care services reporting unit, we approximated the value of the reporting unit by considering the $1.5 million proceeds and $11.2 million estimated gain on the sale of our interest in CompCare on January 20, 2009 and other factors, in concluding that the estimated fair value of the reporting unit exceeded its book value and the goodwill was recoverable.

Impairment of Intangible Assets

We have capitalized significant costs for acquiring patents and other intellectual property directly related to our products and services. In addition, intangible assets include identified intangible assets acquired as part of the CompCare acquisition, including the value of managed care contracts, the value of the healthcare provider network and the professional designation from the NCQA. In accordance with SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, weWe review our intangible assets for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of these assets may not be recoverable. In reviewing for impairment, we compare the carrying value of such assets to the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected from the use of the assets and/or their eventual disposition. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than their carrying amount, we record an impairment loss to recognize a loss for the difference between the assets’ fair value and their carrying value. Since we have not recognized significant revenue to date, our estimates of future revenue may not be realized and the net realizable value of our capitalizedc apitalized costs of intellectual property or other intangible assets may become impaired.

In August 2007, we recorded an impairment charge of $2.4 million, when we recognized the fair value of 310,000 shares of our common stock that had been previously issued as additional consideration related to the purchase of an opiate patent which has never been utilized in our business plan. The shares had been subject to a stock pledge agreement pending the resolution of certain contingencies until we agreed to release the shares as a result of a settlement agreement reached in August 2007 with the seller of the patent. The fair value of these shares was based on the closing stock price on the date of the settlement

We have evaluatedperformed an impairment test on intellectual property as of December 31, 2009 and after considering numerous factors, including a valuation of the intellectual property by an independent third party, we determined that the carrying valuesvalue of certain intangible assets was recoverable and did not exceeded the fair value. As previously reported, we had recorded impairment charges totaling $355,000 for possible impairment at reporting period-end during 2008 and at December 31, 2008 without exception, since the projected undiscounted cash flows were sufficient to recover the carrying value. In reviewing thecertain intangible assets relatingas of March 31, 2009. These charges included $122,000 for intangible assets related to CompCare, which amountedour managed treatment center in Dallas, Texas, and $233,000 related to $642,000 at December 31, 2008, we consideredintellectual property for additional indications for the $1.5 million proceeds and $11.2 million estimated gainuse of the PROMETA Treatment Program that is currently non-revenue generating. In its valuation, the independent third-party valuation firm relied on the sale“relief from royalty” method, as this method was deemed to be most relevant to our intellectual property assets. We determined that the estimated useful lives of our interestthe remaining intellectual property properly reflected the current remaining economic useful lives of the assets. We also performed additional impairment tests on intellectual property at each quarter-end date in CompCare on January 20, 2009 among other factors, and determined that such assetsno additional impairment charges were recoverable.

No other impairments were identified in our reviews at December 31, 2008 and 2007. However, wenecessary. We will continue to review these assets for potential impairment each reporting period.

Valuation of Marketable Securities

Investments include ARS, U.S. Treasury bills, commercial paper and certificates of deposit with maturity dates greater than three months when purchased, which are classified as available-for-sale investments and reflected in current or long-term assets, as appropriate, as marketable securities at fair market value in accordance with SFAS 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.value. Unrealized gains and losses are reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheetconsolidated balance sheet within accumulated other comprehensive loss and within other


comprehensive loss. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be “other-than-temporary” are recognized as a non-reversible impairment charge in the Statement of Operations on the specific identification method in the period in which they occur.

We regularly review the fair value of our investments. If the fair value of any of our investments falls below our cost basis in the investment, we analyze the decrease to determine whether it represents an other-than-temporary decline in value. In making our determination for each investment, we consider the following factors:

●  How long and by how much the fair value of the investments have been below cost;
●  The financial condition of the issuers;
●  Any downgrades of the investment by rating agencies;
●  Default on interest or other terms; and
●  Our intent and ability to hold the investments long enough for them to recover their value.

Since there have been continued auction failures with our ARS portfolio, quoted prices for our ARS did not exist as of December 31, 20082009 and un-observable inputs were used. We determined that use of a valuation model was the best available technique for measuring the fair value of our ARS portfolio and we based our estimates of the fair value using valuation models and methodologies that utilize an income-based approach to estimate the price that would be received if we sold our securities in an orderly transaction between market participants. The estimated

price was derived as the present value of expected cash flows over an estimated period of illiquidity, using a risk adjusted discount rate that was based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of the securities.

Based on the valuation models and methodologies, and consideration of other factors, for the year ended December 31, 2009, we wrote downrecognized approximately $185,000 in other-than-temporary decline in value related to our investment in certain ARS. We also recognized temporary increases in value of approximately $160,000 related to our investment in certain other ARS portfolio to itsfor the year ended December 31, 2009, based on the estimated fair value as determined by management. Other-than-temporary declines in value are reflected as a non-operating expense in our consolidated statements of $10.1 million, reflecting a $1.4 million reductionoperations, whereas subsequent increases in value.value are reflected in stockholders’ equity on our consolidated balance sheets. While our valuation model includes inputs based on observable measures (credit quality and interest rates) and un-observable inputs, we determined that the un-observable inputs were the most significant to the overall fair value measurement, particularly the estimates of risk adjusted discount rates and estimated periods of illiquidity.

Warrant Liabilities

We regularly reviewissued warrants in connection with the registered direct placements of our common stock in November 2007 and September 2009, and the amended and restated Highbridge senior secured note in July 2008. The warrant agreements include provisions that require us to record them as a liability, at fair value, pursuant to FASB accounting rules, including provisions in some warrants that protect the holders from declines in our stock price and a requirement to deliver registered shares upon exercise, which is considered outside of our control. The warrant liabilities are marked-to-market each reporting period and changes in fair value are recorded as a non-operating gain or loss in our statement of operations, until they are completely settled or expire. The fair value of the warrants is determined each reporting period using the Black-Sch oles option pricing model, and is affected by changes in inputs to that model including our investments. If the fair value of any of our investments falls below our cost basis in the investment, we analyze the decrease to determine whether it represents an other-than-temporary decline in value. In making our determination for each investment, we consider the following factors:

●  
How long and by how much the fair value of the investments have been below cost
●  
The financial condition of the issuers
●  
Any downgrades of the investment by rating agencies
●  
Default on interest or other terms
●  
Our intent and ability to hold the investments long enough for them to recover their value
stock price, expected stock price volatility, interest rates and expected term.

We determined that the lossThe change in fair value of our ARS investments was other-than-temporary,the warrant liabilities amounted to a net gain of $341,000 in connection with our assessment and review2009 compared to net gain of the factors listed above at December 31, 2008. Accordingly, we recognized an impairment loss in non-operating expenses of approximately $1.4$5.7 million in our Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Recently Adopted

InOn September 2006,30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB issued SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair valueto the authoritative hierarchy of GAAP. These changes establish the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (Codification) as the source of authoritative accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The Statement is effective forthe preparation of financial statements issuedin conformity with GAAP. Rules and interpretive releases of the SEC under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. In February 2008,SEC registrants. The FASB will no longer issue new standards in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-2, Effective DatePositions, or Emerging Issues Task Force Abstracts; instead the FASB will issue Accounting Standards Updates (ASUs). ASUs will not be authoritative in their own right as they will only serve to update the Codification. These changes and the C odification itself do not change GAAP. Other than the manner in which new accounting guidance is referenced, the adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On July 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB Statement No. 157,to accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued, otherwise known as “subsequent events.” Specifically, these changes set forth the period after the balance sheet date during which delays the effective datemanagement of SFAS 157 to fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008a reporting entity should evaluate events or transactions that may occur for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognizedpotential recognition or disclosed at fair valuedisclosure in the financial statements, the circumstances under which an entity should recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its financial statements, and the disclosures that an entity should make about events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated f inancial statements as management already followed a recurring basis (at least annually). We electedsimilar approach prior to defer the adoption of the Standard for these non-financial assets and liabilities, and are currently evaluating the impact, if any, that the deferred provisions of the Standard will have on our consolidated financial statements. Because we did not elect to apply the fair value accounting option, the adoption of SFAS 157 for our financial assets and liabilities did not have an impact on our financial position or operating results.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. SFAS 159 allows companies to measure many financial assets and liabilities at fair value. It also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS 159 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of SFAS No. 159 did not affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In October 2008, FASB Staff Position (FSP) on FAS 157-3 was issued, which clarifies the application of SFAS 157 in an inactive market and provides an example to demonstrate how the fair value of a financial asset is determined when the market for that financial asset is inactive. FSP FAS 157-3 was effective upon issuance, including prior periods for which financial statements had not been issued. The adoption of this standard as of September 30, 2008 did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2008, the FASB issued FSP FAS 140-4 and FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 46R-8, Disclosures by Public Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable Interest Entities. This FSP amends FASB Statement No. 140 Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities to require public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also amends FIN 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities as revised to require public enterprises to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with VIEs. FSP FAS 140-4 and FIN 46(R)-8 are effective for the Company's fiscal year ending December 31, 2008.  We are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of the managed medical corporations.  The financial results of managed treatment centers are included in our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards applicable to VIEs.  Disclosures regarding ournew guidance.

involvement with VIEs are appropriately included in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Variable Interest Entities, in Part IV, Item 15 (a) (1) (2) Financial Statements.

Recently Issued

In December 2007,On June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB issued SFAS 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements—an amendmentto fair value disclosures of ARB No. 51. SFAS 160 requiresfinancial instruments. These changes require a publicly traded company to include disclosures about the fair value of its financial instruments whenever it issues summarized financial information for interim reporting periods. Such disclosures include the fair value of all financial instruments, for which it is practicable to estimate that non-controlling (or minority) interests in subsidiaries be reportedvalue, whether recognized or not recognized in the equity sectionstatement of financial position; the company's balance sheet, ratherrelated carrying amount of these financial instruments; and the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value. Other than in a mezzanine section of the balance sheet between liabilities and equity. SFAS 160 also changes the manner in which the net income of the subsidiary is reported and disclosed in the controlling company's income statement. SFAS 160 also establishes guidelines for accounting for changes in ownership percentages and for deconsolidation. SFAS 160 is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning on or after December 1, 2008 and interim periods within those years. SFAS 160 will have no material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – an amendment of SFAS 133.  SFAS 161 requires enhancedrequired disclosures, about an entity’s derivative and hedging activities, including how an entity uses derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. The provisions of SFAS 161 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS 161 to have a materialthese changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value accounting. These changes provide additional guidance for estimating fair value when the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability have significantly decreased and includes guidance for identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly. This guidance is necessary to maintain the overall objective of fair value measurements, which is, that fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to the recognition and presentation of other-than-temporary impairments. These changes amend existing other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In December 2007,On April 1, 2009 we adopted changes issued by the FASB in June 2008 to provide guidance in determining whether certain financial instruments (or embedded feature) are considered to be “indexed to an entity’s own stock.” Existing guidance under GAAP considers certain financial instruments to be outside the scope of derivative accounting, specifying that a contract that would otherwise meet the definition of a derivative but is both (a) indexed to the entity’s own stock and (b) classified in stockholders’ equity in the statement of financial position would not be considered a derivative financial instrument. These changes provide a new two-step model to be applied in determining whether a financial instrument or an embedded feature is indexed to an entity’s own stock and thus able to quali fy for the derivative accounting scope exception. These changes did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued SFAS 141R, Business Combinations. SFAS 141R replaces SFAS 141, Business Combinations, and retainsby the requirementFASB to accounting for business combinations. While retaining the fundamental requirements of accounting for business combinations, including that the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions be used for all business combinations. SFAS 141R expands on the disclosures previously required by SFAS 141, better definescombinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination, these changes define the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control instead of the date that the consideration is transferred. These changes require an acquirer in a business combination, and establishes principles for recognizing and measuringincluding business combinations achieved in stages (step acquisition), to recognize the assets acquired, (including goodwill), the liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling interestsinterest in the acquired business. SFAS 141Racquiree at the acqu isition date, measured at their fair values as of that date, with limited exceptions. This guidance also requires (i) an acquirer to record an adjustment to income tax expense for changes in valuation allowances or uncertain tax positions related to acquired businesses. SFAS 141R is effective for all business combinations with anrecognize at fair value, at the acquisition date, an asset acquired or liability assumed in a business combination that arises from a contingency if the acquisition-date fair value of that asset or liability can be determined during the measurement period; otherwise the asset or liability should be recognized at the acquisition date if certain defined criteria are met; (ii) contingent consideration arrangements of an acquiree assumed by the acquirer in a business combination be recognized initially at fair value; (iii) subsequent measurements of assets and liabilities arising from contingencies be based on a systematic and rational method depending on their nature and contingent consideration arrangements be measured subsequently; and (iv) disclosures of the amounts and measurement basis of such assets and liabilities and the nature of the contingencies. Add itionally, these changes require acquisition-related costs to be expensed in the first annual period following December 15, 2008; early adoption is not permitted.in which the costs are incurred and the services are received instead of including such costs as part of the acquisition price. We have adoptednot engaged in any acquisitions since this statement as of January 1, 2009. Thenew guidance was issued, so there has been no impact that the adoption of SFAS 141R will have onto our consolidated financial statements will depend on the nature, terms and sizestatements.

In April 2008,On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB issued FSP FAS 142-3, Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets.  FSP 142-3 amendsto accounting for intangible assets. These changes amend the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. This change is intendedin order to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142outside of a business combination and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of thean intangible asset under SFAS No. 141R and other GAAP. FSP 142-3 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal years.in a business combination. The requirement for determining useful lives must be applied prospectively to intangible assets acquired after the effective date and the disclosure requirements must be applied prospectively to all intangible assets recognized as of, and subsequent to, the effective date. We do not expect the adoption of this statement tothese changes did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.flows, and the required disclosures regarding our intangible assets are included in the notes to our consolidated financial statements.
On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to consolidation accounting and reporting that establish accounting and reporting for the non-controlling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. This guidance defines a non-controlling interest, previously called a minority interest, as the portion of equity in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to a parent. These changes require, among other items, that a non-controlling interest be included in the consolidated balance sheet within equity separate from the parent’s equity; consolidated net income to be reported at amounts inclusive of both the parent’s and non-controlling interest’s shares and, separately, the amounts of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and non-controlling interest al l in the consolidated statement of operations; and if a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained non-controlling equity investment in the former subsidiary be measured at fair value and a gain or loss be recognized in net income based on such fair value. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value accounting and reporting as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not recognized or disclosed at fair value in the consolidated financial statements on at least an annual basis. These changes define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expand disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance applies to other GAAP that require or permit fair value measurements and is to be applied prospectively with limited exceptions. The adoption of these changes, as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, had no impact on our consolidated financial statements. These provisions will be applied at such time a fair value measurement of a nonfinancial asset or nonfinancial liab ility is required, which may result in a fair value that is materially different than would have been calculated prior to the adoption of these changes.

Recently Issued

ITEM 7A.                      QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISKIn August 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-15, which changes the fair value accounting for liabilities. These changes clarify existing guidance that in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not available, an entity is required to measure fair value using either a valuation technique that uses a quoted price of either a similar liability or a quoted price of an identical or similar liability when traded as an asset, or another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurements, such as an income approach (e.g., present value technique). This guidance also states that both a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability and a quoted price for the identical liabi lity when traded as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the quoted price of the asset are required are Level 1 input fair value measurements. This ASU is effective on January 1, 2010. Adoption of this ASU will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

We investIn June 2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for variable interest entities. These changes require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine whether the enterprise’s variable interest gives it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity; to require ongoing reassessments of whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to eliminate the quantitative approach previously required for determining the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to add an additional reconsideration event for determining whether an entity is a variable interest entity when any changes in facts and circumstances occur such that holders of the equity investment at risk, as a group, lose the power fro m voting rights or similar rights of those investments to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance; and to require enhanced disclosures that will provide users of financial statements with more transparent information about an enterprise’s involvement in a variable interest entity. These changes become effective for us beginning on January 1, 2010. The adoption of this change is not expected to have a material impact on our cash in short term high grade commercial paper, certificates of deposit, money market accounts and marketable securities. We consider any liquid investment with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. We classify investments with maturity dates greater than three months when purchased as marketable securities, which have readily determined fair values at the time of purchase and are classified as available-for-sale securities. Our investment policy requires that all investments be investment grade quality and no more than ten percent of our portfolio may be invested in any one security or with one institution.consolidated financial statements.



As
In June 2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for transfers of December 31, 2008 our total investmentfinancial assets. These changes remove the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity and remove the exception from the application of variable interest accounting to variable interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities; limits the circumstances in ARS was $11.5 million. Since February 13, 2008, auctions for these securities have failed, meaning the parties desiringwhich a transferor derecognizes a portion or component of a financial asset; defines a participating interest; requires a transferor to sell securities could not be matched with an adequate number of buyers, resulting in our having to continue to hold these securities. Although the securities are Aaa/AAA ratedrecognize and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market conditions it is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls the securities, or they mature. The remaining maturity periods range from nineteen to thirty-eight years. Asinitially measure at fair value all assets obtained and liabilities incurred as a result of a transfer accounted for as a sale; and requires enhanced disclosure; among others. These changes will become effective for us on January 1, 2010. The adoption of this change is not expected to have a material impact on our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recover the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist.  In December, we utilized a third-party valuation firm to assist us with determining the fair market value of our ARS which was estimated to be $10.1 million, resulting in a $1.4 million estimated decline in value.consolidated financial state ments.
ITEM 7A.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

In making our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary” declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end reporting period:Not applicable.

●  
ITEM 8.
How long and by how much the fair value of the ARS securities have been below costFINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
●  
The financial condition of the issuers
●  
Any downgrades of the securities by rating agencies
●  
Default on interest or other terms
●  
Our intent & ability to hold the ARS long enough for them to recover their value

We determined that the loss in the fair value of our ARS investments was “other-than-temporary,” in connection with our year end assessment. Accordingly, we recognized an other-than-temporary loss in non-operating expenses of approximately $1.4 million in December 2008, which is reflected as a non-operating expense in our Consolidated Statement of Operations.
In May 2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS AG (UBS), provided us with a demand margin loan facility, allowing us to borrow up to 50% of the market value of the ARS, as determined by UBS. The margin loan facility is collateralized by the ARS.  In October 2008, UBS made a “Rights” offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all auction-rate securities held by us in our UBS account. The Rights permit us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012 if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. As part of the offering, UBS would provide us a line of credit equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. The line of credit has certain restrictions described in the prospectus.  We accepted this offer on November 6, 2008.

These securities will be analyzed each reporting period for additional other-than-temporary impairment factors.  Due to the current uncertainty in the credit markets and the terms of the Rights offering with UBS, we have classified the fair value of our ARS as long-term assets as of December 31, 2008.

The weighted average interest rate of marketable securities held at December 31, 2008 was 1.14%. Investments in both fixed rate and floating rate interest earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk arising from changes in the level or volatility of interest rates; however interest rate movements do not materially affect the market value of our ARS because of the frequency of the rate resets and the short-term nature of these investments. A reduction in the overall level of interest rates may produce less interest income from our investment portfolio. If overall interest rates had declined by an average of 100 basis points during 2008, the amount of interest income earned from our investment portfolio in 2008 would have decreased by an estimated amount of $220,000. The market risk associated with our investments in debt securities is substantially mitigated by the frequent turnover of our portfolio.

ITEM 8.                  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Our consolidated financial statements and related financial information required to be filed hereunder are indexed under Item 15 of this report and are incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 9.                  CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
ITEM 9.CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.


ITEM 9A.                      CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
ITEM 9A.CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Disclosure Controls

As part of our financial reporting process for the annual period ended December 31, 2009, management became aware of a potential incorrect reporting of our long-term warrant liabilities and net loss as reported in our Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009.  Management subsequently determined the reporting was incorrect. We have evaluated, with the participation of our chief executive officer, and our chief financial officer and chief operating officer, the effectiveness of our system of disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this evaluation our chief executive officer and our chief financial officerwe have determined that theythere was a material weakness in our disclosure controls with respect to the interpretation of contractual language associated with war rant liabilities which lead to the improper reporting of an adjustment to the warrant liability in the aforementioned Form 10-Q. Management has taken steps to remediate this weakness and has reflected the correction of these errors in this report. Except for the previously mentioned material weakness, which has been remediated, management believes that its system of disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report are effective in connection with the preparation of this report.

Management's Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) and for assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control system is designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management and Board of Directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting during the year ended December 31, 20082009 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Our internal control over financial reporting is supported by written policies and procedures that:

●  
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;

●  
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and our Board of Directors; and

●  
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements.

Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20082009 using the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Management's assessment included an evaluation of the design of our internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2008,identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting reconciling our warrant liabilities with the contractual requirements for such warrants.  This result ed in an incorrect adjustment to warrant liabilities that was effective.reported in our Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009.


The error was detected by management as part of our annual 2009 financial reporting process and corrected with our filing of Form 10-Q/A dated April 13, 2010. Management has remediated the material weakness in our internal controls by supplementing the processes for review of legal documents supporting modifications to debt or equity instruments.
Because of its inherent limitations, a system of internal control over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions and that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

BDO Seidman, LLP, theThis annual report does not include an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm that audited the financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, was engaged to attest to and report on the effectiveness of ourauditors regarding internal control over financial reporting asreporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our independent auditors pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this annual report, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. A copy of this2009. The aforementioned report is included at page F-3 ofincorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.filing.

ITEM 9B.                      
ITEM 9B.
OTHER INFORMATION

Not applicable.
 
PARPATRT III

ITEM 10.DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The following table lists our current executive officers and directors serving at December 31, 2008.2009.  Our executive officers are elected annually by the boardour Board of directorsDirectors and serve at the discretion of the board of directors.Board.  Each current director is serving a term that will expire at the Company's next annual meeting.  There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.

Name
 
Age
 
Position
 
Director Since
Age
Position
Director Since
Terren S. Peizer 49 Director, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer 200350Director, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer2003
         
Richard A. Anderson 39 Director, President and Chief Operating Officer 200340Director, President and Chief Operating Officer2003
         
Christopher S. Hassan 48 Director, Chief Strategy Officer 200749Chief Strategy Officer 
         
Maurice S. Hebert 46 Chief Financial Officer 200847Chief Financial Officer 
         
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D. 54 Director, Chair of Compensation Committee, Member of the Audit Committee 200555Director, Chair of Compensation Committee, Member of the Audit and Nominations & Governance Committees2005
         
Marc G. Cummins 49 Director, Chair of Nominations and Governance Committee, Member of the Audit Committee 200450Director, Member of the Audit Committee2004
         
Steven A. Kriegsman 67 Director, Chair of Audit Committee, Member of the Compensation Committee 2008
      
Jay A. Wolf 35 Director 200836Director, Chair of Audit Committee, Chair of Nominations and Governance Committee, Member of Compensation Committee2008

Biographical informationTerren S. Peizer is the founder of our company and has served as our chief executive officer and chairman of our Board of Directors since our inception in February 2003.  He has served as Managing Director of Socius Capital Partners, LLC, since September 2009. Mr. Peizer has served on the board of Xcorporeal, Inc. since August 2007 and was executive chairman until October 2008. Mr. Peizer also served as chief executive officer of Clearant, Inc., a company which he founded in April 1999 to develop and commercialize a universal pathogen inactivation technology, until October 2003. He served as chairman of its board of directors from April 1999 to October 2004 and as a director until February 2005. In addition, from June 1999 through May 2003 he was a director, and from June 1999 through December 2000 he was chairman of the board, of supercomputer designer and builder Cray Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market company. Mr. Peizer has been the largest beneficial stockholder and has held various senior executive positions with several technology and biotech companies. He has assisted companies by assembling management teams, boards of directors and scientific advisory boards, formulating business and financial strategies, and investor relations. Mr. Peizer has a background in venture capital, investing, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and previously held senior executive positions with the investment banking firms Goldman Sachs, First Boston and Drexel Burnham Lambert. He received his B.S.E. in Finance from The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

Richard A. Anderson has more than fifteen years of experience in business development, strategic planning and financial management. He has served as a director since July 2003 and an officer since April 2005. He was the chief financial officer of Clearant, Inc. from November 1999 until March 2005, and served as a director from November 1999 to March 2006.  Mr. Anderson was previously a director and founding member of PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP’s, Los Angeles office transaction support group, where he was involved in operational and financial due diligence, valuations and structuring for high technology companies. He received a B.A. in Business Economics from University of California, Santa Barbara.

Christopher S. Hassan is a senior healthcare executive officers required under Item 10 is incorporated by referencewho, prior to joining us in July 2006, served as vice president, sales for Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals since October 2003. From 2000 to October 2002, he served as director of sales, North America for Drugabuse Sciences, Inc. a bio-pharmaceutical company. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. Hassan served as area business manager for Parke-Davis/Pfizer. From 1989 to 1996 he served as district sales manager for Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Hassan received a B.B.A. in Accounting from Item 1University of this report.Texas, Austin.

Maurice S. Hebert has 23 years of experience as a financial executive, including 14 years within the insurance/risk industry.  Mr. Hebert served as our chief financial officer from November 2008 until January 2010.  From October 2006 until his appointment as our chief financial officer, Mr. Hebert served as our vice president and corporate controller.  From April 2005 to October 2006, Mr. Hebert served as corporate controller and principal accounting officer at Health Net, Inc. in Woodland Hills, CA. From October 2003 to April 2005, he was with Safeco Corporation in Seattle, WA, most recently as senior vice president & controller and principal accounting officer. From 1993 to 2003, Mr. Hebert was with AIG SunA merica in Woodland Hills, CA, most recently as vice president & controller-life insurance companies. Mr. Hebert received a B.S. in Accounting from Louisiana State University.

Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D., F.A.S.A.M. has served as, is the founder and chief executive officerChief Executive Officer of the global health care and policy-consulting firm EMGlobal LLC since February 2005. From January 2002 through July 2004, she servedand Director at Two Dreams Outer Banks Treatment Center.  President George W. Bush nominated Dr. Barthwell in December 2001 to serve as deputy directorDeputy Director for demand reductionDemand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy with(ONDCP).  The United States Senate confirmed her nomination on January 28, 2002.  As a member of the title of deputy drug czar,President's sub-cabinet, Dr. Barthwell was a principal advisor in the executive officeExecutive Office of the presidentPresident (EOP) on policies aimed at reducing the demand for illicit drugs,drugs. Dr. Barthwell received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Wesleyan University, where she serves on the Board of Trustees, and was an active membera Doctor of Medicine from the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged YouthUniversity of Michigan Medical School.  Following post-graduate training at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University Medical Center, she began her practice in the White House Domestic Violence Working Group, working closely with the National Institute on Drug Abuse to define the scope of its Health Services Research portfolio. From June 2000 through January 2002,Chicago area.  Dr. Barthwell served as executive vice president and chief clinical officerPresident of Human Resources Development Institute drug treatment center, where she served as deputy executive director and medical director from 1985 through 1987. From 1999 through January 2002, she served as president and chief executive officer of BRASS Foundation drug treatment center, where she was medical director since 1995. From 1996 through January 2002, Dr. Barthwell served as president ofthe Encounter Medical Group (an(EMG, an affiliate of EMGlobal). From 1987 through 1996 she served as medical director of Interventions in Chicago, Illinois. She, was a founding member of the Chicago Area AIDS Task Force, hosted a weekly local cable show on AIDS, and is a past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.  In 2003, Dr. Barthwell received the Betty Ford Award, given by the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse. In 1997, Dr. Barthwell'sAbuse and has been named by her peers named heras one of the "Best Doctors in America" in addiction medicine. Dr. Barthwell received a B.A. in Psychology from Wesleyan University, an M.D. from University of Michigan Medical School, and post-graduate training at University of Chicago and Northwestern University.

Marc G. Cummins is a managing partner of Prime Capital, LLC, a private investment firm focused on consumer companies.  Prior to founding Prime Capital, Mr. Cummins was managing partner of Catterton Partners, a private equity investor in consumer products and service companies with overmore than $1 billion of assets under


management. Prior to joining Catterton in 1998, Mr. Cummins spent fourteen years at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation where he was managing director of the Consumer Products and Specialty Distribution Group, and was also involved in leveraged buyouts, private equity and high yield financings.  He has been a director of Xcorporeal, Inc. since November 2006. Mr. Cummins received a B.A. in Economics, magna cum laude, from Middlebury College, where he was honored as a MiddleburyM iddlebury College Scholar and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He also received an M.B.A. in Finance with honors from The Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania.

StevenJay A. KriegsmanWolf is president, chief executive officer and a director of CytRx Corporation, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in developing human therapeutic products. He also serves as a director of RXi. He previouslyhas served as a director and chairman of Global Genomics fromsince June 2000 until its merger with Global Genomics in July 2002. Mr. Kriegsman2008.  He is the chairmanfounder and principal of the board and founder of KriegsmanWolf Capital Group LLC, a financialLP an investment advisory firm specializinghe formed in the development of alternative sources of equity capital for emerging growth companies in the healthcare industry. He has advised such companies as SuperGen Inc., Closure Medical Corporation, Novoste Corporation, Miravant Medical Technologies, and Maxim Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kriegsman has a B.S. degree with honors from New York University in accounting and completed the Executive Program in Mergers and Acquisitions at New York University, The Management Institute. Mr. Kriegsman was formerly a Certified Public Accountant with KPMG in New York City.October 2009 to focus on small cap public companies. From JuneNovember 2003 until February 2008, he served as a director, and he is the former chairman of the audit committee of, Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In February 2006,September 2009, Mr. Kriegsman received the Corporate Philanthropist of the Year Award from the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the ALS Association and in October 2006, he received the Lou Gehrig Memorial Corporate Award from the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Mr. Kriegsman has been active in various charitable organizations including the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the ALS Association, the Los Angeles Venture Association, the Southern California Biomedical Council, and the Palisades-Malibu YMCA.

Jay A. Wolf is was a partner and co-founder ofat Trinad Capital LLC, an activist hedge fund focused on micro-cap public companies. During his work at Trinad, Mr. Wolf has a broad rangeassisted distressed and early stage public companies through active board participation, the assembly of investmentmanagement teams and operations experience that includes seniorbusiness and subordinated debt lending, private equity and venture capital investments, mergers & acquisitions and public equity investments.financial strategies. Prior to his work at Trinad, Capital which commenced in 2003, Mr.M r. Wolf served as executive vice president of Corporate Development for Wolf Group Integrated Communications Ltd. where he was responsible for the company’s acquisition program.Prior to that, Mr. Wolf worked at Canadian Corporate Funding, Ltd., a Toronto-based merchant bank as an analyst in the firm’s senior debt department and subsequently for Trillium Growth Capital, the firm’s venture capital fund. Mr. Wolf currently also sits on the boards of Mandalay Media, Inc. (MNDL), Optio Software, Inc. (OPTO), Prolink Holdings Corporation (PLKH), Shells Seafood Restaurants (SHLL), Xcorporeal, Inc. (XCR), Zoo Entertainment, Inc. (ZOOE) and NorthStar Systems, Inc. Mr. Wolf is also a member of the board of Governorsgovernors at Cedars-Sinai Hospital. He is a former director of Asianada, Inc., ProLink Holdings Corp., Mandalay Media, Inc., Atrinsic, Inc., Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc., Optio Software, Inc., Xcorporeal Operations, Inc., Zane Acquisition I, Inc., Zane Acquisition II, Inc., Starvox Communications, Inc. and Noble Medical Technologies, Inc. Mr. Wolf received a BAhis B.A from Dalhousie UniversityUniversity.  Mr. Wolf was chief operating officer and chief financial officer of Starvox Communication s, Inc. from March 2005 to March 2007.  On March 26, 2008, StarVox Communications, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.  Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc., a company for which Mr. Wolf formerly served as a director, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on September 2, 2008.  Mr. Wolf’s broad range of investment and operations experience, which includes senior and subordinated debt lending, private equity and venture capital investments, mergers and acquisitions advisory work and public equity investments, equip him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our board of directors.

Involvement in certain legal proceedings
None of our directors or executive officers has, during the past five years:

●  been convicted in a criminal proceeding or been subject to a pending criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations and other minor offences);

●  had any bankruptcy petition filed by or against the business or property of the person, or of any partnership, corporation or business association of which he was a general partner or executive officer, either at the time of the bankruptcy filing or within two years prior to that time;

●  been subject to any order, judgment, or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any court of competent jurisdiction or federal or state authority, permanently or temporarily enjoining, barring, suspending or otherwise limiting, his involvement in any type of business, securities, futures, commodities, investment, banking, savings and loan, or insurance activities, or to be associated with persons engaged in any such activity;

●  been found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to have violated a federal or state securities or commodities law, and the judgment has not been reversed, suspended, or vacated;

●  been the subject of, or a party to, any federal or state judicial or administrative order, judgment, decree, or finding, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated (not including any settlement of a civil proceeding among private litigants), relating to an alleged violation of any federal or state securities or commodities law or regulation, any law or regulation respecting financial institutions or insurance companies including, but not limited to, a temporary or permanent injunction, order of disgorgement or restitution, civil money penalty or temporary or permanent cease-and-desist order, or removal or prohibition order, or any law or regulation prohibiting mail or wire fraud or fraud in connection with any business entity; or

●  been the subject of, or a party to, any sanction or order, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any self-regulatory organization (as defined in Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26))), any registered entity (as defined in Section 1(a)(29) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(29))), or any equivalent exchange, association, entity or organization that has disciplinary authority over its members or persons associated with a member.

Section 16(a) beneficial ownership reporting compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock, to file with the SEC,Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our equity securities. Such persons are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all such reports they file.

To our knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and written or oral representations that no other reports were required for such persons, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners have been complied with.

Code of Ethics

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Codecode of Ethicsethics applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officerchief executive officer, chief financial officer and persons performing similar functions.  Our Codecode of Ethicsethics is listed hereto as Exhibit 14.1 and can be found on our website at http://www.hythiam.com.

Procedures by which Stockholders may Nominate Directors

There have been no material changes in the procedures by which stockholders may nominate directors since our last definitive Proxy Statement.


Audit committee

The audit committee consists of three directors, Mr. Kriegsman,Wolf, Dr. Barthwell and Mr. Marc G. Cummins. The boardBoard of directorsDirectors has determined that each of the members of the audit committee are independent as defined by the applicable Nasdaq rules, meet the applicable requirements for audit committee members, including Rule 10A-3(b) under the Securities and Exchange Act, of 1934, as amended, and Messrs. KriegsmanWolf and Cummins qualify as audit committee financial experts as defined by Item 401(h)(2) of Regulation S-K. The duties and responsibilities of the audit committee include (i) selecting, evaluating and, if appropriate, replacing our independent registered accounting firm, (ii) reviewing the plan and scope of audits, (iii) reviewing our significant accounting policies, any significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls or materialmater ial weakness therein and any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation and (iv) overseeing related auditing matters.

ITEM 11.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The following discussion and analysis contains statements regarding future individual and company performance targets and goals. These targets and goals are disclosed in the limited context of our compensation programs and should not be understood to be statements of management's expectations or estimates of results or other guidance. We specifically caution investors not to apply these statements to other contexts.

We believe our long term success is dependent on a leadership team with the integrity, skills, and dedication necessary to oversee a growing organization on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the leadership must have the vision to anticipate and respond to future market and regulatory developments. Our executive compensation program is designed to enable us to attract, motivate and retain a senior management team with the collective and individual abilities to meet these challenges. The program's primary objective is to align executives' efforts with the long term interests of stockholders by enhancing our reputation, financial success and capabilities.

General executive compensation philosophy

We compensate our executives, including the named executive officers who are identified in the Summary Compensation Table, through a combination of base salary, cash bonus incentives, long term equity incentive compensation, and related benefits. These components are designed, in aggregate, to be competitive with comparable organizations and to align the financial incentives for the executives with the short and long term interests of stockholders.

The compensation committee of the board of directors receives the Company's management recommendations and then discusses, reviews and considers management's recommendations with respect to the compensation of those members of senior management whose compensation the committee considers. The committee then makes its recommendation to the board which discusses and then decides raises, bonuses and options.  Although their advice may be sought and they may be questioned by the committee, executive members of the board do not participate in the committee's or the board's discussion and vote.  Prior to the committee making its recommendations, the members of the committee have several discussions among themselves and meet to discuss, among other things, the performance and contributions of each of the members of senior management whose compensation they are


considering as well as expectations (of the individual for the year and the future and those of the Company), results, responsibilities, and desire to retain such executive. In addition, the committee may have conversations with certain others before making its recommendations.

The Company's philosophy is to provide a compensation package that attracts, motivates and retains executive talent, and delivers rewards for superior performance as well as consequences for underperformance.  Specifically, our executive compensation program is designed to:

●  provide a competitive total compensation package that is competitive within the healthcare management and substance abuse treatment industries in which we compete for executive talent, and will assist in the retention of our executives and motivate them to perform at a superior level

●  link a substantial part of each executive's compensation to the achievement of our financial and operating objectives and to the individual's performance

●  provide long-term incentive compensation that focuses executives' efforts on building stockholder value by aligning their interests with our stockholders

●  provide incentives that promote executive retention.
Each year, the management and the board approve financial and non-financial objectives for the Company and the executive officers which may be reflected in the Company's executive employment agreements and incentive compensation plans. We do not have specific performance targets to be achieved for the named executive officers to earn their incentive awards, or specific individual objectives to be used to determine incentive amounts.  We design our incentive compensation plans to reward company-wide performance. In addition, we also consider the individual performance of each executive officer and other relevant criteria, such as the accomplishments of the management team as a whole. In designing and administering our executive compensation programs, we attempt to strike an appropriate balance among these elements.

The major compensation elements for our named executive officers are base salary, performance-based bonuses, stock options, insurance benefits and perquisites. Each of these elements is an integral part of and supports our overall compensation objectives. Base salaries (other than increases), insurance benefits and perquisites form stable parts of our executive officers' compensation packages that are not dependent on our performance during a particular year. We set these compensation elements at competitive levels so that we are able to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified executive officers. Consistent with our performance-based philosophy, we reserve the largest potential compensation awards for performance- and incentive-based programs. These programs include awards that are based on our financial performance and provide compensation in the form of both cash and equity to provide incentives that are tied to both our short-term and long-term performance. Our performance-based bonus program rewards short-term and long-term performance, while our equity awards, in the form of stock options, reward long-term performance and align the interests of management with our stockholders.

Board determination of compensation awards

The compensation committee recommends and the board determines the compensation awards to be made to our executive officers. The compensation committee recommends and the board determines the total compensation levels for our executive officers by considering several factors, including each executive officer's role and responsibilities, how the executive officer is performing against those responsibilities, our performance, and the competitive market data applicable to the executive officers' positions.

In arriving at specific levels of compensation for executive officers, the board has relied on

●  the recommendations of management;

●  benchmarks provided by generally available compensation surveys; and

●  the experience of board members and their knowledge of compensation paid by comparable companies or companies of similar size or generally engaged in the healthcare services business.



The Company seeks an appropriate relationship between executive pay and corporate performance. Executive officers are entitled to customary benefits generally available to all Company employees, including group medical, dental and life insurance and a 401(k) plan. The Company has employment agreements (which include severance arrangements) with three (3) of our key executive officers to provide them with the employment security and severance deemed necessary to retain them.

Components of executive compensation

Base salary. Base salaries provide our executive officers with a degree of financial certainty and stability. We seek to provide base salaries sufficient to attract and retain highly qualified executives. Whenever management proposes to enter into anew employment agreement or to renew an existing employment agreement, the compensation committee reviews and recommends, and the board determines, the base salaries for such persons, including our chief executive officer and our other executive officers. Salaries are also reviewed in the case of executive promotions or other significant changes in responsibilities. In each case, the compensation committee and the board each take into account competitive salary practices, scope of responsibilities, the results previously achieved by the executive and his or her development potential.

On an individual basis, a base salary increase, where appropriate and as contemplated by the individual’s employment agreement, is designed to reward performance consistent with our overall financial performance in the context of competitive practice. Performance reviews, including changes in an executive officer's scope of responsibilities, in combination with general market trends determine individual salary increases. Aside from contractually provided minimum cost of living adjustments, no formulaic base salary increases are provided to the named executive officers.

In addition to complying with the executive compensation policy and to the requirements of applicable employment agreements, compensation for each of the executive officers for 2008 was based on the executive's performance of his or her duties and responsibilities, the performance of the Company, both financial and otherwise, and the success of the executive in managing, developing and executing our business development, sales and marketing, financing and strategic plans, as appropriate.  With the exception of one $25,000 bonus for the president and chief operating officer, no merit raises or bonuses were approved or recommended for our executive officers for 2009.

Bonus. Executive officers are eligible to receive cash bonuses based on the degree of the Company's achievement of financial and other objectives and the degree of achievement by each such officer of his or her individual objectives. Within such guidelines the amount of any bonus is discretionary.

The primary purpose of our annual performance incentive awards is to motivate our executives to meet or exceed our company-wide short-term performance objectives. Our annual cash bonuses are designed to reward management-level employees for their contributions to individual and corporate objectives. Regardless of our performance, the board retains the discretion to adjust the amount of our executives' bonus based upon individual performance or circumstances.

At the beginning of 2008, the management and the board established performance objectives for the payment of annual incentive awards to each of the named executive officers and other senior management employees. Performance objectives were based on corporate objectives established as part of the annual operating plan process. Year end bonus awards were based on attainment of these performance objectives as adjusted to reflect changes in our business and industry throughout the year. The compensation committee recommended and the board determined that bonuses in the amounts set forth in the total compensation chart below were appropriate.  Each individual's bonus was determined based upon the individual's attainment of performance objectives pre-established for that participant by the board, senior management, or the executive's supervisor. The management and the board established the chief executive officer's performance objectives.

In general, each participant set for himself or herself (subject to his or her supervisor's review and approval or modification) a number of objectives for 2008 and then received a performance evaluation against those objectives as a part of the year-end compensation review process. The individual objectives varied considerably in detail and subject matter depending on the executive's position. By accounting for individual performance, we were able to differentiate among executives and emphasize the link between individual performance and compensation.


Stock options. Equity participation is a key component of the Company's executive compensation program. Under the incentive compensation plan, the Company is permitted to grant stock options to officers, directors, employees and consultants. To date, stock options have been the sole means of providing equity participation to executive officers. Stock options are granted to executive officers primarily based on the officer's actual and expected contribution to the Company's development. Options are designed to retain executive officers and motivate them to enhance stockholder value by aligning their financial interests with those of the stockholders. Stock options are intended to enable the Company to attract and retain key personnel and provide an effective incentive for management to create stockholder value over the long term since the option value depends on appreciation in the price of the Company's common stock.

Our employees, including our executive officers, are eligible to participate in the award of stock options under our 2007 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended.  Option grant dates for newly hired or promoted officers and other eligible employees have typically been the on the first board meeting date following the date of employment or in the new position. Employees who have demonstrated outstanding performance during the year may be awarded options during or following the year. Such grants provide an incentive for our executives and other employees to increase our market value, as represented by our market price, as well as serving as a method for motivating and retaining our executives.

In determining to provide long-term incentive awards in the form of stock options, the board considered cost and dilution impact, market trends relating to long-term incentive compensation and other relevant factors. The board determined that an award of stock options more closely aligns the interests of the recipient with those of our stockholders because the recipient will only realize a return on the option if our stock price increases over the term of the option.

Perquisites and Other Benefits.  We also provide other benefits to our executive officers that are not tied to any formal individual or Company performance criteria and are intended to be part of a competitive overall compensation program. For 2008, these benefits included payment of term life insurance premiums, club dues, and automobile allowances. We also offer 401(k) retirement plans, and medical plans, for which executives are generally charged the same rates as all other employees.

Chief executive officer compensation

The compensation committee, at least annually, reviews and recommends to the board of directors the compensation of Terren S. Peizer, chief executive officer, in accordance with the terms of his employment agreement, as well as any variations in his compensation the committee feels are warranted. Mr. Peizer, as a member of the board, does not participate in and abstains from all discussions and decisions of the board with regard to his compensation. The board believes that in the highly competitive healthcare industry in which the Company operates, it is important that Mr. Peizer receive compensation consistent with compensation received by chief executive officers of competitors and companies in similar stages of development. Mr. Peizer receives a base salary of $450,000. See "Executive employment agreements" for a description of the material terms and conditions of Mr. Peizer's employment agreement.

Severance and change of control arrangements

We have entered into change of control employment agreements with certain of our named executive officers, as described in "Executive employment agreements." These agreements provide for severance payments to be made to the executive officers if their employment is terminated under specified circumstances following a change of control. We also provide benefits to these executive officers upon qualifying terminations. The agreements are designed to retain our executive officers and provide continuity of management in the event of an actual or threatened change of control and to ensure that our executive officers' compensation and benefits expectations would be satisfied in such event.

Internal Revenue Code limits on deductibility of compensation

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, generally disallows a federal income tax deduction to public companies for certain compensation in excess of $1 million paid to a corporation's chief executive officer or any of its four other most highly compensated executive officers. Qualifying performance-based


compensation will not be subject to the deduction limit if certain requirements are met. The board is of the opinion that the Company's incentive compensation plan has been structured to qualify the compensation income deemed to be received upon the exercise of stock options granted under the plans as performance-based compensation. The board will review with appropriate experts or consultants as necessary the potential effects of Section 162(m) periodically and in the future may decide to structure additional portions of compensation programs in a manner designed to permit unlimited deductibility for federal income tax purposes.

The Company is not currently subject to the limitations of Section 162(m) because no executive officers received cash payments during 2008 in excess of $1 million. To the extent that the Company is subject to the Section 162(m) limitation in the future, the effect of this limitation on earnings may be mitigated by net operating losses, although the amount of any deduction disallowed under Section 162(m) could increase alternative minimum tax by a portion of such disallowed amount. For information relating to the Company's net operating losses, see the consolidated financial statements included in the 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K to stockholders.

All members of the compensation committee qualify as outside directors. The board considers the anticipated tax treatment to the Company and our executive officers when reviewing executive compensation and our compensation programs. The deductibility of some types of compensation payments can depend upon the timing of an executive's vesting or exercise of previously granted rights. Interpretations of and changes in applicable tax laws and regulations, as well as other factors beyond the board's control, also can affect the deductibility of compensation.

While the tax impact of any compensation arrangement is one factor to be considered, such impact is evaluated in light of the Company's overall compensation philosophy. The board will consider ways to maximize the deductibility of executive compensation, while retaining the discretion it deems necessary to compensate officers in a manner commensurate with performance and the competitive environment for executive talent. From time to time, the board may award compensation to our executive officers which is not fully deductible if it determines that such award is consistent with its philosophy and is in our and our stockholders' best interests, or as part of initial employment offers, such as grants of nonqualified stock options.

Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code impose certain adverse tax consequences on compensation treated as excess parachute payments. An executive is treated as having received excess parachute payments for purposes of Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code if he or she receives compensatory payments or benefits that are contingent on a change in the ownership or control of a corporation, and the aggregate amount of such contingent compensatory payments and benefits equal or exceeds three times the executive's base amount. If the executive's aggregate contingent compensatory payments and benefits equal or exceed three times the executive's base amount, the portion of the payments and benefits in excess of one times the base amount are treated as excess parachute payments. Treasury Regulations define the events that constitute a change in ownership or control of a corporation for purposes of Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code and the executives subject to Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code.

An executive's base amount generally is determined by averaging the executive's Form W-2 taxable compensation from the corporation and its subsidiaries for the five calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the change in ownership or control occurs. An executive's excess parachute payments are subject to a 20% excise tax under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code, in addition to any applicable federal income and employment taxes. Also, the corporation's compensation deduction in respect of the executive's excess parachute payments is disallowed under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. If we were to be subject to a change of control, certain amounts received by our executives (for example, amounts attributable to the accelerated vesting of stock options) could be excess parachute payments under Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code.  We provide our chief executive officer with tax gross up payments in event of a change of control.

Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code imposes distribution requirements on nonqualified deferred compensation plans and arrangements. If a nonqualified deferred compensation plan or arrangement fails to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, an executive participating in such plan or arrangement will be subject to adverse tax consequences (including an additional 20% income tax on amounts deferred under the plan or arrangement). Our nonqualified deferred compensation plans and arrangements for our executive officers are
intended to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, or to be exempt from the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.


COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The following report of the compensation committee does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any of our other filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.Act.

The compensation committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis for fiscal year 2008.2009.  Based on its review and discussions with management, the compensation committee recommended to the boardBoard of directorsDirectors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section be included in Hythiam, Inc.'s Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008.this report.

This report is submitted by:

Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D., Chair of Compensation Committee

Dated: April 30, 2009March 29, 2010
 
Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth the cash and non-cash compensation for our named executive officers during the 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 fiscal years.

           All other    
Name andFiscal       Option compen-    
Principal Positionyear Salary  Bonus  awards (1) sation (2)  Total 
                
Terren S. Peizer,2008 $450,000  $-  $1,258,917 $52,271 (3)  1,761,188 
Chairman & Chief2007  450,000   -   2,018  52,401 (3)  504,419 
Executive Officer2006  432,667   400,000   9,241  319,869 (3) (4)  1,161,777 
                     
Richard A. Anderson,2008  320,262   25,000   522,064  44,838   912,164 
President and2007  288,000   65,000   203,694  19,956   576,650 
Chief Operating Officer
2006  278,800   80,000   469,937  18,585   847,322 
                     
Christopher S. Hassan,2008  290,005   -   408,960  16,071   715,036 
Chief Strategy Officer2007  278,800   5,000   179,920  258,008 (6)  721,728 
 2006  108,649 (5)  57,900   77,390  33,694 (6)  277,633 
                     
Lawrence Weinstein, M.D.2008  254,112   35,100   134,593  11,777   435,582 
Senior Vice President -2007  233,654   35,000   44,980  12,826   326,460 
Medical Affairs2006  110,769 (7)  -   24,815  1,690   137,274 
                     
Maurice S. Hebert,2008  195,577   -   141,857  15,461   352,895 
Chief Financial Officer2007  169,346   -   66,499  13,980   249,825 
 2006  29,423 (8)  -   10,749  627   40,799 
                     
Chuck Timpe,2008  246,810 (9)  -   171,772  15,333   433,915 
Former Chief Financial2007  278,800   5,000   80,906  28,618   393,324 
Officer2006  215,700   60,000   96,887  29,385   401,972 
              Non-     
            Non- Qualified All   
            Equity Deferred Other   
          Option Incentive Compen Compen-  
Name and     Stock Awards Compen sation sation  
Principal Position Year Salary Bonus Awards (1) sation Earnings (2)  Total
                    
Terren S. Peizer,2009   450,000               -                 -    468,450                    -                      -          11,969 (3)   930,419
Chairman & Chief2008   450,000                -                  -   1,258,917                    -                      -         52,271 (3)     1,761,188
Executive Officer                                                                                                     
                           
Richard A. Anderson,2009   350,000               -                 -    436,112                    -                      -        20,489      806,601
President and2008   320,262   25,000                 -    522,064                    -                      -        44,838        912,164
Chief Operating Officer                                                                                       
                           
Christopher S. Hassan,2009   302,377               -                 -       214,911                    -                      -         17,754        535,041
Chief Strategy Officer2008   290,005               -                 -    408,960                    -                      -          16,071       715,036
                    
Gary Ingenito2009 275,000 25,000 - 96,181 - - 14,584  410,765
Senior Vice President -2008 275,000 40,000  -  125,500 - -  13,111   453,611
Scientific Affairs                  
                   
Maurice S. Hebert,2009   240,000               -                 -     128,499                    -                      -          14,491       382,990
Chief Financial Officer2008    195,577               -                 -      141,857                    -                      -          15,461      352,895

(1)Amounts reflect the compensation expense recognized in the Company's financial statements in 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 for stock option awards granted in 2008 and in previous years to the executive officers in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R). The dollar value for Mr. Peizer's stock option awards relate to an award granted in 2003 for 1,000,000 shares and awards granted in 2008 for 1,000,000 shares. Mr. Peizer was not awarded any stock option grants during the fiscal years 2004 through 2007.FASB accounting rules. The grant-date fair values of stock options are calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which incorporates various assumptions including

expected volatility, expected dividend yield, expected life and applicable interest rates. See Note 10 — Share-Based Compensationnotes to the  December 31, 2007 consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-Kthis report for further information on the assumptions used to value stock options granted to executive officers.
(2)Includes group life insurance premiums and health club membership feesmedical benefits for each officer.
(3)Includes $51,864$11,969 in 2008, $49,869 in 20072009 and $51,864 in 20062008 for automobile allowance, including tax gross-ups.
(4)On April 27, 2006 the board of directors awarded Mr. Peizer a special bonus of $265,000.
(5)Mr. Hassan's employment commenced on July 27, 2006.
(6)Includes $240,492 for relocation expenses, including tax gross-ups, in 2007, and $38,694 for relocation expenses, including tax gross-ups, in 2006.
(7)Dr. Weinstein's employment commenced on June 19, 2006.
(8)Mr. Hebert's employment commenced on October 12, 2006.
(9)Mr. Timpe's retirement was effective on November 12, 2008.

Executive employment agreements

Chief Executive Officerexecutive officer

We entered into a five-year employment agreement with our chairman and chief executive Officer,officer, Terren S. Peizer, effective as of September 29, 2003.2003, which automatically renewed for an additional five years upon completion of the initial term. Mr. Peizer currently receives an annual base salary of $450,000, with annual bonuses targeted at 100% of his base salary based on goals and milestones established and reevaluated on an annual basis by mutual agreement between Mr. Peizer and the board.Board. His base salary and bonus target will be adjusted each year to not be less than the median compensation of similarly positioned CEO’s of similarly situated companies. Mr. Peizer receives executive benefits including group medical and dental insurance, term life insurance equal to 150% of his salary, accidental death and long-term disability insurance, and a car allowance of $2,500 per month, grossed up for taxes. He was also granted options in 2003 to purchase 1,000,000 shares of our common stock at ten percent above the fair market value on the date of grant, vesting 20% each year over five years.  In 2008 and 2009,  Mr. Peizer was granted additional stock options to purchase 1,000,000 and 959,000 shares of our common stock, respectively, at ten percent above the fair market value on the date of grant, vesting over three years. All unvested options vest immediately in the event of a change in control, termination without good cause or resignation with good reason. In the event that Mr. Peizer is terminated without good cause or resigns with good reason prior to the end of the term, he will receive a lump sum equal to the remainder of his base salary and targeted bonus for the year of termination, plus three years of additional salary, bonuses and benefits.benef its. If any of the provisions above result in an excise tax, we will make an additional “gross up” payment to eliminate the impact of the tax on Mr. Peizer.
President and Chief Strategy Officerchief operating officer, chief strategy officer

We entered into a four-year employment agreementagreements with our president and chief operating officer, Richard A. Anderson and our chief strategy officer Christopher S. Hassan effective April 19, 2005 and July 27, 2006, respectively.We entered into an amendment to our employment agreement with Mr. Anderson on July 16, 2008 changing his title and job duties to president and chief operating officer and his base salary, and granting a one-time bonus of $25,000.    Mr. Anderson currently receives an annual base salary of $350,000, and Mr. Hassan receives an annual base salary of $302,377, each with annual bonuses targeted at 50% of his base salary based on achieving certain milestones. Their compensation will be adjusted each year by an amount not less than the CPI. They each receive executive benefits including group medical and dental insurance, term life insurance, accidental death and long-term disability insurance. Upon employment, Mr. Anderson was granted options to purchase 280,000 shares of our common stock, in addition to the 120,000 options previously granted to him as a non-employee member of our boardBoard of directors.directors, and Mr. Hassan was granted options to purchase 400,000 shares of our common stock. Each of the options was granted at the fair market value on the date of grant, vesting 20% each year over five years. Mssrs. Anderson and Hassan were granted additional options to purchase shares of our common stock in 2008 and 2009, as set forth in the table below, at the fair market value on the date of grant, vesting over three years. The options will vest immediately in the event of a change in control, termination without cause or resignation with good reason. In the event of termination without good cause or resignation with good reason prior to the end of the term, upon execution of a mutual general release, Mssrs. Anderson and Hassan each will receive a lump sum equal to one year of salary and bonus, and will receive continued medical benefits for one year unless they become eligible for coverage under another employer's plan. If eithereith er is terminated without cause or resigns with good reason within twelve months following a change in control, upon execution of a general release they will receive a lump sum equal to eighteen months salary, 150% of the targeted bonus, and will receive continued medical benefits for eighteen months unless he becomes eligible for coverage under another employer's plan.


Chief Financial Officerfinancial officer

We entered into an employment agreement with Maurice Hebert on November 12, 2008, which providesprovided for Mr. Hebert to receive an annual base salary of $240,000, with annual bonuses targeted at 40% of his base salary based on his performance and the operational and our financial performance. Mr. Hebert receivesreceived executive benefits including group medical and dental insurance, and long-term disability insurance and participation in our 401(k) plan and employee stock purchase plan. On the date of the employment agreement, Mr. Hebert was granted options to purchase 100,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.59 per share, the fair market value on the date of grant, vesting monthly over three years from the date of grant. Mr. Hebert resigned as our chief financial officer in January 2010.

Confidentiality agreements

Each employee is required to enter into a confidentiality agreement. These agreements provide that for so long as the employee works for us, and after the employee's termination for any reason, the employee may not disclose in any way any of our proprietary confidential information.

Limitation on liability and indemnification matters

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws limit the liability of directors and executive officers to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. The limitation on our directors' and executive officers' liability may not apply to liabilities arising under the federal securities laws. Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that we shall indemnify our directors and executive officers and may indemnify our other officers and employees and other agents to the fullest extent permitted by law. Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, may be permitted to our directors and executive officers pursuant to our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, we have been informed that in the opinion of the SEC such indemnificationindemnif ication is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.

At present, there is no pending material litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors, officers, employees or agents where indemnification will be required or permitted. We are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that might result in a claim for such indemnification.
 

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN 2008

The table below sets forth the information with respect to options granted to our named executive officers during 2008.

 Grant date Number of securities underlying options granted (1)  Exercise price ($/Sh) (2)  Grant date fair value of option awards (3) 
Terren S. Peizer02/07/08  460,000  $2.65  $767,724 
 06/20/08  540,000   2.63   941,608 
              
Richard A. Anderson02/07/08  293,000   2.65   488,990 
 06/20/08  344,500   2.63   600,711 
              
Christopher S. Hassan02/07/08  195,000   2.65   325,414 
 06/20/08  230,000   2.63   401,055 
              
Maurice Hebert02/07/08  62,500   2.65   104,306 
 06/20/08  73,500   2.63   128,163 
 11/10/08  100,000   0.59   37,838 
              
Lawrence Weinstein, M.D.02/07/08  78,000   2.65   130,166 
 06/20/08  92,000   2.63   160,422 
              
Chuck Timpe (4)02/07/08  175,000   2.65   292,020 
 06/20/08  207,000   2.63   360,950 

Notes to Grants of Plan-based Awards Table:
 
(1)Approximately 25% of the options granted on February 7, 2008 were immediately vested and the remaining options vest monthly over a thirty-six month period from the date of grant. The June 20, 2008 grants and the November 10, 2008 grant for Mr. Hebert vest monthly over a thirty-six month period from the date of grant.

(2)All options to purchase our common stock are exercisable at a price equal to the closing price of our common stock on the date of grant.

(3)The grant date fair value of stock options is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which incorporates various assumptions including expected volatility, expected life of the options and applicable interest rates. See Note 10 — Share-Based Compensation to the December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information on the assumptions used to value stock options granted to executive officers.

(4)Mr. Timpe retired effective November 12, 2008.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT LAST FISCAL YEAR-END

The following table sets forth all outstanding equity awards held by our named executive officers as of December 31, 2008.2009.

  Number of shares underlying unexercised options  Option Option
  Exercisable (#)  Unexercisable (#) (1)  exercise price expiration date
Terren S. Peizer  1,000,000   -  $2.75 09/29/13
   308,330   151,670   2.65 02/07/18
   90,000   450,000   2.63 06/20/18
              
Richard A. Anderson  120,000   -   2.50 09/29/13
   153,000   102,000   7.34 04/28/15
   10,000   15,000   4.77 07/27/16
   196,495   96,505   2.65 02/07/18
   57,414   287,086   2.63 06/20/18
              
Christopher S. Hassan  160,000   240,000   4.77 07/27/16
   130,900   64,100   2.65 02/07/18
   38,334   191,666   2.63 06/20/18
              
Maurice Hebert  36,000   54,000   7.89 11/15/16
   41,920   20,580   2.65 02/07/18
   12,252   61,248   2.63 06/20/18
   2,778   97,222   0.59 11/10/18

Option Awards         Stock Awards  
                  Equity
                  Incentive
                Equity Plan
                Incentive Awards:
              Market Plan Market
      Equity     Number Value Awards: or Payout
      Incentive    of of Number Value of
      Plan     Shares Shares of Unearned
      Awards:     or or Unearned Shares,
      No. of     Units Units Shares, Units, or
  Number of Number of Securities    of of Units, or Other
  Securities Securities Underlying    Stock Stock Other Rights
  Underlying Underlying Unexer-     That That Rights That
  Unexercised Unexercised cised Option   Have Have That Have
  Options (#) Options (#) Unearned Exercise Option Not Not Have Not Not
  Exercisable Unexer- Options Price Expiration Vested Vested Vested Vested
Name (1) cisable (#) ($) Date (#) ($) (#) (#)
Terren S. Peizer        1,000,000                       -                     -  $       0.31 09/29/13               -              -                  -                   -
             389,992              70,008                     -           0.31 02/07/18               -              -                  -                   -
             300,000            240,000                     -           0.31 06/20/18               -              -                  -                   -
               106,556            852,444                     -           0.48 10/27/19               -              -                  -                   -
          1,796,548         1,162,452                     -      
                   
Richard A. Anderson           120,000                       -                     -           0.28 09/29/13               -              -                  -                   -
             204,000              51,000                     -           0.28 04/28/15               -              -                  -                   -
               15,000              10,000                     -           0.28 07/27/16               -              -                  -                   -
             248,463              44,537                     -           0.28 02/07/18               -              -                  -                   -
             191,380            153,120                     -           0.28 06/20/18               -              -                  -                   -
               55,333            442,667                     -           0.44 10/27/19               -              -                  -                   -
             834,176            701,324              
                   
Christopher S. Hassan           240,000            160,000                     -           4.77 07/27/16               -              -                  -                   -
             165,410              29,590                     -           2.65 02/07/18               -              -                  -                   -
             127,780            102,220                     -           2.63 06/20/18               -              -                  -                   -
             533,190            291,810              
                   
Maurice Hebert             54,000              36,000                     -           0.28 11/15/16               -              -                  -                   -
               52,216              10,284                     -           0.28 02/07/18               -              -                  -                   -
               36,756              36,744                     -           0.28 06/20/18               -              -                  -                   -
               36,114              63,886                     -           0.59 11/10/18               -              -                  -                   -
                 6,667            113,333                     -           0.44 10/27/19               -              -                  -                   -
             185,753            260,247              
                   
Gary Ingenito 150,000 58,333  -  0.28  02/04/18  -  -  -  -
  44,448 61,108  -  0.62  10/28/18  -  -  -  -
  22,000 (2)-  -  0.31  03/04/19  -  -  -  -
  14,444 122,778  -  0.44  10/27/19  -  -  -  -
  230,892 242,219              
(1)The unvested stock options granted on February 7, 2008, June 20, 2008, and November 10, 2008, and October 29, 2009 vest monthly over a thirty-six month period from the date of grant. All other awards vest 20% each year over five years from the date of grant.
(2)  Options granted on March 6, 2009 vested immediately.

OPTIONS EXERCISED IN 20082009

There were no options exercised by any of our named executive officers, and no restricted stock held or vested, in 2008.2009.

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE-IN-CONTROL

Potential payments upon termination

The following summarizes the payments that the named executive officers would have received if their employment had terminated on December 31, 2008.2009.

If Mr. Peizer's employment had terminated due to disability, he would have received insurance and other fringe benefits for a period of one year thereafter, with a value equal to $5,600.  If Mr. Peizer had been terminated without good cause or resigned for good reason, he would have received a lump sum payment of $2,717,000, based upon: (i) three years of additional salary at $450,000 per year; (ii) three years of additional bonus of $450,000 per year; and (iii) three years of fringe benefits, with a value equal to $17,000.

If either Mr. Hassan or Mr. Anderson had been terminated without good cause or resigned for good reason, he would have received a lump sum of $525,000 for Mr. Anderson and $453,566 for Mr. Hassan, based upon one year's salary plus the full targeted bonus of 50% of base salary.  In addition, medical benefits would continue for up to one year, with a value equal to $17,000 each.


If Mr. Hebert had been terminated without good cause or resigned for good reason, he would have received a lump sum of $336,000, based upon one year's salary plus the full targeted bonus of 40% of base salary.
75

If Dr. Ingenito’s employment had been terminated without good cause, he would have to be notified in writing at least four months prior to the expected termination date.

Potential payments upon change in control

Upon a change in control, the unvested stock options of each of our named executive officers would have vested, with the values set forth above.

If Mr. Peizer had been terminated without good cause or resigned for good reason within twelve months following a change in control, he would have received a lump sum payment of $2,717,000, as described above, plus a tax gross up of $713,000.

In addition, hadIf either Mr. Hassan or Mr. Anderson been terminated without good cause or resigned for good reason within twelve months following a change in control, he would have received a lump sum of $787,500 for Mr. Anderson and $680,348 for Mr. Hassan, based upon one-and-a-half year's salary plus one-and-a-half the full targeted bonus of 50% of base salary.  In addition, medical benefits would continue for up to one-and-a-half years, with a value equal to $25,000 each.

If Mr. Hebert had resigned for good reason following a change in control, he would have received a lump sum of $336,000, based upon one year's salary plus the full targeted bonus of 40% of base salary.  In addition, medical benefits would continue for up to one year, provided that medical insurance coverage will terminate sooner if Mr. Hebert becomes eligible for coverage under another employer’s plan.

If Dr. Ingenito had been terminated without good cause all of his unvested stock options will vest immediately, and remain exercisable for a period of three years, as stated above.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The following table provides information regarding compensation that was earned or paid to the individuals who served as non-employee directors during the year ended December 31, 2008.2009. Except as set forth in the table, during 2008,2009, directors did not earn nor receive cash compensation or compensation in the form of stock awards, option awards or any other form.

        Change in           Non- Non-    
        pension     
Fees
     equity qualified    
      Non- value and     
earned
     incentive deferred 
All
  
      equity nonqualified     
or paid
   Option plan compen- 
other
  
Fees     incentive deferred     
in cash 
 Stock awards compen- sation 
compen-
  
earned   Option plan compen- All other  
or paid Stock awards compen- sation compen-  
in cash awards (1) (2) sation earnings sation Total
Name (1) awards (2)(3) sation earnings 
sation
 Total
Marc Cummins$8,750 $- $137,906 $- $- $- $146,656 $22,000 $- $164,583 $- $- $- $186,583
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, MD 7,500  -  132,374  -  -  -  139,874  25,000  -  128,567  -  -  -  153,567
Steven Kriegsman 15,500  -  23,941  -  -  -  39,441  14,000  -  -  -  -  -  14,000
Jay Wolf -  -  23,941  -  -  -  23,941  25,500  -  58,525  -  -  -  84,025
Hon. Karen Freeman-Wilson 10,500  -  88,758  -  -  -  99,258
Leslie F. Bell 20,000  -  33,864  -  -  -  53,864

Notes to Director Compensation Table:director compensation table:

(1)  Except for $3,750 paid to Mr. Kriegsman in cash for fees earned in a prior period, these are fees earned in 2009 but not yet paid.
(2)  
Amounts reflect the compensation expense recognized in the Company's financial statements in 20082009 for non-employee director stock options granted in 20082009 and in previous years, in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R).FASB accounting rules. As such, these amounts do not correspond to the compensation actually realized by each director for the period. See Note 10 — Share-Based Compensation notes to the Company's December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements in its Annual Report on Form 10-Kthis report for further information on the assumptions used to value stock options granted to non-employee directors.
(2)(3)  
There were a total of 762,5001,500,000 stock options granted to non-employee directors outstanding at December 31, 20082009 with an aggregate grant date fair value of $1,551,604,$1,624,817, the last of which will vest in July 2011.October 2012.  The grant date fair value of stock option awards is calculated based on the Black-Scholes stock option valuation model utilizing the assumptions discussed in Note 10 —11 - Share-Based Compensationto the December 31, 2009 consolidated financial statements.  Outstanding equity awards, by non-employee directors as of December 31, 2009 were as follows:

 
the December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K. Outstanding equity awards, by non-employee director as of December 31, 2008 were as follows:

    Aggregate 
    grant date 
    fair market value 
 Options  options 
 outstanding (#)  outstanding 
Marc Cummins 277,500  $592,293 
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, MD 185,000   549,801 
Steven Kriegsman 150,000   204,755 
Jay Wolf 150,000   204,755 
     Aggregate
     grant date
     fair market value
  Options  options
  outstanding  outstanding
Marc Cummins  500,000  $662,190
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, MD  500,000   648,453
Jay Wolf  500,000   314,174

Compensation committee interlocks and insider participation

No member of the compensation committee was at any time during the past fiscal year an officer or employee of the Company, was formerly an officer of the Company or any of our subsidiaries, or had any employment relationship with us.

During the last fiscal year, none of our executive officers served as:

●  a member of the compensation committee (or other committee of the board of directors performing equivalent functions or, in the absence of any such committee, the entire board of directors) of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our compensation committee;

●  
a director of another entity one of whose executive officers served on our compensation committee; or

●  
a member of the compensation committee (or other committee of the board of directors performing equivalent functions or, in the absence of any such committee, the entire board of directors) of another entity, one of whose executive officers served as a director of the Company.



ITEM 12.
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN
BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the shares of common stock beneficially owned as of April 28, 2009March 4, 2010 by: (i) each person known to us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock,


(ii) each of our directors, (iii) each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table set forth in the Executive Compensation section, and (iv) all such directors and officers as a group:group.

     Options &  Total    
  Common  Warrants  Common    
  Stock  Exercisable  Stock  Percent 
  Beneficially  on or before  Beneficially  of 
Name of Beneficial Owner (1) Owned (2)  July 7, 2009  Owned  Class (3) 
Terren S. Peizer (4))  13,600,000   1,519,161   15,119,161   21.8% 
Knoll Capital Management, LP (5)  4,001,040   208,768   4,209,808   6.1% 
NorthPointe Capital, LLC (6)  3,627,295   54,750   3,682,045   5.3% 
Marc G. Cummins (7)  1,583,111   482,751   2,065,862   * 
Richard A. Anderson  -   664,939   664,939   * 
Christopher S. Hassan  -   380,587   380,587   * 
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D.  -   131,194   131,194   * 
Maurice S. Hebert  -   125,494   125,494   * 
Steven A. Kriegsman  -   45,004   45,004   * 
Jay A. Wolf  -   45,004   45,004   * 
All directors and named executive officers as a group (8 persons)  15,183,111   3,394,134   18,577,245   26.8% 
     Options &  Total   
  Common  warrants  common   
  stock  exercisable  stock  Percent
  beneficially  on or before  beneficially  of
Name of beneficial owner (1) owned (2)  3/4/2010  owned  class (3)
Terren S. Peizer (4)  13,600,000   1,796,548   15,396,548  23.2%
Knoll Capital Management, LP (5)  4,160,646   1,600,562   5,761,208  8.7%
Enable Capital Management LLC (6)  4,666,667   1,166,667   5,833,334  8.8%
Enable Growth Partners L.P (7)  4,666,667   1,166,667   5,833,334  8.8%
Marc G. Cummins (8)  1,441,145   287,917   1,729,062  *
Richard A. Anderson  -   834,176   834,176  *
Christopher S. Hassan  -   533,190   533,190  *
Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D.  -   232,778   232,778  *
Maurice S. Hebert  -   185,753   185,753  *
Gary Ingenito  -   230,892   230,892  *
Jay A. Wolf  -   120,843   120,843  *
All directors and named executive officers as a group (8 persons)  15,041,145   4,222,096   19,263,241  29.0%

(1)The mailing address of all individuals listed is c/o Hythiam, Inc., 11150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90025, unless otherwise indicated.
(2)The number of shares beneficially owned includes shares of common stock in which a person has sole or shared voting power and/or sole or shared investment power. Except as noted below, each person named reportedly has sole voting and investment powers with respect to the common stock beneficially owned by that person, subject to applicable community property and similar laws.
(3)On April 28, 2009,March 4, 2010, there were 55,154,68866,378,296 shares of common stock outstanding. Common stock not outstanding but which underlies options and rights (including warrants) vested as of or vesting within 60 days after April 28,December 31, 2009 is deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage of the common stock beneficially owned by each named person (and the directors and executive officers as a group), but is not deemed to be outstanding for any other purpose.
(4)13,600,000 shares are held of record by Bonmore,Bowmore, LLC and Reserva Capital, LLC, which is owned and controlled by Mr. Peizer.
(5)
Based on information provided on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 10, 2009,January 29, 2010, by Fred Knoll, individually and as president of Knoll Capital Management LP and Europa International, Inc., 237 Park Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10166.
(6)BasedIncludes 4,666,6667 shares and 1,166,667 warrants based on information provided on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on September 24, 2009 and February 10, 2009, by NorthPointe Capital,LLC, 101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 745, Troy, Michigan 48084.11, 2010, respectively.
(7)Includes 4,666,6667 shares and 1,166,667 warrants based on information provided on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on September 24, 2009 and February 11, 2010, respectively.
(8)Includes 751,566 shares and 187,892 warrants held by CPS Opportunities, LLC, 167,015 shares and 41,754 warrants held by GPC LX1 LLC, 73,069 shares and 18,267 warrants held by Prime Logic 1 LLC, 52,192 shares and 13,048 warrants held by GPC 78 LLC, for which Mr. Cummins serves as investment manager and 317,047175,081 shares held by Prime Logic Capital LLC, for which Mr. Cummins serves as managing partner.  Additionally, 100,000 shares are held of record by Bexley Partners, L.P., 23,000 by Cummins Children's Trust, 22,000 by C.F. Partners, L.P., and 35,000 by Mr. Cummins' wife Lisa Cummins. Mr. Cummins disclaims beneficial ownership of such shares.


C.F. Partners, L.P., 35,000 by Mr. Cummins' wife Lisa Cummins. Mr. Cummins disclaims beneficial ownership of such shares.

Equity Compensation Plan

The information relating to our equity compensation plan required to be filed hereunder is included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report.

ITITEEMM 13.
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Persons

Either the Audit Committeeaudit committee or the Board approves all related party transactions. The procedure for the review, approval or ratification for related party transactions involves discussing the transaction with management, discussing the transaction with the external auditors, reviewing financial statements and related disclosures and reviewing the details of major deals and transactions to ensure that they do not involve related transactions. Members of management have been informed and understand that they are to bring related party transactions to the Audit Committeeaudit committee or the Board for approval. These policies and procedures are evidenced in the Audit Committee Charteraudit committee charter and the Codeour code of Ethics.ethics.

Certain Transactions

Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D., a director, is the founder and chief executive officer of EMGlobal LLC, a healthcare and policy consulting firm providing consulting services to us.  In 2006 and 2007, we paid or accrued approximately $189,000 and $156,000, respectively, in fees to the consulting firm. No such fees were paid in 2008.

Lawrence Weinstein, M.D., senior vice president – medical affairs, is the sole shareholder of The PROMETAthe Center Inc.To Overcome Addiction.(the Center), a California professional corporation. Under the terms of a management services agreement with the PROMETA Center, we provide and perform all non-medical management and administrative services for the medical group. We also agreed to provide a working capital loan to the PROMETA Center to allow for the medical group to pay for its obligations, including our management fees, equipment, leasehold build-out and start-up costs. As of MarchDecember 31, 2009, the amount of loan outstanding was approximately $9.2 million, with interest at the prime rate plus 2%. Payment of our management fee is subordinate to payments of the obligations of the medical group, and repayment of the working capital loan is not guaranteed by the stockholder or other third party.

Independence of the Board of Directors

OurEffective the beginning of business on Friday, February 26, 2010, our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market (“NASDAQ”).OTC Bulletin Board. The Board has determined that a majority of the members of the Board qualify as “independent,” as defined by the listing standards of the NASDAQ. Consistent with these considerations, after review of all relevant transactions and relationships between each director, or any of his family members, and Hythiam, its senior management and its independent auditors, the Board has determined further that Messrs. Cummins, Kriegsman, Wolf and Dr. Barthwell are independent under the listing standards of NASDAQ. In making this determination, the Board considered that there were no new transactions or relationships between its current independent directors and Hythiam, its senior management and its independent auditors since last makingm aking this determination.

ITEM 14.PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The firm of BDO Seidman, LLPRose, Snyder & Jacobs has served as our independent registered public accounting firm since the 2003for our 2009 fiscal year, and will continue to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 20092010 fiscal year unless the audit committee deems it advisable to make a substitution. The firm of BDO Seidman, LLP served as our independent registered public accounting firm from 2003 to our 2008 fiscal year.

Aggregate fees billed toincurred by us for the fiscal years ended December 31, 20072009 and 2008 by Rose, Snyder & Jacobs,BDO Seidman and its affiliates areother service providers were as follows:

  2009  2008
Audit fees $262,475  $518,000
Audit-related fees  106,210   40,000
Tax fees  -   -
All other fees  -   -
  
2007
  
2008
 
Audit fees (1) $745,000  $518,000 
Audit-related fees (2) $126,000  $40,000 
Tax fees (3) $72,000  $  - 
Other fees $ -  $ - 

(1)This amount includes fees paid by us in connection with the annual audit of our consolidated financial statements, the review of our quarterly financial statements, registration statements and other filings with the SEC and approximately $305,000 in 2007 and $144,000 in 2008 in fees related to the audit of internal control over financial reporting performed in relation to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
(2)This amount relates to consulting on financial accounting and reporting standards, consultation on accounting transactions and fees related to our stock offering.
(3)Amounts are for tax return preparation.

The audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services by Rose, Snyder & Jacobs and BDO Seidman is compatible with maintaining Rose, Snyder & Jacobs’ and BDO Seidman's independence.

Audit committee pre-approvals

All auditing and non-auditing services provided to us by the independent auditors are pre-approved by the audit committee or in certain instances by the chair of the audit committee pursuant to delegated authority. Each year the audit committee discusses and outlines the scope and plan for the audit and reviews and approves all known audit and non-audit services and fees to be provided by and paid to the independent auditors. During the year, the specific audit and non-audit services or fees not previously negotiated or approved by the audit committee are negotiated or approved in advance by the audit committee or by the chair of the audit committee pursuant to delegated authority. In addition, during the year the chief financial officer and the audit committeecom mittee monitor actual fees to the independent auditors for audit and non-audit services.

All of the services provided byRose, Snyder & Jacobs and BDO Seidman described above under the captions "Audit-related fees", "Tax fees", and "All other“Other fees" were approved by our audit committee pursuant to our audit committee's pre-approval policies.


 
PART IV


ITEM 15.                      EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
ITEM 15.EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

(a)(1),(2)                      Financial Statements

The Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules listed on page F-1 of this document are filed as part of this filing.

(a)(3)              Exhibits

Those exhibits marked with a (£) refer to exhibits filed with the Original Filing. The following exhibits are filed as part of this report:

Exhibit No. Description
2.1 
Stock Purchase Agreement between WoodCliff Healthcare Investment Partners,
LLC and Core Corporate Consulting Group, Inc., dated January 14, 2009,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Hythiam Inc.’s current report on
Form 8-K/A filed January 26, 2009.
3.1 Certificate of Incorporation of Hythiam, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on September 29, 2003, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number of Hythiam Inc.’s Form 8-K filed September 30, 2003.
3.2 By-Laws of Hythiam, Inc., a Delaware corporation, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number of Hythiam, Inc.’s Form 8-K filed September 30, 2003.
4.1 Specimen Common Stock Certificate, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
10.1* 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same numberExhibit 99.1 of Hythiam Inc.’s Form 8-K filed September 30, 2003.
10.2* Employment Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Terren S. Peizer, dated September 29, 2003, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
10.3* Employment Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and  Richard A. Anderson, dated April 19, 2005, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
10.6* Management and Support Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith, M.D. Medical Group, Inc, dated November 15, 2005, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
10.7* Consulting Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith & Associates, dated September 15, 2005, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
10.8* First Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith, M.D. Medical Group, Inc., effective January 1, 2007, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
10.9* First Amendment to Management and Support Services Agreement Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith, M.D. Medical Group, Inc., effective December 5,1, 2005, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
10.10* Second Amendment to Management and Support Services Agreement Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith, M.D. Medical Group, Inc., effective November 15, 2006, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
10.11* Employment Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Christopher Hassan., dated July 26, 2006, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.2006.



10.12* 
2007 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to the Hythiam Inc.’s Revised
Definitive Proxy on Form DEFR14A filed May 11, 2007.
10.13£
 Technology License and Administrative Services Agreement, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam, Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
10.14*£
 Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and David E. Smith & Associates, a California professional corporation, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam, Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
10.15 Redemption Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge International, LLC., dated November 7, 2007, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam, Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
10.16 Securities and Purchase Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge International, LLC, dated January 17, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed January 18, 2007.
10.17* Registration Rights Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge International, LLC, dated January 17, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed January 18, 2007.
10.18 
Pledge Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge
International, LLC, dated January 17, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.8 of Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed January 18, 2007.
10.19 
Security Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge
International, LLC, dated January 17, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.9 of Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed January 18, 2007.
10.20 
Securities and Purchase Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Highbridge International, LLC, dated November 11,6, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed November 7, 2007.
10.21* See Exhibit 2.1.
10.22* 
Amendment to Employment Agreement of Richard A. Anderson, dated July 16, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of  Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed July 18, 2008.
10.23 
Amendment and Exchange Agreement with Highbridge International LLC, dated
July 31, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Hythiam Inc.’s
current report on Form 8-K filed August 1, 2008.
10.24 
Amended and Restated Senior Secured Note with Highbridge International LLC,
dated July 31, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Hythiam
Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed August 1, 2008.
10.25
Amended and Restated Warrant to Purchase Common Stock with Highbridge
International LLC, dated July 31, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3
of the Hythiam Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed August 1, 2008.
10.25
Amended and Restated Warrant to Purchase Common Stock with Highbridge International LLC, dated July 31, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Hythiam Inc.’s current  report on Form 8-K filed August 1, 2008.
10.26*
 
Employment Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Maurice Hebert, dated
November 12, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Hythiam
Inc.’s current report on Form 8-K filed November 14, 2008.
10.27*
 
Consulting Services Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Chuck Timpe, dated November
12, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Hythiam Inc.’s current
report on Form 8-K filed November 14, 2008.
10.28
Order for Settlement of Claims between Hythiam, Inc. and The Trinity Group-I, Inc., dated January 21, 2010.
10.29
Settlement Agreement between Hythiam, Inc. and Lincoln PO FBOP Limited Partnership, dated March 23, 2010.
10.30Order Approving Stipulation for Settlement of Claims between Hythiam, Inc. and The Trinity Group-I, Inc., dated April 8, 2010.
14.1 Code of Conduct and Ethics, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to the Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.
14.2 Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers, incorporated by reference to exhibit of the same number to Hythiam Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.
21.1 Subsidiaries of the CompanyCompany.
23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm – Rose, Snyder & Jacobs.
23.2Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm – BDO Seidman, LLPLLP.
31.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to Rule 13-a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 20022002.
31.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to Rule��13-a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.3Certification by the Chief Operating Officer, pursuant to Rule 13-a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 20022002.
32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 20022002.


32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 20022002.
32.3Certification by the Chief Operating Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 
*     Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 
HYTHIAM, INC.
 
Date:  April 30, 200913, 2010By:  /s/ TERREN S. PEIZER  
  Terren S. Peizer 
  Chief Executive Officer 



POWER OF ATTORNEY

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signature Title(s) Date
     
/s/ TERREN S. PEIZER Chairman of the Board of Directors April 30, 200913, 2010
 Terren S. Peizer and Chief Executive Officer  
  (Principal Executive Officer)  
     
     
/s/ MAURICE S. HEBERTJOHN V. RIGALI Chief Financial Officer April 30, 200913, 2010
 Maurice S. HebertJohn V. Rigali (Principal Financial and  
  Accounting Officer)  
     
     
/s/ RICHARD A. ANDERSON President, Chief Operating Officer April 30, 200913, 2010
 Richard A. Anderson  and Director  
     
     
/s/ CHRISTOPHER S. HASSANChief Strategy Officer and DirectorApril 30, 2009
 Christopher S. Hassan
/s/ STEVE KRIEGSMANJAY A. WOLF Director April 30, 200913, 2010
 Steve KriegsmanJay A. Wolf    
     
     
/s/ MARC G. CUMMINS Director April 30, 200913, 2010
 Marc G. Cummins    
     
     
/s/ ANDREA GRUBB BARTHWELL, M.D. Director April 30, 200913, 2010
 Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D.    



HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules

Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm F-2 
    
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmF-3
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 F-4 
    
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 F-5 
    
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for Years Ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 F-6 
    
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 F-7 
    
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements F-8F-9 

Financial Statement Schedules

All financial statement schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, not required, or the information is shown in the Financial Statements or Notes thereto.



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
Stockholders of Hythiam, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheetssheet of Hythiam, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2008 and 20072009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008.year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.audit.

We conducted our auditsaudit in accordance with auditingthe standards generally accepted inof the United States of America.Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Co mpany’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provideaudit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Hythiam, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We also have audited the adjustments to the 2008 financial statements to retrospectively adjust the disclosures for a change in the composition of reportable segments in 2009, as described in Note 11, and the adjustments to the 2008 financial statements to retrospectively apply the change in presentation for discontinued operations, as discussed in Note 12. In our opinion, such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2008 financial statements of the Company other than with respect to the retrospective adjustments related to the change in composition of reportab le segments and the change in presentation for discontinued operations and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the 2008 financial statements taken as a whole.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations during the year ended December 31, 2009. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans regarding those matters also are described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


Rose, Snyder & Jacobs
A Corporation of Certified Public Accountants

Encino, California

April 9, 2010

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
Hythiam, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
We have audited, before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively reflect the changes in the composition of Hythiam, Inc.’s reportable segments described in Note 11 and apply the accounting for discontinued operations described in Note 12, the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Hythiam, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the 2008 consolidated financial statements before the effects of the adjustments discussed in Notes 11 and 12 are not presented herein). The 2008 financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial state ments based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
 
In our opinion, the 2008 consolidated financial statements, referredbefore the effects of the adjustments to aboveretrospectively reflect the changes in the composition of Hythiam, Inc.’s reportable segments described in Note 11 and apply the accounting for discontinued operations described in Note 12, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the CompanyHythiam, Inc. at December 31, 2008, and 2007, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the three years in the periodyear ended December 31, 2008, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the adjustments to retrospectively reflect the changes in the composition of Hythiam, Inc.’s reportable segments described in Note 11 and apply the accounting for discontinued operations described in Note 12 and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance about whether such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. Those adjustments were audited by Rose, Snyder & Jacobs, a corporation of certified public accountants.

The accompanying 2008 financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows from operating activities that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated March 31, 2009 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 31, 2009


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
Hythiam, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
We have audited Hythiam, Inc. and subsidiaries’ (the Company) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Hythiam’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Item 9A, Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exits, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with both generally accepted accounting principles and regulatory reporting instructions. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with both generally accepted accounting principles and regulatory reporting instructions, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Hythiam, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on the COSO criteria.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Hythiam, Inc as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008 and our report dated March 31, 2009 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon and contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 31, 2009

 
HYTHIAM, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Dollars in thousands, except share data) December 31, 
ASSETS 2008  2007 
Current assets      
Cash and cash equivalents $10,893  $11,149 
Marketable securities, at fair value  146   35,840 
Restricted cash  24   39 
Receivables, net  2,234   1,787 
Notes receivable  17   133 
Prepaids and other current assets  676   1,394 
Total current assets  13,990   50,342 
Long-term assets        
Marketable securities, at fair value  10,072   - 
   Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation     
and amortization of $6,376 and $5,630, respectively  2,860   4,291 
Goodwill  493   10,557 
Intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of        
$2,745 and $1,609, respectively  3,899   4,836 
Deposits and other assets  552   620 
Total Assets $31,866  $70,646 
         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Current liabilities        
Accounts payable $3,784  $4,038 
Accrued compensation and benefits  1,844   2,860 
Accrued liabilities  3,191   2,030 
Accrued claims payable  6,791   5,464 
Short-term debt  9,835   4,742 
Income taxes payable  19   94 
Total current liabilities  25,464   19,228 
Long-term liabilities        
Long-term debt  2,341   2,057 
Accrued reinsurance claims payable  2,526   2,526 
Warrant liabilities  156   2,798 
Capital lease obligations  144   331 
Deferred rent and other long-term liabilities  127   442 
Total Liabilities  30,758   27,382 
         
Commitments and contingencies (See Note 13)
        
         
Stockholders' equity        
Preferred stock, $.0001 par value; 50,000,000 shares authorized;     
no shares issued and outstanding  -   - 
Common stock, $.0001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized;     
issued and outstanding shares -- 54,965,000 and 54,335,000     
at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively  6   5 
Additional paid-in-capital  174,721   166,460 
Accumulated deficit  (173,619)  (123,201)
Total Stockholders' Equity  1,108   43,264 
Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity $31,866  $70,646 

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.

HYTHIAM, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data) Year Ended December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
Revenues         
Behavioral health managed care services $35,156  $36,306  $- 
Healthcare services  6,074   7,695   3,906 
Total revenues  41,230   44,001   3,906 
             
Operating expenses            
Behavioral health managed care expenses  36,496   35,679   - 
Cost of healthcare services  1,718   2,052   818 
General and administrative expenses  40,741   45,554   38,680 
Goodwill impairment  9,775   -   - 
Other impairment  -   2,387   - 
Research and development  3,370   3,358   3,053 
Depreciation and amortization  2,733   2,502   1,281 
Total operating expenses  94,833   91,532   43,832 
             
Loss from operations  (53,603)  (47,531)  (39,926)
             
Non-operating income (expenses)            
Interest income  830   1,584   1,630 
Interest expense  (1,939)  (2,190)  - 
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities  (1,428)  -   - 
Loss on extinguishment of debt  -   (741)  - 
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities  5,744   3,471   - 
Other non-operating income, net  5   32   - 
Loss before provision for income taxes  (50,391)  (45,375)  (38,296)
Provision for income taxes  27   87   2 
             
Net loss $(50,418) $(45,462) $(38,298)
             
             
Net loss per share - basic and diluted $(0.92) $(0.99) $(0.96)
             
Weighted average number of shares            
outstanding - basic and diluted  54,675   45,695   39,715 
(In thousands) December 31, 
  2009  2008 
ASSETS      
Current assets      
Cash and cash equivalents $4,595  $9,756 
Marketable securities, at fair value  9,468   146 
Restricted cash  -   24 
Receivables, net  308   654 
Prepaids and other current assets  989   357 
Current assets of discontinued operations  -   3,053 
Total current assets  15,360   13,990 
Long-term assets        
Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of        
$6,697 and $5,035, respectively  877   2,625 
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization of        
$1,702 and $1,250, respectively  2,658   3,257 
Deposits and other assets  210   318 
Marketable securities, at fair value  -   10,072 
Non-current assets of discontinued operations  -   1,604 
Total Assets $19,105  $31,866 
         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Current liabilities        
Accounts payable $2,266  $3,396 
Accrued compensation and benefits  941   1,476 
Other accrued liabilities  2,431   2,082 
Short-term debt  9,643   9,835 
Current liabilities of discontinued operations  -   8,675 
Total current liabilities  15,281   25,464 
Long-term liabilities        
Deferred rent and other long-term liabilities  46   127 
Long-term debt  -   - 
Warrant liabilities  1,089   156 
Capital lease obligations  48   81 
Non-current liabilities of discontinued operations  -   4,930 
Total liabilities  16,464   30,758 
         
         
Stockholders' equity        
Preferred stock, $.0001 par value; 50,000,000 shares authorized;        
no shares issued and outstanding  -   - 
Common stock, $.0001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized;        
65,283,000 and 54,965,000 shares issued and outstanding        
at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively  7   6 
Additional paid-in-capital  184,715   174,721 
Accumulated other comprehensive income  696   - 
Accumulated deficit  (182,777)  (173,619)
Total Stockholders' Equity  2,641   1,108 
Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity $19,105  $31,866 
 
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.


HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITYOPERATIONS

  Year Ended December 31, 
(In thousands, except per share amounts) 2009  2008 
       
Revenues      
Healthcare services $1,530  $6,074 
Total revenues  1,530   6,074 
         
Operating expenses        
Cost of healthcare services $509  $1,718 
General and administrative expenses  18,034   37,059 
Research and development  -   3,370 
Impairment losses  1,113   9,775 
Depreciation and amortization  1,248   1,861 
Total operating expenses  20,904   53,783 
         
Loss from operations $(19,374) $(47,709)
         
Non-operating income (expenses)        
Interest & other income  941   804 
Interest expense  (1,142)  (1,663)
Loss on extinguishment of debt  (330)  - 
Gain on the sale of marketable securities  160   - 
Other than temporary impairment of        
marketable securities  (185)  (1,428)
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities  341   5,744 
         
Loss from continuing operations before        
provision for income taxes  (19,589)  (44,252)
Provision for income taxes  18   22 
Loss from continuing operations $(19,607) $(44,274)
         
Discontinued operations:        
Results of discontinued operations, net of tax  10,449   (6,144)
         
Net loss $(9,158) $(50,418)
         
Basic and diluted net income (loss) per share:        
Continuing operations $(0.34) $(0.81)
Discontinued operations  0.18   (0.11)
Net loss per share $(0.16) $(0.92)
         
Weighted number of shares outstanding  57,947   54,675 
        Additional       
(Dollars in thousands) Common Stock  Paid-In  Accumulated    
  Shares  Amount  Capital  Deficit  Total 
                
Balance at December 31, 2005  39,144,000  $4  $89,176  $(39,441) $49,739 
                     
Common stock issued for intellectual property                 
and outside services  157,000   -   1,064   -   1,064 
Options and warrants issued for employee                    
and outside services  -   -   3,462   -   3,462 
Exercise of options and warrants  683,000   -   1,690   -   1,690 
Common stock issued in private placement                    
offering, net of expenses  3,573,000   -   24,372   -   24,372 
Net loss  -   -   -   (38,298)  (38,298)
Balance at December 31, 2006  43,557,000   4   119,764   (77,739)  42,029 
                     
Common stock issued for intellectual property                 
and outside services  315,000   -   2,447   -   2,447 
Options and warrants issued for employee                    
and outside services  -   -   2,397   -   2,397 
Exercise of options and warrants  586,000   -   1,940   -   1,940 
Common stock issued for employee stock                    
purchase plan  27,000   -   124   -   124 
Common stock issued for CompCare                    
acquisition  215,000   -   2,084   -   2,084 
Warrants issued with debt  -   -   1,342   -   1,342 
Common stock issued in registered direct                    
placement, net of expenses  9,635,000   1   36,362   -   36,363 
Net loss  -   -   -   (45,462)  (45,462)
Balance at December 31, 2007  54,335,000   5   166,460   (123,201)  43,264 
                     
Common stock issued for outside services  601,000   1   1,665   -   1,666 
Options and warrants issued for employee                    
and outside services  -   -   7,407   -   7,407 
Common stock issued for employee stock                    
purchase plan  29,000   -   29   -   29 
Warrants issued with debt (Note 1)
  -   -   (1,380)  -   (1,380)
Common stock issuance expense                    
adjustment  -   -   540   -   540 
Net loss  -   -   -   (50,418)  (50,418)
Balance at December 31, 2008  54,965,000  $6  $174,721  $(173,619) $1,108 

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.


HYTHIAM, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

           Other       
           Compre-       
        Additional  hensive  Accumu-    
(Dollars in thousands) Common Stock  Paid-In  Income  lated    
  Shares  Amt  Capital  (loss)  Deficit  Total 
                   
Balance at December 31, 2007  54,335,000   5   166,460   -   (123,201)  43,264 
                         
Common stock issued for outside services  601,000   1   1,665   -   -   1,666 
Options and warrants issued for                        
employee and outside services  -   -   7,407   -   -   7,407 
Common stock issued for employee stock                     
purchase plan  29,000   -   29   -   -   29 
Warrants issued with debt (Note 1)  -   -   (1,380)  -   -   (1,380)
Common stock issuance expense                        
adjustment  -   -   540   -   -   540 
Net loss  -   -   -       (50,418)  (50,418)
Balance at December 31, 2008  54,965,000   6   174,721   -   (173,619)  1,108 
                         
Common stock issued for outside services  914,000   -   265   -   -   265 
Common stock issued in registered direct                     
placement, net of expenses  9,333,000   1   5,262   -   -   5,263 
Options and warrants issued for                        
employee and outside services  -   -   4,421   -   -   4,421 
Exercise of options and warrants  56,000   -   16   -   -   16 
Common stock issued for employee stock                     
purchase plan  14,000   -   30   -   -   30 
Net unrealized gain (loss) on marketable                     
     securities available for sale  -   -   -   696   -   696 
Net loss  -   -   -   -   (9,158)  (9,158)
Balance at December 31, 2009  65,282,000  $7  $184,715  $696  $(182,777) $2,641 
                          
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. 


HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Dollars in thousands) Year ended December 31, 
  2009  2008 
Operating activities      
Net loss $(9,158) $(50,418)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in     
operating activities:        
(Income)/Loss from Discontinued Operations  (10,449)  6,144 
Depreciation and amortization  1,247   1,860 
Amortization of debt discount and issuance costs included in 
interest expense  798   1,122 
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities  185   1,428 
Gain on sale of marketable securities  (159)  - 
Provision for doubtful accounts  526   1,032 
Deferred rent  151   (370)
Share-based compensation expense  4,621   9,084 
Unrealized gain on Put Option  (758)  - 
Goodwill impairment loss  -   9,775 
Other impairment loss  1,113   - 
Loss on extinguishment of debt  230   - 
Fair value adjustment on warrant liability  (341)  (5,744)
Intercompany with CompCare  -   (12)
Loss on disposition of property and equipment  16   813 
Changes in current assets and liabilities, net of business acquired: 
Receivables  (88)  66 
Prepaids and other current assets  284   798 
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities  (1,617)  439 
Net cash used in operating activities of continuing operations  (13,399)  (23,983)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities of     
discontinued operations  (1,103)  (5,463)
Net cash used in operating activities  (14,502)  (29,446)
Investing activities        
Purchases of marketable securities  1,420   (76,944)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of marketable securities  -   101,138 
Cash paid related to acquisition of a business, net of cash     
acquired  -   - 
Proceeds from sales of property and equipment  13   24 
Proceeds from disposition of CompCare  1,500   - 
Restricted cash  24   15 
Purchases of property and equipment  (20)  (945)
Deposits and other assets  16   241 
Cost of intangibles  -   (200)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities  2,953   23,329 
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities of     
discontinued operations  39   (21)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities  2,992   23,308 

(continued on next page)
 
 
HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(continued)

(Dollars in thousands)Year ended December 31,
   2009 2008
(Dollars in thousands) Year ended December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
Operating activities         
Net loss $(50,418) $(45,462) $(38,298)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:            
Depreciation and amortization  2,733   2,502   1,281 
Amortization of debt discount and issuance costs included in interest expense  1,206   1,026   - 
Other than temporary impairment of marketable securities  1,428   -   - 
Provision for doubtful accounts  1,032   528   281 
Deferred rent  (370)  (6)  134 
Share-based compensation expense  9,214   2,605   3,691 
Goodwill impairment loss  9,775   -   - 
Other impairment loss  -   2,387   - 
Loss on extinguishment of debt  -   741   - 
Fair value adjustment on warrant liability  (5,744)  (3,471)  - 
Loss on disposition of fixed assets  824   -   - 
Changes in current assets and liabilities, net of business acquired:            
Receivables  (1,480)  (810)  (737)
Prepaids and other current assets  627   (529)  141 
Accrued claims payable  1,252   2,865   - 
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities  475   (1,596)  5,008 
   Net cash used in operating activities  (29,446)  (39,220)  (28,499)
Investing activities            
Purchases of marketable securities  (76,944)  (80,168)  (47,813)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of marketable securities  101,138   82,104   53,650 
Cash paid related to acquisition of a business, net of cash acquired  -   (4,760)  - 
Proceeds from sales of property and equipment  24   -   - 
Payment received on notes receivable  27   -   - 
Restricted cash  15   43   (38)
Purchases of property and equipment  (993)  (1,142)  (889)
Deposits and other assets  241   152   (37)
Cost of intangibles  (200)  (320)  (143)
  Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities  23,308   (4,091)  4,730 
Financing activities            
Proceeds from sale of common stock and warrants  163   37,512   24,372 
Cost related to issuance of common stock  -   (230)  - 
Payments on long term debt  (55)  -   - 
Cost related to issuance of debt and warrants  -   (303)  - 
Proceeds from issuance of debt and warrants  5,933   10,000   - 
Capital lease obligations  (159)  (178)  (9)
Exercises of stock options and warrants  -   1,958   1,690 
  Net cash provided by financing activities  5,882   48,759   26,053 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  (256)  5,448   2,284 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  11,149   5,701   3,417 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $10,893  $11,149  $5,701 
Supplemental disclosure of cash paid            
Interest $633  $1,059  $- 
Income taxes  115   36   2 
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity            
Common stock, options and warrants issued for outside services $2,157  $232  $97 
Property and equipment acquired through capital leases and other financing  6   284   320 
Stock issued for redemption of debt  -   5,350   - 
Common stock issued for acquisition of a business  -   2,084   - 
Common stock issued for intellectual property  -   -   738 
Financing activities      
Proceeds from sale of common stock and warrants-Direct    
offering  7,000   - 
Cost related to issuance of common stock  (689)  - 
Proceeds from drawdown on UBS line of credit  2,072   - 
Payments on long term debt  (3,016)  - 
Cost related to issuance of debt and warrants  -   - 
Proceeds from issuance of debt and warrants  -   5,733 
Capital lease obligations  (98)  (159)
Exercises of stock options and warrants  16   - 
Net cash provided by financing activities  5,285   5,574 
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities of     
discontinued operations  (73)  308 
Net cash provided by financing activities  5,212   5,882 
         
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents for     
continuing operations  (5,161)  4,920 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents for     
discontinued operations  (1,137)  (5,176)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents  (6,298)  (256)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period  10,893   11,149 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $4,595  $10,893 
Supplemental disclosure of cash paid        
Interest $247  $633 
Income taxes  93   115 
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity        
Common stock, options and warrants issued for outside     
services $266  $2,157 
Property and equipment acquired through capital leases     
and other financing  22   6 
Stock issued for redemption of debt  -   - 
Common stock issued for acquisition of a business  -   - 

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
 

HYTHIAM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

Hythiam, Inc. (referred to herein as the company, we, us or our) isWe are a healthcare services management company, providing through our Catasys® subsidiary specialized behavioral health management services for substance abuse to health plans.plans, employers and unions through a network of licensed and company managed healthcare providers.  The Catasys is focused on offering integrated substance dependence solutions,program was designed to address  substance dependence as a chronic disease. The program seeks to lower costs and improve member health through the delivery of integrated medical and psychosocial interventions in combination with long term care coaching, including our patentedproprietary PROMETA® Treatment Program for alcoholism and stimulant dependence. The PROMETAPROM ETA Treatment Program, which integrates behavioral, nutritional, and medical components, is also available on a private-pay basis through licensed treatment providers and a company managed treatment centerscenter that offeroffers the PROMETA Treatment Program, as well as other treatments for substance dependencies. We also research, develop, license

Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement between WoodCliff Healthcare Investment Partners, LLC (Woodcliff) (our wholly-owned subsidiary) and commercialize innovativeCore Corporate Consulting Group, Inc., dated January 14, 2009, and proprietary physiological, nutritional, and behavioral treatment programs. 

Effectiveeffective as of January 12, 2007,20, 2009, we acquired a 50.3% controllinghave disposed of our entire interest in our controlled subsidiary, Comprehensive Care Corporation (CompCare) through the acquisition, consisting of 14,400 shares of Class A Series Preferred Stock, and 1,739,130 shares of common stock of CompCare held by Woodcliff, Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP (Woodcliff).  CompCare provides managed care services in the behavioral health and psychiatric fields.  CompCare manages the deliveryfor aggregate gross proceeds of a continuum of psychiatric and substance abuse services to commercial, Medicare and Medicaid members on behalf of employers, health plans, government organizations, third-party claims administrators, and commercial and other group purchasers of behavioral healthcare services.$1.5 million. The customer base for CompCare’s services includes both private and governmental entities.  Our consolidated financial statements includeand footnotes present the businessoperations, assets, liabilities and operationscash flows of CompCare for the period January 13, 2007 to December 31, 2007 and the year ended December 31, 2008.

On January 20, 2009 we sold our interest in CompCare. Concurrent with this transaction, we entered into an administrative services only (ASO) agreement with CompCare to provide certain administrative services under CompCare’s National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) accreditation, including, but not limited to, case management and authorization services, in support of our newly launched specialty products and programs for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).as a discontinued operation. See Note 15 – Subsequent Events12— Discontinued Operations, for further discussion.

From January 2007 until the sale of CompCare in January 2009, we operated within two reportable segments: healthcare services and behavioral health managed care services. Subsequent to the sale of CompCare, we revised our segments to reflect the disposal of CompCare (see Note 12— Discontinued Operations), and to properly reflect how our segments are currently managed. Our behavioral health managed care services segment, which had been comprised entirely of the operations of CompCare, is now presented in discontinued operations and is not a reportable segment. The healthcare services segment focusedhas been segregated into two business segments and we now manage and report our operations through these two business segments: healthcare services and behavioral health. Our healthcare se rvices segment focuses on providing licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer PROMETA and other treatment programs, including the managed treatment centers.center that is licensed and managed by us. Our behavioral health managed care services segment, focused on providing managed care services inthrough our Catasys subsidiary, combines innovative medical and psychosocial treatments with elements of traditional disease management and ongoing member support to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations, and is designed to lower both the medical and behavioral health psychiatriccosts associated with substance dependence and substance abuse fields, and principally includes the operations of our majority-owned, controlled subsidiary, CompCare.related co-morbidities. Prior year financial statements have been restated to reflect this revised presentation. Substantially all of our consolidated revenues and assets are earned or located within the United States.

Basis of Consolidation and Presentation and Going Concern

Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the company, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, CompCare (discontinued operations), and company-managedcompany managed professional medical corporations. Based on the provisions of management services agreements between us and the medical corporations, we have determined that the medical corporations are variable interest entities (VIEs), and that we are the primary beneficiary as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an Interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51 (FIN 46R).rules for accounting for variable interest entities. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of the managed medical corporations. See further discussion in Note 2 – Management Services Agreements.


All inter-company transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Certain amounts in the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 20062008 have been reclassified to conform to the presentation for the year ended December 31, 2008.2009.


 
F-9

The accompanyingTable of Contents

Our financial statements have been prepared on the basis that we will continue as a going concern. At December 31, 2009, cash and cash equivalents amounted to $4.6 million and we had working capital of approximately $78,000. Our working capital includes $9.5 million of auction-rate securities (ARS) that are currently illiquid. We have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. During the year ended December 31, 2009, our cash and cash equivalents used in operating activities amounted to $14.5 million. We expect to continue to incur negative cash flows and net losses for at least the next twelve months. As of December 31, 2008,2009, these conditions raised substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. At December 31, 2008, cash, cash equivalents and current marketable securities amounted to $11.0 million, of which $1.1 million related to CompCare, which was sold in January 2009. At that date, we had a working capital deficit of approximately $11.5 million, of which $5.7 million is related to CompCare. Additionally, our working capital deficit is impacted by $5.7 million of outstanding borrowings under the UBS line of credit that is payable on demand and classified in current liabilities, but are secured by $10.1 million of auction-rate securities (ARS) that are classified in long-term assets. During the year ended December 31, 2008, our cash and cash equivalents used in operating activities amounted to $29.4 million, of which $5.5 million related to CompCare.

Our ability to fund our ongoing operations and continue as a going concern is dependent on raising additional capital, signing and generating revenue from new contracts for our Catasys managed care programs and the success of management’s plans to increase revenue and continue to decrease expenses. InBeginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, and continuing in each of the quarters during 2009, management took actions that we expect will result in reducing annual operating expenses.  These efforts have resulted in reductions in operating expenses by $10.2of approximately $33 million compared to the third quarter of 2008.  In addition, management currently has plans for additional cost reductions from the elimination of certain positions in our licensee and PROMETA Center operations and related corporate staff and a reduction in certain support and occupancy costs, consulting and other outside services if required. Also, we2008 levels. We have renegotiated certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms. We have also negotiated and plan to negotiatene gotiate more favorable payment terms with vendors, which include negotiating settlements for outstanding liabilities. We have exited certain markets in our licensee operations that we have determined will not provide short-term profitability. We may exit additional markets in our licensee operations and PROMETA Center operationsfurther curtail or restructure our managed treatment center to reduce costs or if management determines that those markets will not provide short termshort-term profitability. Additionally,We do not expect the cost impact of such further actions to be material.

In September 2009, we signed an agreement with Ford Motor Company  (Ford) to provide the Catasys integrated substance dependence solution to Ford’s hourly employees in Michigan who are enrolled in Ford’s  national preferred provider organization and who meet certain criteria, and we raised approximately $7 million in a registered direct equity placement with selected institutional investors. We are pursuing additional new Catasys contracts and additional capital andcapital. As of March 31, 2010, we had net cash on hand of approximately $1.9 million. At presently anticipated rates of spending, which do not include management’s plans for additional cost reductions, we will consider liquidatingneed to obtain additional funds within the next 60 to 90 days to avoid drasti cally curtailing or ceasing our ARS, if necessary.operations. We are currently in discussions with third parties regarding additional financing. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts to generate, increase, or maintain revenue. We have been in discussions with third parties regarding financing that management anticipates would, if concluded, meet its capital needs. We may not be successful in raisingrevenue; or raise necessary funds on acceptable terms or at all, and we may not be able to offset this by sufficient reductions in expenses and increases in revenue. If this occurs, we may be unable to meet our cash obligations as they become due and we may be required to further delay or reduce operating expenses and curtail our operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us.us, or we may be unable to continue as a going concern. This has raised substantial doubts from our auditors as to our ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability of the carrying amount of the recorded assets or the amount of liabilities that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)(GAAP) in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and disclosed in the accompanying notes. Significant areas requiring the use of management estimates include expense accruals, accounts receivable allowances, patient continuing care reserves, accrued claims payable, premium deficiencies, the useful life of depreciable assets, the evaluation of asset impairment, the valuation of warrant liabilities, put option related to  auction rate securities, and shared-based compensation. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Revenue Recognition

Healthcare Services

Our healthcare services revenues to date have been primarily derived from licensing our PROMETA Treatment Program and providing administrative services to hospitals, treatment facilities and other healthcare providers, and from revenues generated by our managed treatment centers.  We record revenues earned based on the terms of our licensing and management contracts, which requires the use of judgment, including the assessment of the


collectability of receivables. Licensing agreements typically provide for a fixed fee on a per-patient basis, payable to us following the providers’ commencement of the use of our program to treat patients.  For revenue recognition purposes, we treat the program licensing and related administrative services as one unit of accounting.  We record the fees owed to us under the terms of the agreements at the time we have performed substantially all required services for each use of our program, which for the significant majority of our license agreements to date is in the period in which the provider begins using the program for medically directed and supervised treatment of a patient and, in other cases, is at the time that medical treatment has been completed.patient. 

The revenues of our managed treatment centers, which we include in our consolidated financial statements, are derived from charging fees directly to patients for medical treatments, including the PROMETA Treatment Program.  Revenues from patients treated at theour managed treatment centerscenter are recorded based on the number of days of treatment completed during the period as a percentage of the total number treatment days for the PROMETA Treatment Program.  Revenues relating to the continuing care portion of the PROMETA Treatment Program are deferred and recorded over the period during which the continuing care services are provided.

Behavioral Health Managed Care

        Through December 31, 2009 we have not recognized any revenues from our behavioral health segment.  Our Catasys contracts are generally designed to provide revenues to us monthly basis based on enrolled members. To the extent our contracts may include a minimum performance guarantee, we reserve a portion of the monthly fees that may be at risk until the performance measurement period in completed.

Cost of Services

Managed care activities are performed by CompCare under the terms of agreements with health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs), and other health plans or payers to provide contracted behavioral healthcare services to subscribing participants. Revenue under a substantial portion of these agreements is earned monthly based on the number of qualified participants regardless of services actually provided (generally referred to as capitation arrangements). The information regarding qualified participants is supplied by CompCare’s clients and CompCare reviews membership eligibility records and other reported information to verify its accuracy in determining the amount of revenue to be recognized. Revenues from capitation agreements accounted for $34.1 million and $35.2 million of behavioral health managed care revenues for the year ended December 31, 2008 and the period January 13 through December 31, 2007, respectively (97% in both periods). The remaining balance of CompCare’s revenues is earned on a fee-for-service basis and is recognized as services are rendered.



Cost of Healthcare Services

Cost of healthcare services represent direct costs that are incurred in connection with licensing our treatment programs and providing administrative services in accordance with the various technology license and services agreements, and are associated directly with the revenue that we recognize. Consistent with our revenue recognition policy, the costs associated with providing these services are recognized when services have been rendered, which for a significant majority of our license agreements is in the period in which patient treatment commences, and for our managed treatment center is in other cases, at the timeperiods in which medical treatment has been completed.is provided. Such costs include royalties paid for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program for patients treated by all licensees, and direct labor costs, continuing care expense, medical supplies and program medications for patients treated at theour managed treatment centers.center.

Behavioral Health Managed Care Services Expense

Behavioral health managed care operating expensecost of services is recognized in the period in which an eligible member actually receives services and includes an estimate of the cost of behavioral health services that have been incurred but not yet reported (IBNR).  See “Accrued Claims Payable” for a discussion of IBNR claims. CompCareservices. Our Catasys subsidiary contracts with various healthcare providers, including hospitals, physician groups and other licensed behavioral healthcare professionals, either on a discounted fee-for-service or a per-casecontracted rate basis.  CompCare determinesWe determine that a member has received services when CompCare receiveswe receive a claim within the contracted timeframe with all required billing elements correctly completed by the service provider. CompCareWe then determinesdetermine whether the member is eligible to receive such services and whether the services provided are medically necessary and are covered by the benefit plan’s certificate of coverage.plan. If all of these requirements are met, we authorize the services are authorized by one of CompCare’s employees, and the claim is entered into CompCare’s claims systemprocessed for payment.

Premium Deficiencies

CompCare accrues losses under its capitated contracts when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. CompCare performs this loss accrual analysis on a specific contract basis taking into consideration such factors as future contractual revenue, projected future healthcare and maintenance costs, and each contract's specific terms related to future revenue increases as compared to expected increases in healthcare costs. The projected future healthcare and maintenance costs are estimated based on historical trends and CompCare’s estimate of future cost increases.

At any time prior to the end of a contract or contract renewal, if a capitated contract is not meeting its financial goals, CompCare generally has the ability to cancel the contract with 60 to 90 days written notice.  Prior to cancellation, CompCare will usually submit a request for a rate increase accompanied by supporting utilization data.  Although CompCare’s clients have historically been generally receptive to such requests, there is no assurance that such requests will be satisfied in the future.  If a rate increase is not granted, CompCare has the ability, in most cases, to terminate the contract and limit its risk to a short-term period.

On a quarterly basis, CompCare performs a review of its portfolio of contracts for the purpose of identifying loss contracts (as defined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Audit and Accounting Guide – Health Care Organizations) and developing a contract loss reserve, if applicable, for succeeding periods. At December 31, 2008, CompCare believes no contract loss reserve for future periods is necessary.

Share-Based Compensation

Healthcare Services

Under our 2003 and 2007 Stock Incentive Plans (the Plans), we have granted incentive stock options (ISOs) under Section 422A of the Internal Revenue Code and non-qualified options (NSOs) to executive officers, employees, members of our Board of Directors and certain outside consultants. We grant all such share-based compensation awards at no less than the fair market value of our stock on the date of grant. Employee and boardBoard of directorDirector awards generally vest on a straight-line basis over three to five years. Total share-based compensation expense on a consolidated basis amounted to $9.2 million, $2.6$4.6 million and $3.7$9.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.  The expense in 2008 includes $596,000 related to actions taken to streamline our operations, as discussed in "CostsCosts Associated with Streamlining our Operations."Operations below.



Stock Options – Employees and Directors

On January 1, 2006, we began accountingWe measure and recognize compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors by adopting SFAS 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123R), using the modified prospective method.  SFAS 123R requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense based on estimated fair values on the estimateddate of grant. We estimate the fair value of share-based payment awards to employees and directors onusing the date of grant using anBlack Scholes option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods in the consolidated statements of operations.

The estimated weighted average fair values of options granted during 2009, 2008 and 2007 were $0.43, $1.47 and 2006 were $1.47, $4.50 and $3.95 per share, respectively, and were calculated using the Black-Scholes pricing model based on the following assumptions:

2008200720062009 2008
Expected volatility72%64%66%82% 64%
Risk-free interest rate3.03%4.46%4.72%2.16-2.78% 3.03%
Weighted average expected lives in years5.86.56.15-6 5.8
Expected dividend yield0%
Expected dividend0% 0%

The expected volatility assumption for 2008, 20072009 was based on the historical volatility of our stock, and 2006for 2008 was based on the historical volatility of our stock and the stock of other public healthcare companies, measured over a period generally commensurate with the expected term. The weighted average expected lives in years for 2008, 20072009 and 20062008 reflect the application of the simplified method set out in SECSecurity and Exchange Commission (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 107 (and as amended by SAB 110), which defines the life as the average of the contractual term of the options and the weighted average vesting period for all option tranches.  We use historical data to estimate the rate of forfeitures assumption for awards granted to employees, which was 22% in 2009 and 24% in 2008, 29% in 2007 and 27% in 2006.2008.

We have elected to adopt the detailed method prescribed in SFAS 123RFASB’s accounting rules for share-based expense for calculating the beginning balance of the additional paid-in capital pool (APIC pool) related to the tax effects of employee share-based compensation, and to determine the subsequent impact on the APIC pool and consolidated statements of cash flows of the tax effects of employee share-based compensation awards that were outstanding upon adoption of SFAS 123R.

such rules on January 1, 2006. Stock Options and Warrants – Non-employees

We account for the issuance of stock options and warrants for services from non-employees in accordance with SFAS 123 by estimating the fair value of stock options and warrants issued using the Black-Scholes pricing model. This model’s calculations incorporate the exercise price, the market price of shares on grant date, the weighted average risk-free interest rate, expected life of the option or warrant, expected volatility of our stock and expected dividends.

For options and warrants issued as compensation to non-employees for services that are fully vested and non-forfeitable at the time of issuance, the estimated value is recorded in equity and expensed when the services are performed and benefit is received as provided by FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Issue (EITF) No. 96-18, Accounting For Equity Instruments That Are Issued To Other Than Employees For Acquiring Or In Conjunction With Selling Goods Or Services.received. For unvested shares, the change in fair value during the period is recognized in expense using the graded vesting method.

From time to time, Hythiam haswe have retained terminated employees as part-time consultants upon their resignation from the company. Because the employees continue to provide services to Hythiam,us, their options continue to vest in accordance with the original terms. Due to the change in classification of the option awards, the options are considered modified at the date of termination in accordance with SFAS 123R.termination. The modifications are treated as exchanges of the original awards in return for the issuance of new awards. At the date of termination, the unvested options are no longer accounted for as employee awards under SFAS 123RFASB’s accounting rules for share-based expense but are instead accounted for as new non-employee awards under EITF 96-18.awards. The accounting for the portion of the total grants that have already vested and have been previously expensed as equity awards is not changed. We recorded approximately $19,000$63,000 and $28,000$19,000 of expense in 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively, associated with the modified liability awards pursuant to the guidance in EITF 96-18.  awards.    



Behavioral Health Managed Care Services

CompCare’s 1995 and 2002 Incentive Plans (the CompCare Plans) provide for the issuance of ISOs, NSOs, stock appreciation rights, limited stock appreciation rights, and restricted stock grants to eligible employees and consultants, and stock options to its employees and non-employee directors. Options for ISOs may be granted for terms of up to ten years and are generally exercisable in cumulative increments of 50% each six months. CompCare also has a non-qualified stock option plan for its outside directors, in which the option grants vest in accordance with vesting schedules established by CompCare’s Compensation and Stock Option Committee.

Share-based compensation expense recognized for employees and directors for the year ended December 31, 2008 and period January 13 through December 31, 2007 was $130,000 and $83,000, respectively.

The following table lists the assumptions utilized in applying the Black-Scholes valuation model for options granted by CompCare.  CompCare uses historical data to estimate the expected term of the option.  Expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of CompCare’s traded stock measured over a period generally commensurate with the expected term.  CompCare did not declare dividends in the past nor does it expect to do so in the near future, and as such it assumes no expected dividend.  The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve with the same expected term as that of the option at the time of grant.
   January 13
   through
   December 31,
 2008 2007
Expected volatility125.0% - 130.0% 110%
Risk-free interest rate2.6% - 3.2% 4.8%
Weighted average expected lives in years5-6 3
Expected dividend yield0% 0%

Costs Associated with Streamlining our Operations

In January 2008, we streamlined our operations to increase our focus on managed care opportunities, significantly reducing our field and regional sales personnel and related corporate support personnel, the number of outside consultants utilized, closing our PROMETA Centermanaged treatment center in San Francisco and lowering overall corporate overhead costs. In April 2008, and in the fourth quarter of 2008, and in the first, second and third quarters of 2009, we took further actions to streamline our operations and increased theincrease our focus on managed care opportunities. The actions we took in 2009 also included renegotiation of certain leasing and vendor agreements to obtain more favorable pricing and to restructure payment terms with vendors, which included negotiating settlements for outstanding liabilities, and has resulted in delays and reducti ons in operating expenses. In May 2009, we terminated our management services agreement (MSA) with a medical professional corporation and a managed treatment center located in Dallas, Texas.

During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we recorded a total of approximately $3.1$480,000 and $2.5 million, respectively, in costs associated with actions taken to streamline our operations (including $596,000 in share-based expense), which includedoperations. A substantial portion of these costs primarily related torepresent severance and related benefitsbenefits. The costs incurred in 2009 also include impairment of assets and other costs related to termination of the management service agreements for our Dallas managed treatment center. The costs incurred in 2008 also include costs incurred to close the San Francisco PROMETA Centermanaged treatment center. Expenses and international operations. Theseaccrued liabilities for such costs are classified as General and Administrative expenses on our Statement of Operations.  We have accounted for these costs in accordance with SFAS 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities. SFAS 146 states that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity shall be recognized and measured initially at its fair value in the period when the liability is incurred.

Foreign Currency

The local currency is the functional currency for all of our international operations. In accordance with SFAS No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation,FASB’s foreign currency translation accounting rules, assets and liabilities of our foreign operations are translated from foreign currencies into U.S. dollars at year-end rates, while income and expenses are translated at the weighted-average exchange rates for the year. The related translation adjustments are included in the Consolidated Statementsour consolidated statements of Operationsoperations under the caption Generalgeneral and administrative expenses and are immaterial.  Foreign currency translation gains (losses) were $7,000 and ($52,000), ($22,000) and $20,000 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.  No foreign currency translation adjustments were recorded to other comprehensive income.



Income Taxes

We account for income taxes using the liability method in accordance with ASC 740 Income Taxes (formerly SFAS 109, Accounting for Income TaxesTaxes). To date, no current income tax liability has been recorded due to our accumulated net losses. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and the amounts that are reported in the tax returns. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recorded on a net basis; however, our net deferred tax assets have been fully reserved by a valuation allowance due to the uncertainty of our ability to realize future taxable income and to recover our net deferred tax assets.

In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48 (FIN) 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes(incorporated into ASC 740), which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes. FIN 48 requires that companies recognize in the consolidated financial statements the impact of a tax position if that position is more likely than not of being sustained on audit based on the technical merits of the position. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition,de-recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods and disclosure. The provisions of FIN 48 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. We adopted FIN 48 on January 1, 2007, with no impact to our consolidatedcons olidated financial statements.



Comprehensive Income

Comprehensive income generally represents all changes in stockholders’ equity during the period except those resulting from investments by, or distributions to, stockholders.  For the first, second and third quartersyear ended December 31, 2009 we incurred a comprehensive loss of 2008, we recorded accumulated unrealized losses$10.9 million, of that amount $696,000 related to our auction-rate securities of $566,000, $776,000 and $1.1 million, respectively in other comprehensive income.  During the fourth quarter, $1.1 million was reclassified from other comprehensive income to other than temporary impairment ofa net unrealized gain on marketable securities.  We recorded an additional $336,000 other than temporary impairment during the fourth quarter of 2008, bringing our total impairment charge for the year to $1.4 million.

 For the yearsyear ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we have no other comprehensive income or loss items that are not reflected in earnings and accordingly, our net loss equals comprehensive loss for these periods.that period.

The components of total other comprehensive (loss) income for the years ended December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 are as follows:

(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007 
Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities:      
Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities $(1,092) $- 
Add-back reclassification adjustment for impairment        
of marketable securities included in net income  1,092   - 
Net unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities  -   - 
Total other comprehensive (loss) income $-  $- 
 For the year ended 
(In thousands)December 31, 
 2009  2008 
Net loss$(9,158) $(50,418)
Other comprehensive income (loss):       
Net unrealized gain (loss) on marketable       
     securities available for sale 696   - 
Comprehensive loss$(8,462) $(50,418)

Basic and Diluted Loss per Share

Basic loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss to common stockholders for the period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted average number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding during the period.

Common equivalent shares, consisting of approximately 14,533,000, 9,846,000,19,965,179 and 7,222,00014,533,000 of incremental common shares as of December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively, issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants, have been excluded from the diluted loss per share calculation because their effect is anti-dilutive.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

We invest available cash in short-term commercial paper and certificates of deposit.  Liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased are considered to be cash equivalents.


Restricted cash at December 31, 2008 represents deposits secured as collateral for a bank credit card program.

Marketable Securities

Investments include auction rate securities (ARS), U.S. Treasury bills, commercial paperARS and certificates of deposit with original maturity dates greater than three months when purchased, whichpurchased. These investments are classified as available-for-sale investments, andare reflected in current or long-term assets as appropriate, as marketable securities and are stated at fair market value in accordance with SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain InvestmentsFASB accounting rules related to investment in Debt and Equity Securities.debt securities. Unrealized gains and losses that are temporary in nature are excluded from earnings and reported in stockholders’ equity in our consolidated balance sheet in “accumulated other comprehensive loss.income (loss).” Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary are recognized as a non-reversible impairment charge in the Consolidated Statementstatement of Operations usingoperations on the specific identification method in the period in which they occur. Declines in estimated fair value judged to be other-than-temporary are recognized as an impairment charge in the statement of operations in the period in which they oc cur.



In making our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary” declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end reporting period:

●  How long and by how much the fair value of the securities have been below cost
●  The financial condition of the issuers
●  Any downgrades of the securities by rating agencies
●  Default on interest or other terms
●  Whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the securities before they recover in value

In accordance with current accounting rules for investments in debt securities and additional application guidance issued by the FASB in April 2009, other-than-temporary declines in value are reflected as a non-operating expense in our consolidated statement of operations if it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the ARS before they recover in value, whereas subsequent increases in value are reflected as unrealized gains in accumulated other comprehensive income in stockholders’ equity in our consolidated balance sheet.

Our short- and long-term marketable securities consisted of investments with the following maturities as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007:2008:

(Dollars in thousands) Fair Market  Less than  More than 
  Value  1 Year  10 Years 
Balance at December 31, 2008         
Certificates of deposit (short-term) $146  $146  $- 
Variable auction-rate securities (long-term)  10,072   -   10,072 
             
Balance at December 31, 2007            
Variable auction-rate securities $19,000  $-  $19,000 
Commercial paper  16,518   -   16,518 
Certificates of deposit  322   322   - 
Total short-term marketable securities $35,840  $322  $35,518 
(in thousands) Fair Market  Less than  More than 
  Value  1 Year  10 Years 
Balance at December 31, 2009         
Certificates of deposit $133  $133  $- 
Auction-rate securities  9,468   9,468   - 
             
Balance at December 31, 2008            
Certificates of deposit  146   146   - 
Auction-rate securities (long-term)  10,072   -   10,072 
 
The carrying value of all securities presented above approximated fair market value at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively.

Variable Auction-Rate Securities

As of December 31, 20082009, our total investment in ARS was $11.5 million.$9.5 million (fair market value). Since February 13, 2008, auctions for these securities have failed, meaning the parties desiring to sell securities could not be matched with an adequate number of buyers, resulting in our having to continue to hold these securities. Although the securities are Aaa/AAA rated and collateralized by portfolios of student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government, based on current market conditions it is likely that auctions will continue to be unsuccessful in the short-term, limiting the liquidity of these investments until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls the securities, or they mature.securities. The remaining maturity periods range from nineteen to thirty-eight years. As a result, our ability to liquidate our investment and fully recoverdates of the carrying value of our investment in the near term may be limited or not exist.  In December, we utilized a third-party valuation firm to assist us with determining the fair market value of our ARS which was estimated to be $10.1 million, resulting in a $1.4 million estimated decline in value.

In making our determination whether losses are considered to be “other-than-temporary” declines in value, we consider the following factors at each quarter-end reporting period:

●  
How long and by how much the fair value of the ARSunderlying securities have been below cost
●  
The financial condition of the issuers
●  
Any downgrades of the securities by rating agencies
●  
Default on interest or other terms
●  
Our intent and ability to hold the ARS long enough for them to recover their value

Due to uncertainties as to whether we will hold the ARS until they recover in value, we determined that the loss in the fair value of our ARS investments was “other-than-temporary” in connection withrange from 18 to 37 years. Consequently, we have not been able to access these funds and would not expect to do so and fully rec over our year end assessment.


Accordingly, we recognized an other-than-temporary loss of approximately $1.4 million in Decemberthese investments is successful or a buyer is found outside the auction process. In October 2008, which is reflected as a non-operating expense in our Conslidated Statement of Operations.

In May 2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS AG (UBS), provided us with a demand margin loan facility, allowing us to borrow up to 50% of the market value of the ARS, as determined by UBS. The margin loan facility is collateralized by the ARS.  In October 2008, UBS made a “rights”rights offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all auction-rate securitiesARS held by us in our UBS account. TheWe subscribed to the rights permitoffering in November 2008, which permits us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012, if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. As partIn August 2009, $1.1 million (carrying value) of our ARS was redeemed at par by the offering, UBS would provideissuer, resulting in proceeds of approximately $1.3 million, a gain of approximately $160,000 and a reduction in our total investment from $11.5 million to $10.2 million. In December 2009, we utilized a third-party valuation firm to assist us a line of credit equal to 75% ofwith determining the fair market value of our ARS which was estimated to be $9.5 million, representing an estimated decline in value of $604,000.

Because of our ability to sell the ARS until they are purchased by UBS. The line of credit has certain restrictions describedunder the UBS rights offering beginning on June 30, 2010, the ARS investments have been classified in the prospectus.  We accepted this offer on November 6, 2008.  As ofcurrent assets at December 31, 2008,2009. Considering the outstanding balance onilliquid ARS market, the recent deterioration of overall market conditions and our line of credit was 5.7 million. This contract was treated as a separate unit of account.  We didn’t prescribe any value to the contract sincefinancial condition and near-term liquidity needs, we wereare not able to conclude thathold our ARS before they would recover in value and any decline in the fair value of ARS is considered as ‘other-than-temporary’ and recorded in the statement of operations as an impairment charge. Based on our estimates of fair value during 2009, we hadhave recognized approximately $185,000 in such impairment charges and


recognized unrealized gains of approximately $160,000 for temporary increases in estimated fair value for certain ARS for the ability to hold the ARS until June 30, 2010.

year ended December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2009, we have estimated an aggregate fair value of approximately $9.5 million for our ARS. See “Fair Value Measurements” below for a complete discussion of our valuation methods. These securities will continue to be analyzed each reporting period for additional other-than-temporary impairment factors.  Duefactors, which may require us to recognize additional impairment charges.

The rights offering referred to above is effectively a put option agreement. We intend to exercise the current uncertaintyput option since we currently believe we have sufficient cash and cash equivalents to meet our short term liquidity requirements and do not anticipate the need to access our ARS investments for additional liquidity prior to June 30, 2010. Consequently, we have recognized the put option agreement as a separate asset in accordance with FASB accounting rules and we have estimated the credit markets and the termsvalue of the Rights offering with UBS, we have classifiedput agreement as the fairdifference between the par value and carrying value of ourthe ARS, as long-term assets as ofor $758,000 at December 31, 2008.2009. The put agreement is included in other current assets in our consolidated balance sheet.

Fair Value Measurements

Fair Value Information about Financial Instruments Measured at Fair Value

Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements. SFAS 157 does not require any new fair value measurements; rather, it defines fair value, establishesis defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with existing GAAP and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. In February 2008, FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157 was issued, which delays the effective date of SFAS 157 to fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). We elected to defer the adoption of the Standard for these non-financial assets and liabilities and are currently evaluating the impact, if any, that the deferred provisions of the Standard will have on our consolidated financial statements. In October 2008, FSP FAS 157-3, Fair Value Measurements, was issued, which clarifies the application of SFAS 157liability in an inactiveorderly transaction between market and provides an example to demonstrate howparticipants at the fair value of a financial asset is determined when the market for that financial asset is inactive. FSP FAS 157-3 was effective upon issuance, including prior periods for which financial statements had not been issued. The adoption of SFAS 157 for our financial assets and liabilities and FSP FAS 157-3 did not have an impact on our financial position or operating results. Beginning January 1, 2008, assetsmeasurement date. Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in the Consolidated Balance Sheetsconsolidated balance sheets are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. The categories, as defined by SFAS 157,fair value hierarchy distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable inputs) and (2) an entity’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:described below:

Level Input: Input Definition:
Level I Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the measurement date.
Level II Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level I, that are observable for the asset or liability through corroboration with market data at the measurement date.
Level III Unobservable inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability at the measurement date.

The following table summarizestables summarize fair value measurements by level at December 31, 2008 and 2009 for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

  2008 
(Dollars in thousands) Level I  Level II  Level III  Total 
Marketable securities $146  $-  $-  $146 
Variable auction rate securities  -   -   10,072   10,072 
Certificates of deposit *  133   -   -   133 
 Total assets $279  $-  $10,072  $10,351 
                 
Warrant liabilities $-  $156  $-  $156 
 Total liabilities $-  $156  $-  $156 
                 
* included in "deposits and other assets" on our Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Dollars in thousands) Level I  Level II  Level III  Total 
Marketable securities $146  $-  $-  $146 
Variable auction rate securities  -   -   10,072   10,072 
Certificates of deposit *  133   -   -   133 
 Total assets $279  $-  $10,072  $10,351 
                 
Warrant liabilities $-  $156  $-  $156 
 Total liabilities $-  $156  $-  $156 
                 
* included in "deposits and other assets" on our Consolidated Balance Sheets     

  2009 
(Dollars in thousands) Level I  Level II  Level III  Total 
Variable auction-rate securities $-  $-  $9,468  $9,468 
Put option  -   -   758   758 
Certificates of deposit (1)  133   -   -   133 
 Total assets $133  $-  $10,226  $10,359 
                 
Warrant liabilities $-  $-  $1,089  $1,089 
 Total liabilities $-  $-  $1,089  $1,089 
                 
(1) included in deposits and other assets on our consolidated balance sheets 
                 
(Dollars in thousands) Level I  Level II  Level III  Total 
Intangible assets  -   -   2,658   2,658 
 Total assets $-  $-  $2,658  $2,658 
 
Liabilities measured at market value on a recurring basis include warrant liabilities resulting from a recent debt and equity financing. In accordance with EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settledinstruments classified as Level 3 in a Company’s Own Stock, the warrant liabilities are being marked to market each quarter-end until they are completely settled. The warrants are valued using the Black-Scholes pricing model, using assumptions consistent with our application of SFAS 123R.

All of the assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant Level III inputshierarchy as of December 31, 2008 were ARS.2009 represent our investment in ARS and a Put Option, in which management has used at least one significant unobservable input in the valuation model. See discussion above in “Marketable Securities” Marketable Securities for additional information on our ARS, including a description of the securities, and underlying collateral, a discussion of the uncertainties relating to their liquidity and our accounting treatment under SFAS 115. The following table summarizes our fair value measurements using significant Level III inputs, and changes therein, for the year ended December 31, 2008:

(Dollars in thousands) Level III 
Balance as of December 31, 2007 $- 
 Transfers in/out of Level III  11,500 
 Purchases and sales, net   - 
 Net unrealized losses  - 
 Net realized gains (losses)*  (1,428
Balance as of December 31, 2008 $10,072 
* Reflects other-than-temporary loss on auction-rate securities.
treatment. As discussed above, there have been continued auction failures with ourthe market for ARS portfolio.effectively ceased when the vast majority of auctions began to fail in February 2008. As a result, quoted prices for our ARS did not exist as of December 31, 20082009 and, accordingly, we concluded that Level 1 inputsi nputs were not available and unobservable inputs were used. We determined that use of a valuation model was the best available technique for measuring the fair value of our ARS portfolio and we based our estimates of the fair value using valuation models and methodologies that utilize an income-based approach to estimate the price that would be received if we soldto sell our securities in an orderly transaction between market participants. The estimated price was derived as the present value of expected cash flows over an estimated period of illiquidity, using a risk adjusted discount rate that was based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of the securities. Based on the valuation models and methodologies, and consideration of other factors, we wrote-down our ARS portfolio to its estimated fair value as of December 31, 2008 and considered the $1.4 million reduction in value as “other than temporary.” Accordingly, we recognized a charge of $1.4 million, which is included in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. While our valuation model was based on both Level II (credit quality and interest rates) and Level III inputs, we determined that the Level III inputs were the most significant to the overall fair value measurement, particularly the estimates of risk adjusted discount rates and estimated periods of illiquidity.
Our portfolio manager, UBS AG (UBS) made a Rights Offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell to UBS all ARS held by us in our UBS account. We subscribed to the Rights Offering in November 2008, which permits us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012, if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. The Rights Offering is effectively a “put” option and should be carried at fair value in accordance with FASB accounting rules. The put option, and related ARS, was valued using a discounted cash flow model based on Level 3 assumptions. The assumptions used in valuing the ARS and the put option include estimates of (based on data available as of December 31, 2009), interest rates, timing and amount of cash flows, credit and liquidity premiums, expected holding periods of the ARS, loan rates per the UBS Rights offering and bearer risk associated with UBS’s financial ability to repurchase the ARS beginning June 30, 2010. The value of the put option is approximately equal to the difference between par value and estimated prices of the ARS.
Liabilities measured at market value on a recurring basis include warrant liabilities resulting from a recent debt and equity financing. In accordance with current accounting rules, the warrant liabilities are being marked to market each quarter-end until they are completely settled. The warrants are valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, using both observable and unobservable inputs and assumptions consistent with those used in our estimate of fair value of employee stock options. See  Warrant Liabilities  below.


The following table summarizes our fair value measurements using significant Level III inputs, and changes therein, for the year ended December 31, 2008:

(Dollars in thousands) Level III 
Balance as of December 31, 2007 $- 
 Transfers in/out of Level III  11,500 
 Purchases and sales, net  - 
 Net unrealized losses  - 
 Net realized gains (losses)*  (1,428)
Balance as of December 31, 2008 $10,072 

* Reflects other-than-temporary loss on auction rate securities.
The following table summarizes our fair value measurements using significant Level III inputs, and changes therein, for the year ended December 31, 2009:

   Level III    Level III  
   ARS &    Warrant  
(Dollars in thousands) Put Option    Liabilities  
Balance as of December 31, 2008 $10,072  Balance as of December 31, 2008 $-  
 Change in value  758  (c) Transfers in/out of Level III  157  
 Net purchases (sales)  (1,275)  Initial valuation of warrant liabilities  1,273  (b)
 Net unrealized gains (losses)  696   Change in fair value of     
 Net realized gains (losses)  (25) (a)   warrant liabilities  (341 
Balance as of December 31, 2009 $10,226  Balance as of December 31, 2009 $1,089  

(a)Includes other-than-temporary loss on auction-rate securities.
(b)Represents initial valuation of warrants issued in conjunction with the Registered Direct Placement in
September 2009 and adjustment related to the modification of the Highbridge Senior Secured Note in
August 2009.
(c)Auction Rate Securities Put Option recorded in prepaids and other current assets

As reflected in the table above, net sales were $1.3 million as of December 31, 2009 and represent proceeds realized from the redemption of a certain ARS at par by the issuer, resulting in a gain of approximately $160,000. The net realized gains (losses) include $185,000 of other-than-temporary losses, partially offset by the $160,000 gain.
Assets that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis include intellectual property, with a carrying amount of $2.7 million at December 31, 2009. In accordance with FASB’s accounting rules for intangible assets, we perform an impairment test each quarter and intangible assets were written down to their implied fair value at March 31, 2009, resulting in an impairment charge of $355,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009. See Intangible Assets below.
 
Fair Value Information about Financial Instruments Not Measured at Fair Value

FASB Statement 107, Disclosures about Fair Valuerules regarding fair value disclosures of Financial Instrumentsfinancial instruments requires disclosure of fair value information about certain financial instruments for which it is practical to estimate that value.  The carrying amounts reported in our consolidated balance sheet for cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, notes receivable,  accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate fair value because of the immediate or short-term maturity of these financial instruments.  The carrying values of our outstanding short and long-term debt were $12.2$9.6 million and $6.8$9.8 million and the fair values were $10.7$9.9 million, and $4.4$9.6 million as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively.  Considerable judgment is required to develop estimates of fair value.  Accordingly, the estimates are not necessarily indicativeindicati ve of the amounts we could realize in a current market exchange.  The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.

Goodwill

In accordance with SFAS 141, Business Combinations, the purchase price for the CompCare acquisition was allocated to the fair values of the assets acquired, including identifiable intangible assets, in accordance with our proportionate share of ownership interest, and the excess amount of purchase price over the fair values of net assets acquired resulted in $10.8 million of goodwill that is not deductible for tax purposes. The entire balance of goodwill


was assigned to our healthcare services reporting unit, except for the portion of CompCare’s preacquisition goodwill attributable to the minority interest ($493,000), since we believed our association with CompCare created synergies to facilitate the use of PROMETA Treatment Program by managed care treatment providers and to provide access to an infrastructure for our planned disease management product offerings. During 2007, we recorded a $192,000 adjustment to reduce the balance of goodwill for the favorable resolution of assumed, pre-acquisition liabilities and a $98,000 reduction related to a change in minority shareholders’ interests. During 2008, we recorded a $289,000 reduction related to a change in minority shareholders’ interests. The change in the carrying amount of goodwill by reporting unit is as follows:

     Behavioral    
     Health    
  Healthcare  Managed    
(Dollars in thousands) Services  Care  Total 
Balance as of January 1, 2008 $10,064  $493  $10,557 
Change in minority interest  (289)  -   (289)
Goodwill impairment charge  (9,775)  -   (9,775)
Balance as of December 31, 2008 $-  $493  $493 
In accordance with SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, goodwill is not amortized, but instead is subject to impairment tests. Our policy is to evaluate goodwill for impairment annually, at each year-end, and between annual evaluations if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of goodwill below its carrying amount. Due to continued net losses and negative cash flows, the decline in trading price of Hythiam’s and CompCare’s common stock during 2008 and the resulting lower valuation of our reporting units relative to their book values, we have tested goodwill for impairment at each quarter-end.  We concluded that the goodwill in our healthcare services reporting unit had been impaired as part of our fourth quarter impairment testing, mainly resulting from the decline in the value of the reporting unit that arose from the downward re-pricing of risk that occurred broadly in the equity markets and affected the reporting unit in the quarter.  The decline in fair value of the healthcare services caused a failure in step 1 of the SFAS 142 impairment test and it was necessary to conduct step 2 of the impairment test. As part of our step 2 impairment test, we estimated an implied fair value of the goodwill in healthcare services of $0 and the $9.8 carrying value was recorded as an impairment charge in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. The implied fair value of the goodwill was determined after allocating the estimated fair value of the healthcare services reporting unit, utilizing the income approach, to all the assets and liabilities of that unit, in accordance with paragraph 21 of SFAS 142.

Intangible Assets

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property consists primarily of the costs associated with acquiring certain technology, patents, patents pending, know-how and related intangible assets with respect to programs for treatment of dependence to alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamines and other addictive stimulants. These long-term assets are stated at cost and are being amortized on a straight-line basis over the life of the respective patents, or patent applications, which range from 1211 to 20 years.

Other Intangible Assets

Other intangible assets consist primarily of identified intangible assets acquired as part of the CompCare acquisition, representing the value of managed care contracts and marketing-related assets associated with its managed care business, including the value of the healthcare provider network and the professional designation from the NCQA. Such assets are being amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated lives, which approximate the rate at which we believe the economic benefits of these assets will be realized, which is generally three19 years.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

In accordance with SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, long-livedLong-lived assets such as property, equipment and intangible assets subject to amortization are reviewed for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of these assets may not be recoverable.  In reviewing for impairment, we compare the carrying value of such assets to the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected from the use of the assets and their eventual disposition.  When the estimated undiscounted future


cash flows are less than their carrying amount, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the difference between the assets’ fair value and their carrying value.

In August 2007, we recordedreached an impairment chargeagreement to release 310,000 of $2.4 million when we recognized the fair value of 310,000360,000 shares of our common stock that had been previously issued as additional consideration related to acquire a patent for treatment of opiate addiction, for which we had previously recorded an impairment loss. We recorded the purchasefair market value of an opiate patent. Thethe 310,000 shares had been subject to a stock pledge agreement pending the resolution of certain contingencies until we agreed to release the shares as a result of a settlement agreement reachedissued in August 2007 with the seller of the patent. The fair value of these shares wasas an additional impairment loss amounting to $2.4 million, based on the closing stock price on the date of the settlement.

AtWe performed an impairment test on intellectual property as of March 31, 2009. We considered numerous factors, including a valuation of the intellectual property by an independent third party, and determined that the carrying value of certain intangible assets was not recoverable and exceeded the fair value. We recorded an impairment charge totaling $355,000 for these assets as of March 31, 2009. These charges consisted of $122,000 for intangible assets related to our managed treatment center in Dallas and $233,000 related to intellectual property for additional indications for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program that are currently non-revenue generating. In its valuation, the independent third-party valuation firm relied on the “relief from royalty” method, as this method was deemed to be most relevant to our intellectu al property assets. We determined that the estimated useful lives of the remaining intellectual property properly reflected the current remaining economic useful lives of the assets. We also performed additional impairment tests on intellectual property at December 31, 2008, CompCare’s intangible assets2009 and determined that no additional impairment charges were necessary.

We performed an impairment test on all property and equipment as of $642,000 were likewise evaluated for possible impairment.  InMarch 31, 2009, including capitalized software costs related to our evaluationbehavioral health segment. As a result of our intangible assets,this testing, we considereddetermined that the subsequent salecarrying value of our interest in CompCare for $1.5 million in proceeds,the capitalized software was not recoverable and other factors, in concluding that noexceeded its fair value, and we wrote off the $758,000 net book value of this software as of March 31, 2009. This impairment charge was recognized in operating expenses in our consolidated statement of operations. We also performed impairment tests on all property and equipment as of December 31, 2009 and determined that no additional impairment charge was necessary.

No other impairments were identified in our reviews at December 31, 20082009 and 2007.2008.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Additions and improvements to property and equipment are capitalized at cost. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets, which range from two to seven years for furniture and equipment. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of the estimated useful lives of the assets or the related lease term, which is typically five to seven years. Construction in progress is not depreciated until the related asset is placed into service.
Capital Leases

Assets held under capital leases include furniture and computer equipment, and are recorded at the lower of the net present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair value of the leased asset at the inception of the lease. Depreciation expense is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets.  All lease agreements contain bargain purchase options at termination of the lease.

Variable Interest Entities

Generally, an entity is subject to FIN 46R and is calleddefined as a Variable Interest Entityvariable interest entity (VIE) under current accounting rules if it has (a) equity that is insufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties, or (b) equity investors that cannot make significant decisions about the entity’s operations, or that do not absorb the expected losses or receive the expected returns of the entity. When determining whether an entity that is a business qualifies as a VIE, we also consider whether (i) we participated significantly in the design of the entity, (ii) we provided more than half of the total financial support to the entity, and (iii) substantially all of the activities of the VIE either involve us or are conducted on our behalf. A VIE is consolidated by its primary beneficiary, which is the party that absorbs or receives a majority of the entity’s expected losses or expected residual returns.

As discussed in Note 2 – Management Services Agreements, we have management services agreementsentered into MSAs with managedprofessional medical corporations. Under these management services agreements,MSAs, the equity owner of the affiliated medical group has only a nominal equity investment at risk, and we absorb or receive a majority of the entity’s expected losses or expected residual returns. We participate significantly in the design of these management services agreements. We also agree to provide working capital loans to allow for the medical group to pay for its obligations. Substantially all of the activities of these managed medical corporations either involve us or are conducted for our benefit, as evidenced by the facts that (i) the operations of the managed medical corporations are conducted primarily using our licensed protocolsp rotocols and (ii) under the management services agreements,MSAs, we agree to provide and perform all non-medical management and administrative services for the respective medical group. Payment of our management fee is subordinate to payments of the obligations of the medical group, and repayment of the working capital loans is not guaranteed by the equity owner of the affiliated medical group or other third party. Creditors of the managed medical corporations do not have recourse to our general credit.



Based on the design and provisions of these management services agreementsMSAs and the working capital loans provided to the medical groups, we have determined that the managed medical corporations are VIEs, and that we are the primary beneficiary as defined in FIN 46R.current accounting rules. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of thesuch managed medical corporations.

Accrued Claims Payable

The accrued claims payable liability represents the estimated ultimate net amounts owed for all behavioral healthcare services provided through the respective balance sheet dates, including estimated amounts for claims IBNR to CompCare.  The unpaid claims liability is estimated using an actuarial paid completion factor methodology and other statistical analyses and is continually reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, to reflect any change in the estimated liability. These estimates are subject to the effects of trends in utilization and other factors.  However, actual claims incurred could differ materially from the estimated accrued claims payable amount reported. Although considerable variability is inherent in such estimates, CompCare management believes that the unpaid claims liability is adequate.

Accrued Reinsurance Claims Payable

The accrued reinsurance claims payable liability represents amounts payable to providers under a state reinsurance program associated with CompCare’s contract to provide behavioral healthcare services to members of a Connecticut HMO. CompCare’s contract with the HMO ended December 31, 2005. At December 31, 2008, $2.5 million of reinsurance claims payable remains and is attributable to providers having submitted claims for authorized services with incorrect service codes or otherwise incorrect information that has caused payment to be denied by CompCare.  In such cases, there are statutory provisions that allow the provider to appeal a denied claim.  If no appeal is received by CompCare within the prescribed amount of time, it is probable that CompCare will be required to remit the reinsurance funds back to the appropriate party.  Although CompCare believes it has materially complied with applicable federal and state laws related to the reinsurance program, there can be no assurance that a determination that CompCare has violated such laws will not be made, and any such determination could have a material adverse effect on CompCare’s financial position and results of operations.

Warrant Liabilities

We have issued five-year warrants to purchase approximately 2.4 million additional sharesin connection with the registered direct placements of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share in connection withNovember 2007 and September 2009, and the amended and restated senior secured note in July 2008. The warrant agreements include provisions that require us to record them as a registered direct stock placement completed on November 7, 2007. The proceeds attributable to the warrants, based on theliability, at fair value, pursuant to FASB accounting rules, including provisions in some warrants that protect the holders from declines in the our stock price and a requirement to deliver registered shares upon exercise, which is considered outside of our control. The warrant liabilities are marked to market each reporting period and changes in fair value are recorded as a non-operating gain or loss in our statement of operations, until they are completely settled or expire. The fair va lue of the warrants atis determined each reporting period using the date of issue, amountedBlack-Scholes option pricing model, and is affected by changes in inputs to approximately $6.3 millionthat model including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, interest rates and were accounted for as a liability in accordance with EITF 00-19 based on an evaluation of the terms and conditions related to the warrant agreement. The warrant liability was revalued at $49,000 and $2.8 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, resulting in non-operating gains in our Consolidated Statement of Operations of $2.7 million and $3.5 million forexpected term.

For the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we recognized gains of $341,000 and 2007, respectively.

We issued a warrant$5.7 million, respectively, related to purchase up to approximately 250,000 sharesthe revaluation of our common stock, in January 2007, in connection with the senior secured note (see Note 6 – Debt Outstanding). The original warrant issued had a term of five years, and was initially exercisable at $12.01 per share, or 120% of the $10.01 closing price of our common stock on January 16, 2007. Pursuant to an anti-dilution adjustment clause in the note, the exercise price of the warrant was subsequently adjusted to $10.52 per share and the number of shares was adjusted to 285,185. The warrant was valued at $1.4 million on the date of issuance, based on the Black-Scholes valuation method, and was recorded in additional paid-in capital within stockholders’ equity. In conjunction with amending the senior secured note on July 31, 2008, we amended the existing warrant by issuing a new warrant to Highbridge exercisable for 1.3 million shares of our common stock at a price per share of $2.15 (priced based on the $2.14 closing price of our common stock on July 22, 2008) and the amended warrant expires five years from the amendment date. The original warrant is no longer outstanding.liabilities.

In connection with evaluating the accounting for the new warrant, the classification of the original warrant was reassessed and it was determined that it should have been classified as a


Concentration of Credit Risk

liabilityFinancial instruments, which potentially subject us to a concentration of risk, include cash, marketable securities and marked to market from the dateaccounts receivable. Most of issuance. We quantified and evaluated the qualitative and quantitative effects of this on prior periods and concluded that they were not material to our financial statements and did not warrant a restatement of prior periods’ financial statements. The impact of not timely recording gains from the diminution in value of the liability on net loss per sharecustomers are based in the prior quarters ranges from $.00United States at this time and we are not subject to $.02 per share. The net effect of not timely reducing our stockholders’ equity was less than 5% in all prior quarters. Also, there was no effect on our revenue or cash flowsexchange risk for any quarter. Accordingly, the January 2007 proceeds from issuing the original warrant of $1.4 million were reclassified from additional-paid-in-capital to warrant liabilities at July 31, 2008. The warrant was then re-valued and adjusted to its July 31, 2008 estimated value of $89,000 using the Black-Scholes valuation method, resulting in a $1.3 million change in fair value, recorded as a non-operating gain in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months ended September 30, 2008.
accounts receivable.

The fair value ofcompany maintains its cash in domestic financial institutions subject to insurance coverage issued by the amended warrant amountedFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Under FDIC rules, the company is entitled to $1.8 million ataggregate coverage as defined by the date of issuance, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, and the terms of the warrant agreement required that it be accounted forFederal regulation per account type per separate legal entity per financial institution. The company has incurred no losses as a liability in accordance in EITF 00-19.  The amended warrant was revalued at $714,000 asresult of September 30, 2008, and $107,000 at December 31, 2008, resulting in a $1.7 million non-operating gain to the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2008.any credit risk exposures.

Both warrants are being valued at each reporting period using the Black-Scholes pricing model to determine the fair value per warrant.  We will continue to mark these warrants to market value each quarter-end until they are completely settled.

Minority Interest

Minority interest represents the minority stockholders’ proportionate share of CompCare’s equity. We acquired a majority controlling interest in CompCare as part of our Woodcliff acquisition, and we had the ability to control 48.9% of CompCare’s common stock as of December 31, 2008 from our ownership of 1,739,130 shares of common stock and 14,400 shares of CompCare’s Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (assuming conversion). As part of the acquisition, we obtained anti-dilution protection and the right to designate a majority of the Board of Directors of CompCare, giving us control. Our ownership percentage as of December 31, 2008 has decreased from the 50.3% as of the date of our acquisition due to additional common stock issued by CompCare during the period. Our controlling interest requires that CompCare’s operations be included in our consolidated financial statements, with the remaining 51.1% being attributed to minority stockholder interest. Due to CompCare’s accumulated deficit on the date of our acquisition, a deficit minority stockholders’ balance in the amount of $544,000 existed at the time of the acquisition which was valued at zero, resulting in an increase in the amount of goodwill recognized in the acquisition. The minority stockholders’ interest in any further net losses has not been recorded due to the accumulated deficit. The unrecorded minority stockholders’ interest in net loss amounted to $4.2 million and $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 and the period January 13, 2007 through December 31, 2007, respectively.  
Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Recently Adopted

InOn September 2006,30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to the authoritative hierarchy of GAAP. These changes establish the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (Codification) as the source of authoritative accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Rules and interpretive releases of the SEC under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The FASB will no longer issue new standards in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Positions, or Emerging Issues Task Force Abstracts; instead the FASB will issue Accounting Standards Updates (ASUs). ASUs will not be authoritative in their own right as they will only serve to update the Codification. These changes and the Codification itself do not change GAAP. Other than the manner in which new accounting guidance is referenced, the adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On July 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued SFAS 157,by the FASB to accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued, otherwise known as “subsequent events.” Specifically, these changes set forth the period after the balance sheet date during which management of a reporting entity should evaluate events or transactions that may occur for potential recognition or disclosure in the financial statements, the circumstances under which an entity should recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its financial statements, and the disclosures that an entity should make about events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated f inancial statements as management already followed a similar approach prior to the adoption of this new guidance.
On June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value disclosures of financial instruments. These changes require a publicly traded company to include disclosures about the fair value of its financial instruments whenever it issues summarized financial information for interim reporting periods. Such disclosures include the fair value of all financial instruments, for which it is practicable to estimate that value, whether recognized or not recognized in the statement of financial position; the related carrying amount of these financial instruments; and the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value. Other than the required disclosures (see Fair Value MeasurementsMeasuremen ts above), which definesthe adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On June 30, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value establishes a frameworkaccounting. These changes provide additional guidance for measuringestimating fair value in GAAP,when the volume and expands disclosures aboutlevel of activity for an asset or liability have significantly decreased and includes guidance for identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly. This guidance is necessary to maintain the overall objective of fair value measurements.measurements, which is, that fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. The Statement is effective foradoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. In February 2008, FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which delays the effective date of SFAS 157 to fiscal years and interim periods withinstatements.
those fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). We elected to defer the adoption of the Standard for these non-financial assets and liabilities, and are currently evaluating the impact, if any, that the deferred provisions of the Standard will have on our consolidated financial statements. Because
On June 30, 2009, we did not elect to apply the fair value accounting option, the adoption of SFAS 157 for our financial assets and liabilities did not have an impact on our financial position or operating results.

In February 2007,adopted changes issued by the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Optionto the recognition and presentation of other-than-temporary impairments. These changes amend existing other-than-temporary impairment guidance for Financial Assetsdebt securities to make the guidance more operational and Financial Liabilities. SFAS 159 allows companies to measure many financial assets and liabilities at fair value. It also establishesimprove the presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assetsother-than-temporary impairments on debt and liabilities. SFAS 159 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years.equity securities. The adoption of SFAS No. 159 did not affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In October 2008, FASB Staff Position (FSP) on FAS 157-3 was issued, which clarifies the application of SFAS 157 in an inactive market and provides an example to demonstrate how the fair value of a financial asset is determined when the market for that financial asset is inactive. FSP FAS 157-3 was effective upon issuance, including prior periods for which financial statementsthese changes had not been issued. The adoption of this standard as of September 30, 2008 did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2008, the FASB issued FSP FAS 140-4 and FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 46R-8, Disclosures by Public Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable Interest Entities. This FSP amends FASB Statement No. 140 Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities to require public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also amends FIN 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities as revised to require public enterprises to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with VIEs. FSP FAS 140-4 and FIN 46(R)-8 are effective for the Company's fiscal year ending December 31, 2008.  We are required to consolidate the revenues and expenses of the managed medical corporations.  The financial results of managed treatment centers are included in our consolidated financial statements under accounting standards applicable to VIEs.  Disclosures regarding our involvement with VIEs are appropriately included in our financial statements under Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Variable Interest Entities, according to the guidance.

Recently Issued

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements—an amendment of ARB No. 51. SFAS 160 requires that non-controlling (or minority) interests in subsidiaries be reported in the equity section of the company's balance sheet, rather than in a mezzanine section of the balance sheet between liabilities and equity. SFAS 160 also changes the manner in which the net income of the subsidiary is reported and disclosed in the controlling company's income statement. SFAS 160 also establishes guidelines for accounting for changes in ownership percentages and for deconsolidation. SFAS 160 is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning on or after December 1, 2008 and interim periods within those years. SFAS 160 will have no material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – an amendment of SFAS 133.  SFAS 161 requires enhanced disclosures about an entity’s derivative and hedging activities, including how an entity uses derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. The provisions of SFAS 161 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS 161 to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 In December 2007,On January 1, 2009 we adopted changes issued by the FASB in June 2008 to provide guidance in determining whether certain financial instruments (or embedded feature) are considered to be “indexed to an entity’s own stock.” Existing guidance under GAAP considers certain financial instruments to be outside the scope of derivative accounting, specifying that a contract that would otherwise meet the definition of a derivative but is both (a) indexed to the entity’s own stock and (b) classified in stockholders’ equity in the statement of financial position would not be considered a derivative financial instrument. These changes provide a new two-step model to be applied in determining whether a financial instrument or an embedded feature is indexed to an entity’s own stock and thus able to qua lify for the derivative accounting scope exception. These changes did not have any impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued SFAS 141R, Business Combinations. SFAS 141R replaces SFAS 141, Business Combinations, and retainsby the requirementFASB to accounting for business combinations. While retaining the fundamental requirements of accounting for business combinations, including that the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions be used for all business combinations. SFAS 141R expands on the disclosures previously required by SFAS 141, better definescombinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination, these changes define the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control instead of the date that the consideration is transferred. These changes require an acquirer in a business combination, and establishes principles for recognizing


and measuringincluding business combinations achieved in stages (step acquisition), to recognize the assets acquired, (including goodwill), the liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling interestsinterest in the acquired business. SFAS 141Racquiree at the acqu isition date, measured at their fair values as of that date, with limited exceptions. This guidance also requires (i) an acquirer to record an adjustment to income tax expense for changes in valuation allowances or uncertain tax positions related to acquired businesses. SFAS 141R is effective for all business combinations with anrecognize at fair value, at the acquisition date, an asset acquired or liability assumed in a business combination that arises from a contingency if the acquisition-date fair value of that asset or liability can be determined during the measurement period; otherwise the asset or liability should be recognized at the acquisition date if certain defined criteria are met; (ii) contingent consideration arrangements of an acquiree assumed by the acquirer in a business combination be recognized initially at fair value; (iii) subsequent measurements of assets and liabilities arising from contingencies be based on a systematic and rational method depending on their nature and contingent consideration arrangements be measured subsequently; and (iv) disclosures of the amounts and measurement basis of such assets and liabilities and the nature of the contingencies. Add itionally, these changes require acquisition-related costs to be expensed in the first annual period following December 15, 2008; early adoption is not permitted.in which the costs are incurred and the services are received instead of including such costs as part of the acquisition price. We have adoptednot engaged in any acquisitions since this statement as of January 1, 2009. Thenew guidance was issued, so there has been no impact that the adoption of SFAS 141R will have onto our consolidated financial statements will depend on the nature, terms and size of our business combinations that occur after the effective date.statements.

In April 2008,On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB issued FSP FAS 142-3, Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets.  FSP 142-3 amendsto accounting for intangible assets. These changes amend the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. This change is intendedin order to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142outside of a business combination and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of thean intangible asset under SFAS No. 141R and other GAAP. FSP 142-3 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal years.in a business combination. The requirement for determining useful lives must be applied prospectively to intangible assets acquired after the effective date and the disclosure requirements must be applied prospectively to all intangible assets recognized as of, and subsequent to, the effective date. We do not expect the adoption of this statement tothese changes did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.flows, and the required disclosures regarding our intangible assets are included above under Intangible Assets.
On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to consolidation accounting and reporting that establish accounting and reporting for the non-controlling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. This guidance defines a non-controlling interest, previously called a minority interest, as the portion of equity in a subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to a parent. These changes require, among other items, that a non-controlling interest be included in the consolidated balance sheet within equity separate from the parent’s equity; consolidated net income to be reported at amounts inclusive of both the parent’s and non-controlling interest’s shares and, separately, the amounts of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and non-controlling interest al l in the consolidated statement of operations; and if a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained non-controlling equity investment in the former subsidiary be measured at fair value and a gain or loss be recognized in net income based on such fair value. The adoption of these changes had no impact on our consolidated financial statements.

On January 1, 2009, we adopted changes issued by the FASB to fair value accounting and reporting as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not recognized or disclosed at fair value in the consolidated financial statements on at least an annual basis. These changes define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expand disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance applies to other GAAP that require or permit fair value measurements and is to be applied prospectively with limited exceptions. The adoption of these changes, as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, had no impact on our consolidated financial statements. These provisions will be applied at such time a fair value measurement of a nonfinancial asset or nonfinancial liab ility is required, which may result in a fair value that is materially different than would have been calculated prior to the adoption of these changes.

Recently Issued

In August 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-15, which changes the fair value accounting for liabilities. These changes clarify existing guidance that in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability is not available, an entity is required to measure fair value using either a valuation technique that uses a quoted price of either a similar liability or a quoted price of an identical or similar liability when traded as an asset, or another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurements, such as an income approach (e.g., present value technique). This guidance also states that both a quoted price in an active market for the identical liability and a quoted price for the identical liability when traded as an asset in an active market when no adjustments to the q uoted price of the asset are required are Level 1 input fair value measurements. This ASU is effective on January 1, 2010. Adoption of this ASU will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In June 2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for variable interest entities. These changes require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine whether the enterprise’s variable interest gives it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity; to require ongoing reassessments of whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to eliminate the quantitative approach previously required for determining the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity; to add an additional reconsideration event for determining whether an entity is a variable interest entity when any changes in facts and circumstances occur such that holders of the equity investment at risk, as a group, lose the power from voting rights or similar rights of those investments to direct the activiti es of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance; and to require enhanced disclosures that will provide users of financial statements with more transparent information about an enterprise’s involvement in a variable interest entity. These changes become effective for us beginning on January 1, 2010. The adoption of this change is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued changes to the accounting for transfers of financial assets. These changes remove the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity and remove the exception from the application of variable interest accounting to variable interest entities that are qualifying special-purpose entities; limits the circumstances in which a transferor derecognizes a portion or component of a financial asset; defines a participating interest; requires a transferor to recognize and initially measure at fair value all assets obtained and liabilities incurred as a result of a transfer accounted for as a sale; and requires enhanced disclosure; among others. These changes will become effective for us on January 1, 2010.
Note 2.  Management Services Agreements

We have executed management services agreementsMSAs with medical professional corporations and related treatment centers, with terms generally ranging from five to ten years and provisions to continue on a month-to-month basis following the initial term, unless terminated for cause. In May 2009, we terminated the MSAs with a medical professional corporation and a managed treatment center located in Dallas, Texas. As a result, we no longer consolidate these entities as VIEs. In connection with the termination of these MSAs, we determined that the carrying value of certain assets was not recoverable and we recorded an impairment charge totaling $151,000 during the year ended December 31, 2009.

Under each of these management services agreements,our one remaining MSA, we generally license to the medical group ora treatment center in Santa Monica, California the right to use our proprietary treatment programs and related trademarks and provide all required day-to-day business management services, including, but not limited to:

●  
general administrative support servicesservices;
●  
information systemssystems;
●  
recordkeepingrecordkeeping;
●  
schedulingscheduling;
●  
billing and collectioncollection;
●  
marketing and local business developmentdevelopment; and
●  
obtaining and maintaining all federal, state and local licenses, certifications and regulatory permits

The medical group or treatment facilitycenter retains the sole right and obligation to provide medical services to its patients and to make other medically related decisions, such as the choice of medical professionals to hire or medical equipment to acquire and the ordering of drugs.

In addition, we provide medical office space to each medical groupthe treatment center on a non-exclusive basis, and we are responsible for all costs associated with rent and utilities. The medical grouptreatment center pays us a monthly fee equal to the aggregate amount of (a) our costs of providing management services (including reasonable overhead allocable to the delivery of our services and including start-up costs such as pre-operating salaries, rent, equipment, and tenant improvements incurred for the benefit of the medical group, provided that any capitalized costs will beare being amortized over a five year period), (b) 10%-15% of the foregoing costs, and (c) any performance bonus amount, as determined by the medical grouptreatment center at its sole discretion. The medical group’streatment center’s payment of our fee is subordinate to payment of the medical group's obligations,treatment center’s obligat ions, including physician fees and medical group employee compensation.

We have also agreed to provide a credit facility to each medical practicethe treatment center to be available as a working capital loan, with interest at the Prime Rateprime rate plus 2%. Funds are advanced pursuant to the terms of the management services agreementMSA described above. The notes are due on demand, or upon termination of the respective management


services agreement.MSA. At December 31, 2008,2009, there were three outstanding credit facilities under whichwas $9.2 million was outstanding.outstanding under our credit facility with the treatment center. Our maximum exposure to loss could exceed this amount, and cannot be quantified as it is contingent upon the amount of losses incurred by the treatment center.

Based on the provisions of these agreements, weWe have determined that the managed medical corporations are VIEs and that we are the primary beneficiary as defined in FIN 46R.the current accounting rules. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the managed treatment centers as discussed in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies under Variable Interest Entities. centers.
The amounts and classification of assets and liabilities of the VIEs included in our Consolidated Balance Sheetsconsolidated balance sheets at December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 are as follows:

  December 31,  December 31,
(in thousands) 2009  2008
Cash and cash equivalents $23  $274
Receivables, net  -   281
Prepaids and other current assets  -   3
Total assets $23  $558
        
Accounts payable  14  $30
Note payable (1)  9,214   9,238
Accrued compensation and benefits  -   54
Accrued liabilities  6   13
Total liabilities $9,234  $9,335
        
(1) eliminated in consolidation    
(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007 
Cash and cash equivalents $274  $172 
Receivables, net  281   146 
Prepaids and other current assets  3   13 
Total assets $558  $331 
         
Accounts payable $30  $12 
Intercompany loans  9,238   6,117 
Accrued compensation and benefits  54   168 
Accrued liabilities  13   45 
Total liabilities $9,335  $6,342 
F-24


Note 3.  Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivables consisted of the following as of December 31:31, 2009 and 2008:

(in thousands) 2009  2008 
License fees $724  $1,624 
Patient fees receivable  50   348 
Other  39   32 
Total receivables  813   2,004 
Less allowance for doubtful accounts  (505)  (1,350)
Total receivables, net $308  $654 
(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007 
License fees $1,624  $2,100 
Patient fees receivable  348   282 
Managed care contracts  1,583   35 
Other  29   21 
Total Receivables  3,584   2,438 
Less allowance for doubtful accounts  (1,350)  (651)
Total Receivables, net $2,234  $1,787 

We use the specific identification method for recording the provision for doubtful accounts, which was $1.0$505,000 and $1.4 million $528,000, and $281,000 for the years endedas of December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.  Accounts written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts totaled $335,000$921,000 and $177,000$255,000 for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, respectively. There were no accounts written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts during the year ended December 31, 2006.

Note 4.  Property and Equipment

Depreciation of property and equipment is recorded using the straight-line method, generally over two to seven years.  Leasehold improvements are amortized over the term of the lease.  Construction in progress is not depreciated until the related asset is placed into service.



Property and equipment consisted of the following as of December 31:31, 2009 and 2008:

(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007 
(in thousands) 2009  2008 
Furniture and equipment $6,218  $6,363  $4,624  $4,700 
Leasehold improvements  3,018   3,558   2,950   2,960 
Total Property and Equipment  9,236   9,921 
Total property and equipment  7,574   7,660 
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization  (6,376)  (5,630)  (6,697)  (5,035)
Total Property and Equipment, net $2,860  $4,291 
Total property and equipment, net $877  $2,625 
 
Depreciation and amortization expense was $1.8 million, $1.5$1.3 million and $1.1$1.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.

In accordance with SFAS 144, we performed an impairment test and re-evaluated the recoverability of our property and equipment at December 31, 2008, determining that no indication of impairment existed.

Note 5.  Intangible Assets

Intangible assets consist of intellectual property, managed care contracts and provider networks associated with the CompCare acquisition.  Intangible assets are stated at cost, net of accumulated amortization.  Intellectual property consists primarily of the costs associated with acquiring certain technology, patents, patents pending, know-how and related intangible assets with respect to programs for treatment of dependence to alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other addictive stimulants. Intellectual property is being amortized on a straight-line basis from the date costs are incurred over the remaining life of the respective patents or patent applications, which range from 1211 to 20 years.  Other intangible assets are being amortized on a straight-line basis from the date of acquisition over the remaining lives of the managed care contracts to which they relate, which ranges from two to seven years.  As of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, intangible assets were as follows:

        Amortization Period
(in thousands) 2009  2008 (in years)
Intellectual property $4,360  $4,508  11 to 16
          
Less accumulated amortization  (1,702)  (1,250) 
          
Total Intangibles, net $2,658  $3,258  
        Amortization Period
(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007 (in years)
Intellectual property (I/P) $4,508  $4,308  12 to 20
Managed care contracts  831   832  3 to 7
Provider networks  1,305   1,305  2 to 3
Total Intangibles  6,644   6,445  
          
Less accumulated amortization - I/P  (1,250)  (832) 
Less accumulated amortization - other  (1,495)  (777) 
Accumulated Amortization  (2,745)  (1,609) 
          
Total Intangibles, net $3,899  $4,836  
F-25

 
Amortization expense for all intangible assets amounted to $1.0 million, $1.0 million$243,000 and $217,000$418,000 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively. Estimated amortization expense for intellectual property for the next five years ending December 31, is as follows:

(Dollars in thousands) 
Year Amount (1)  Amount 
2009 $276 
2010  276  $241 
2011  276   241 
2012  276   241 
2013  276   241 
2014  241 
 
(1) Excludes amortization for intangibles related to CompCare, which was sold on January 20, 2009.

F-25


PROMETA Treatment Program

In March 2003, we entered into a Technology Purchasetechnology purchase and License Agreementlicense agreement (Technology Agreement) with Tratamientos Avanzados de la Adicción S.L. (Tavad), a Spanish corporation, to acquire, on an exclusive basis, all of the rights, title and interest to use and/or sell the products and services.  In addition, the Technology Agreement gave us the right to license the intellectual property owned by Tavad with respect to a method for the treatment of alcohol and cocaine dependence, known as the PROMETA Treatment Program, on a worldwide basis except in Spain (as amended in September 2003). We have granted Tavad a security interest in the intellectual property to secure the payments and performance obligations under the Technology Agreement. As consideration for the intellectual property acquired, we issued to Tavad approximatelya pproximately 836,000 shares of our common stock in September 2003 at a fair market value of $2.50 per share, plus warrants to purchase approximately 532,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 per share, valued at approximately $192,000. Warrants for 160,000 shares that were exercisable at any time through September 29, 2008 have expired, and the remaining warrants for 372,000 shares become exercisable equally over five years and expire ten years from date of grant.

In addition to the purchase price for the above intellectual property, we agreed to pay a royalty fee to Tavad equal to three percent (3%) (six percent (6%) in Europe) of gross revenues from the PROMETA Treatment Program using the acquired intellectual property for so long as we (or any licensee) use the acquired intellectual property. For purposes of the royalty calculations, gross revenue is defined as all payments made by patients for the treatment, including payments made to our licensees. Royalty fees, which totaled $231,000, $192,000$43,000 and $71,000$231,000 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007,2009 and 2006,2008, respectively, are reflected in cost of services expense in the Consolidated Statementsour consolidated statements of Operationsoperations as revenues are recognized.

In October 2004, the Technology Agreement was amended (Amendment) to expand the definition of “Processes,” limited to alcohol and cocaine in the original agreement dated March 2003, to also include crack cocaine and methamphetamine treatment processes, and the term “Intellectual Property” was expanded to include all improvements through September 14, 2004. As consideration for the Amendment,amendment, we paid $75,000 and issued 83,221 shares of our common stock, valued at $354,000.

In May 2006, we issued 105,000 shares of our common stock valued at $738,000 to Tavad as initial consideration for a further amendment to the Technology Agreement.  The amendment expands the definition of “Processes” to include additional indications for the use of the PROMETA Treatment Program. The amendment requires us to issue 35,000 shares for each indication for which we file a patent application claim, plus an additional 50,000 shares for each indication from which we derive revenues in the future.

Under the Technology Agreement, we are obligated to allocate each year a minimum of 50% of the funds we expend on sales, marketing, research and development to such activities relating to the use of the intellectual property acquired. If we do not expend at least the requisite percentage on such activities, Tavad has the right to reclaim the intellectual property. We may terminate Tavad’s reversion rights by making an additional payment of an amount which, taken together with previously paid royalties and additional payments, would aggregate $1.0 million. In 2006, 2007 and 2008 we met our obligations with respect to this requirement.

The total cost of the assets acquired, plus additional costs incurred by us related to filing patent applications on such assets, have been reflected onin our Consolidated Balance Sheetsconsolidated balance sheets in long-term assets as intangible assets. Related amortization, which commenced on July 1, 2003, is being recorded on a straight-line basis over a 20-year estimated useful life.

Patent for Opiate Addiction Treatment

In August 2003, we acquired a patent for a treatment method for opiate addiction at a foreclosure sale held by Reserva Capital, LLC, a company owned and controlled by our chief executive officer and majority shareholder. The foreclosure sale was for purposes of satisfaction of debt owed to Reserva by XINO, a medical technology development company. We paid approximately $314,000 in cash and agreed to issue 360,000 shares of our common stock to XINO at a future date conditional upon the occurrence of certain events, including a full release of claims by all of the technology development company’s creditors.


F-26


In December 2005, we evaluated our potential use of this patent and determined that it would not likely be utilized in our current business plan. Accordingly, we recorded an impairment charge of $272,000 in 2005 to write off the remaining capitalized costs of intellectual property relating to this patent.

On August 8, 2007, we reached an agreement with XINO to release 310,000 of the 360,000 shares of our common stock previously issued to XINO. In consideration for a full release from the stock pledge agreement, XINO relinquished 50,000 of the previously issued shares and agreed not to sell or transfer any of its 310,000 shares through January 2008. We recorded the fair market value of the 310,000 shares issued as an additional impairment loss amounting to $2.4 million, based on the closing stock price of $7.70 per share on August 8, 2007.

Other Intangible Assets

In accordance with SFAS 141, Business Combinations, the purchase price for the CompCare acquisition was allocated to the fair values of the assets acquired, including identifiable intangible assets, in accordance with our proportionate share of ownership interest. These identified intangible assets include the value of managed care contracts and marketing-related assets associated with its managed care business, including the value of the healthcare provider network and the professional designation from the NCQA. Such assets will be amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated remaining lives, which approximates the rate at which we believe the economic benefits of these assets will be realized.

In accordance with SFAS 144, we performed an impairment test and re-evaluated the useful lives and amortization methods on intellectual property and other intangible assets as of December 31, 2008. We determined that no indication of impairment existed and the estimated useful lives of intellectual property and other intangible assets properly reflected the current remaining economic useful lives of these assets.

Note 6.  Debt Outstanding

Senior Secured Note

On January 17, 2007, in connection with the Woodcliffour acquisition of a controlling interest in CompCare, we entered into a securities purchase agreement pursuant to which we issued and sold to Highbridge International LLC (Highbridge) a $10 million senior secured note and a warrant to purchase up to approximately 250,000 shares of our common stock (together, the financing). The note bears interest at a rate of prime plus 2.5%, interest payable quarterly commencing on April 15, 2007 and matures on January 15, 2010. The note was redeemable at our option anytime prior to maturity and was originally redeemable at the option of Highbridge beginning on July 18, 2008.

Total original funds received of $10,000,000 were allocated to the warrant and the senior secured note in the amounts of $1,380,000 and $8,620,000, respectively, in accordance with their relative fair values as determined at the date of issuance. The value allocated to the warrant was treated as a discount to the note and was amortized to interest expense over the 18 month period between the date of issuance (January 17, 2007) and the date that Highbridge first had the right to redeem the note (July 18, 2008), using the effective interest method. In addition, we paid a $150,000 origination fee and incurred approximately $150,000 in other costs associated with the financing, which were allocated to the warrant and senior secured note in accordance with the relative fair values assigned to these instruments. The amount allocated to the seniorsen ior secured note was deferred and also amortized over the same 18 month period.

The original warrant issued had a term of five years, and was initially exercisable at $12.01 per share, or 120% of the $10.01 closing price of our common stock on January 16, 2007. Pursuant to an anti-dilution adjustment clause in the note, the exercise price of the warrant was adjusted to $10.52 per share and the number of shares was adjusted to 285,185 as of December 31, 2007.

As discussed more fully in Note 9 – Equity Financings, we entered into a redemption agreement with Highbridge to redeem $5 million in principal related to the senior secured note as part of our securities offering completed on November 7, 2007. Included in the gross proceeds received on that date was $5.35 million for the conversion of $5 million of the senior note, which also included payment of $350,000 for an early redemption penalty, based on a redemption price of 107% of the principal amount being redeemed pursuant to the redemption agreement. The $350,000 was included as part of the reacquisition cost of the notes and the difference between the


reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the principal amount redeemed was recognized as a loss of $741,000 on extinguishment of debt in our statement of operations duringfor the year ended December 31, 2007.
On July 31, 2008, we amended the note to extend, from July 18, 2008 to July 18, 2009, the optional redemption date exercisable by Highbridge for the $5 million remaining balance under the Note,note, and remove certain restrictions on our ability to obtain a margin loan on our ARS. In connection with this extension, we granted Highbridge additional redemption rights in the event of certain strategic transactions or other events generating additional liquidity for us, including, without limitation, the conversion of some or all of our ARS into cash. We also granted Highbridge a right of first refusal relating to the disposition of our ARS and amended the existing warrant held by Highbridge for 285,185 shares of our common stock at $10.52 per share. The amended warrant expires five years from the amendment date and is exercisable for 1,300,000 sharess hares of our common stock at a price per share of $2.15, priced based on the $2.14 closing price of our common stock on July 22, 2008. The warrant is subject to further adjustments if we sell or are deemed to have sold shares at a price below the adjusted exercise price per share, and will be proportionately adjusted for stock splits or dividends.  Similarly, if we were to issue convertible debt, the anti-dilution adjustment would also be triggered should the conversion price be less than its current price per share.  The terms of the amended warrant required that it be accounted for as a liability in accordance in EITF 00-19with current accounting rules and the fair value amounted to $1.8 million at the date of amendment. The interest terms of the note remained unchanged at a rate of prime plus 2.5%, which amounted to a current interest rate at December 31, 20082009 of 7.0% and the5.75%. The note is classified in short-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.

consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009. Pursuant to EITF 96-19, Debtor’s Accountingaccounting rules regarding debtor’s accounting for a Modificationmodification or Exchangeexchange of Debt Instruments,debt instruments, the amended note was considered to have substantially different terms and the amendment was accounted for in the same manner as a debt extinguishment. The fair value of the amended debt was $1.7 million less than the carrying value of the original debt, and the difference was recognized as a debt extinguishment gain. The incremental fair value of the amended warrant compared to the original warrant, treated as consideration granted by us for the amendment, amounted to $1.7 million on the date of amendment and was accounted for as a debt extinguishment loss since the amendment is being accounted for as a debt extinguishment. The gain and loss on the debt extinguishment offset each other and netted to a zero amount. The difference between the fair value and principal amount of the amended debt, amounting to $1.7 million, is beingwas treated as a discount to the note and was amortized to interest expense over a 12-month period, unti l the July 18, 2009 optional redemption date.

On August 11, 2009, we amended our amended and restated senior secured note with Highbridge to extend the maturity date from January 15, 2010 to July 15, 2010, and Highbridge agreed to give up its optional redemption rights. We also committed to exercising our right to sell our ARS in accordance with the terms of the rights offering by UBS, who sold them to us, and use the proceeds from the sale to redeem the note. The amended note agreement requires that if we borrow or raise capital, we will use all or a portion of the funds raised to redeem the note at 110%.  We also amended all 1.8 million warrants that had been previously issued to Highbridge to purchase shares of our common stock (including 1.3 million issued in conjunction with the amended and restated note in 2008 and 540,000 issued in conjunction with the November 2007 registered direct financing), to change the exercise price to $0.28 per share, and extend the expiration date to five years from the amendment date.

Pursuant to accounting rules regarding debtor’s accounting for modification or exchange of debt instruments, the amended note was not considered to have substantially different terms and was accounted for in the same manner as a debt modification. The incremental fair value of the amended warrants compared to the original warrants, treated as consideration granted by us for the amendment, amounted to $276,000 on the date of amendment and was accounted for as a discount to the note and is being amortized to interest expense over a 12-monththe remaining contractual maturity period untilof the July 18, 2009 optional redemption date. amended debt.
The warrant liability was revalued at $107,000$412,000 at December 31, 2008,2009, resulting in a $1.7 million$305,000 non-operating gainloss included in our Consolidated Statementconsolidated statement of Operationsoperations for the year ended December 31, 2008.2009. We will continue to re-measure the amended warrants at fair value each reporting period until it is completely settled or expires.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we drew down additional proceeds under the UBS line of credit facility, and used the proceeds to pay down the principal balance on our senior secured note with Highbridge. We made an additional $318,000 pay-down on the senior secured note in September 2009, using proceeds that we received from the registered direct stock financing that was completed in the same month. We recognized loss of $330,000 on extinguishment of debt resulting from these pay-downs for the year ended December 31, 2009.
F-28

The senior secured note restricts any new debt offerings so that we are only able to issue unsecured, subordinated debt so long as the principal payments are beyond the maturity of the senior secured note  (January(July 15, 2010), and the interest rate is not greater than the senior secured note rate (Prime+(prime plus 2.5%). The new debt cannot have call rights during the senior secured note term and Highbridge must consent to the issuance of new debt.

In connection with the financing, we entered into a security agreement granting Highbridge a first-priority perfected security interest in all of our assets owned at the date of the original note or acquired thereafter. We also entered into a pledge agreement with Highbridge, as collateral agent, pursuant to which we delivered equity interests evidencing 65% of our ownership of our foreign subsidiaries. In the event of a default, the collateral agent is given broad powers to sell or otherwise deal with the pledged collateral. There are no material financial covenant provisions associated with the senior secured note.

UBS Line of Credit

In May 2008, our investment portfolio manager, UBS, provided us with a demand margin loan facility collateralized by our ARS, which allowed us to borrow up to 50%75% of the UBS-determined market value of our ARS.

In October 2008, UBS made a “rights”rights offering to its clients, pursuant to which we are entitled to sell our ARS to UBS. The rights permit us to require UBS to purchase our ARS for a price equal to original par value plus any accrued but unpaid interest beginning on June 30, 2010 and ending on July 2, 2012, if the securities are not earlier redeemed or sold. As part of the offering, UBS would provide us a line of credit, (replacing the aforementioned margin loan), subject to certain restrictions, equal to 75% of the market value of the ARS, until they are purchased by UBS. We accepted the UBS offer on November 6, 2008.

F-28

credit, using 100% of the proceeds received from the redemption of certain ARS. Our UBS line of credit and our senior secured note are both collateralized by the ARS, which had a carrying value of $9.6 million at December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2008,2009, the outstanding balance on our line of credit was $5.7$6.5 million. The loan is subject to a rate of interest based upon the current 91-day90-day U.S. Treasury bill rate plus 120 basis points, payable monthly, and is classified in short-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.consolidated balance sheet.

CompCare

Debt outstanding at December 31, 2008 also includes 7.5% convertible subordinated debentures of CompCare with a remaining principal balance of $2,244,000. As part of the acquisition-related purchase price allocation, an adjustment of $266,000 was made at the date of acquisition to reduce the carrying value of this debt to its estimated fair value. This adjustment was treated as a discount and is being amortized over the remaining contractual maturity term of the note (April 2010) using the effective interest method.

On September 3, 2008, CompCare entered into a purchase agreement with an investor, in which it issued 200,000 shares of CompCare common stock and a $200,000 convertible promissory note for aggregate consideration of $250,000. The promissory note matures August 31, 2011 and bears interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, payable monthly in arrears. The promissory note is convertible into CompCare common stock at the rate of $0.25 per share.

The following table shows the total principal amount, related interest rates and maturities of debt outstanding as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007:2008:

(dollars in thousands, except where otherwise noted)  2008  2007 
Short-term Debt      
Senior secured note due January, 2010; callable by the holder on July 18, 2009;    
interest payable quarterly at prime plus 2.5% (7.0% and 9.25% at December 31,   
    2008 and 2007, respectively), $5 million principal; net of $899 and $258 unamortized $4,101  $4,742 
    discount at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.        
         
UBS line of credit, payable on demand, interest payable monthly at 91-day T-bill    
    rate plus 120 basis points (1.675% at December 31, 2008)  5,734    - 
         
Total Short-term Debt $9,835  $4,742 
         
Long-term Debt        
Convertible promissory note due August 2011, interest payable  monthly (1) $200  $- 
         
Convertible subordinated debentures due April 2010, interest payable semi-annually 
    at 7.5%, $2.2 million principal, net of $103 and $187 unamortized discount  2,141   2,057 
    at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively (2)        
         
Total Long-term Debt $2,341  $2,057 
  December 31,  December 31, 
(dollars in thousands, except where otherwise noted) 2009  2008 
Short-term debt      
Senior secured note due July 15, 2010; interest payable quarterly at prime      
plus 2.5% (5.75% and 7.0% at December 31, 2009 and December 31,      
2008, respectively), $3,332,000 principal net of $147,000 unamortized      
discount at December 31, 2009 and $5,000,000 principal net of      
$899,000 unamortized discount at December 31, 2008 $3,185  $4,101 
         
UBS line of credit, payable on demand, interest payable monthly at 91-day        
T-bill rate plus 120 basis points (1.237% at December 31, 2009 and        
1.675% at December 31, 2008)  6,458   5,734 
         
Total Short-term debt $9,643  $9,835 
 
(1)The promissory note is convertible into 800,000 shares of common stock of CompCare at a conversion price of $0.25 per share.
(2)At December 31, 2008, the debentures are convertible into 15,873 shares of common stock of CompCare at a conversion price of $141.37 per share.

Note 7.  Capital Lease Obligations

We lease certain furniture and computer equipment under agreements entered into during the period 2006 2007 and 2008through 2009 that are classified as capital leases. The cost of furniture and computer equipment under capital leases is included in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in furniture and equipment on our consolidated balance sheets and was $692,000$4.6 million at December 31, 2008.2009. Accumulated depreciation of the leased equipment at December 31, 20082009 was approximately $430,000.$4.1 million.


F-29


The future minimum lease payments required under the capital leases and the present values of the net minimum lease payments, as of December 31, 2008,2009, are as follows:

(Dollars in thousands) Amount 
Year Ending December 31,   
2009 $191 
(in thousands) Amount 
Year ending December 31,   
2010  98  $65 
2011  62   54 
Total minimum lease payments  351   119 
Less amounts representing interest  (41)  (13)
Capital Lease Obligations, net of interest  310 
Capital lease obligations, net of interest  106 
Less current maturities of capital lease obligations  (166)  (58)
Long-term Capital Lease Obligations $144 
Long-term capital lease obligations $48 

Note 8.  Income Taxes

As of December 31, 2008, we2009, the Company had net federal operating loss carryforwardscarry forwards and state operating loss carryforwardscarry forwards of approximately $126.4$140.7 million and $118.1$130.8 million, respectively.  The net federal operating loss carryforwardscarry forwards begin to expire in 2023, and the net state operating loss carryforwardscarry forwards begin to expire in 2013.  ForeignThe majority of the foreign net operating loss carryforwards were approximately $6.4 million, virtually all of which willcarry forwards expire over the next seven years.

The primary components of temporary differences which give rise to our net deferred tax assets are as follows:

(Dollars in thousands) 2008  2007  2006 
(in thousands)2009  2008 
Federal, state and foreign net operating losses $49,810  $39,542  $25,454 $55,581  $49,810 
Stock-based compensation  3,646   3,259   2,810  4,062   3,646 
Accrued liabilities  362   746   481  367   362 
Other temporary differences  (1,866)  (666)  1,212  (734)  (1,866)
Valuation allowance  (51,952)  (42,881)  (29,957) (59,276)  (51,952)
 $-  $-  $- $-  $- 
 
In addition to the temporary differences reflected above, we generated a capital loss of $3.5 million from the 2009 sale of CompCare, which we have established a full valuation allowance against as of December 31, 2009.

We have provided a full valuation allowance in full on net deferred tax assets, in accordance with SFAS No. 109,FASB ASC 740, Accounting for Income Taxes.  Because of our continued losses, management assessed the realizability of the Company’s net deferred tax assets as being less than the "more-likely-than-not""more-likely-than-not" criterion set forth by SFAS No. 109.FASB ASC 740.  Furthermore, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits the use of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards in certain situations where changes occur in the stock ownership of a company.  In the event we have a change in ownership, utilization of the carryforward could be restricted. We have not provided deferred taxes on less than 80% owned subsidiaries or investments accounted for under FIN 46R,SFAS No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R) (ASC 810), as those investments have accumulated book losses and we do not believe we can realize those losses for tax purposes in the foreseeable future.

F-30

A reconciliation between the statutory federal income tax rate and the effective income tax rate for the years ended December 31 is as follows:follows

 2008 2007
Federal statutory rate-34.0% -34.0%
Share-based compensation4.8% 0.0%
State taxes-1.8% -4.4%
Other1.2% 1.6%
Nondeductible goodwill8.0% 0.0%
Change in valuation allowance21.9% 36.8%
    Effective Rate0.1% 0.0%

F-30
 2009 2008
Federal statutory rate-34.0% -34.0%
Share-based compensation5.6% 4.8%
State taxes-5.6% -1.8%
Other0.0% 1.2%
Nondeductible goodwill0.0% 8.0%
Change in valuation allowance34.0% 21.9%
    Effective tax rate0.0% 0.1%


In June 2006, the FASB issued FIN 48, which clarifies theCurrent accounting for uncertainty in income taxes. FIN 48 requiresrules require that companies recognize in the consolidated financial statements the impact of a tax position, if that position is more likely than not of being sustained on audit, based on the technical merits of the position. FIN 48 also provides guidance on de-recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods and disclosure. The provisions of FIN 48 are effective for years beginning after December 15, 2006. We adopted FIN 48 on January 1, 2007 with no impact to our consolidated financial statements. We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state and foreign jurisdictions. Tax years that remain subject to examinations by tax authorities are 2004 through 2007.2008.  The federal and material foreign jurisdictions statutes of limitations beginbegan to expire in 2009. There are no current income tax audits in any jurisdictions for open tax years and, as of December 31, 2008,2009, there have been no material changes to our FIN 48 position.tax positions.

The Company has adopted guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) that clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise's financial statements and prescribes a recognition threshold of more likely than not and a measurement process for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. In making this assessment, a company must determine whether it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination, based solely on the technical merits of the position and must assume that the tax position will be examined by taxing authorities. Our policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Interest and penalties totaled $0 for the y ears ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Company files income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the state of California. For jurisdictions in which tax filings are prepared, the Company is no longer subject to income tax examinations by state tax authorities for tax years through 2004, and by the IRS for tax years through 2005. The Company’s net operating loss carryforwards are subject to IRS examination until they are fully utilized and such tax years are closed

Note 9.  Equity Financings

In December 2006,On September 17, 2009, we completed a registered direct placement with select institutional investors, in which we issued 3,573,000an aggregate of 9,333,000 shares of common stock at a price of $7.30$0.75 per share, infor gross proceeds of approximately $7 million. We also issued three-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 2,333,000 additional shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.85 per share. The fair value of the warrants at the date of issue was estimated at $814,000, and this portion of the proceeds was accounted for as a private placement forliability since accounting rules require us to presume a totalcash settlement of $26.1 million in proceeds.the warrants because there is a requirement to deliver registered shares of stock upon exercise, which is considered outside of our control. We paidincurred approximately $1.8 million$883,000 in fees to placement agents and for other transaction costs.costs in connection with the transaction, which includes approximately $184,000 relating to 560,000 warrants issued to placement agents, representing the estimated fair value of such warrants on the date of issue. These warrants are also being accounted for as liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet.

We had no equity financings during 2008.

In November 2007, we entered into securities purchase agreements with select institutional investors in a registered direct placement, in which we issued an aggregate of 9,635,000 shares of common stock at a price of $4.79 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $46.2 million. We also issued five-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 2.4 million additional shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share. The fair value of the warrants at the date of issuance was estimated at $6.3 million and was accounted for as a liability pursuant to EITF 00-19. We incurred $3.2 million in fees to placement agents and other offering expenses in connection with the transaction. Included in the gross proceeds was $5.35 million from the conversion of $5.0 million of the senior secured notes issued to Highbridge, pursuant to a redemption agreement entered into with Highbridge on November 7, 2007.  See2007 (See Note 6 - Debt OutstandingOutstanding). We also issued five-year warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 2.4 million additional shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share. Due to the relative lower offering price in the September 2009

F-31


registered direct financing, there was an increase of 393,000 warrants outstanding and a decrease in the exercise price from $5.75 to $4.75 per share. The fair value of the warrants at the date of issuance was estimated at $6.3 million and was accounted for as a liability. The warrant liability was revalued by $70,000 and $49,000 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, resulting in non-operating gains/losses in our consolidated statements of operations of ($21,000) and $2.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. We incurred $3.2 million in fees to placement agents and other offering expenses in connection with the transaction.

We had no equity financings during 2008.

Note 10.  Share-based Compensation

The Hythiam, Inc. 2003 and 2007 Stock Incentive Plans (the Plans) provide for the issuance of up to 15 million shares of our common stock. Incentive stock options, (ISOs), under Section 422A of the Internal Revenue Code, non-qualified options, (NSOs), stock appreciation rights, limited stock appreciation rights and restricted stock grants are authorized under the Plans. We grant all such share-based compensation awards at no less than the fair market value of our stock on the date of grant, and have granted stock and stock options to executive officers, employees, members of our Board of Directors and certain outside consultants. The terms and conditions upon which options become exercisable vary among grants; however, option rights expire no later than ten years from the date of grant and employee and boardBoard of directorDirector awards generally vest overo ver three to five years on a straight-line basis.  At December 31, 2008,2009, we had 10,355,00012,562,000 vested and unvested stock options outstanding and 4,042,0001,543,000 shares reserved for future awards. Total share-based compensation expense amounted to $9.2 million, $2.6$4.6 million and $3.7$9.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, 2007 and 2006.  respectively. The expense in 2008 includes $596,000 related to costs associated with streamlining our operations.  See Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies.

Stock Options – Employees and Directors

During 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, we granted options to employees and directors for 5,427,000, 732,0003,815,000 and 1,657,0005,427,000 shares, respectively, at the weighted average per share exercise prices of $2.27, $7.08$0.43 and $6.27,$2.27, respectively, the fair market value of our common stock on the dates of grants.  The estimated fair value of options granted to employees and directors during 2009 and 2008 2007 and 2006 was $8.0 million, $3.3$1.2 million and $6.6$8.0 million, respectively, calculated using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the assumptions described in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Share-based Compensation.

Stock option activity for employee and director grants is summarized as follows:

     Weighted Avg. 
  Shares  Exercise Price 
Balance, December 31, 2007  5,152,000  $4.61 
         
2008        
Granted  5,427,000   2.27 
Transfered *  (970,000)  3.55 
Exercised  -   - 
Cancelled  (1,349,000)  5.29 
Balance, December 31, 2008  8,260,000  $3.07 
         
2009        
Granted  3,815,000   0.43 
Transfered *  -     
Exercised  (56,000)  0.28 
Cancelled  (1,106,000)  5.10 
Balance, December 31, 2009  10,913,000  $1.95 
         
* Options transferred due to status changes from employee to non-employee. 


Stock option activity for employees and directors grants is summarized as follows:

     Weighted Avg. 
  Shares  Exercise Price 
Balance, December 31, 2005  4,898,000  $3.78 
         
2006        
Granted  1,657,000   6.27 
Exercised  (80,000)  3.75 
Cancelled  (647,000)  5.34 
Balance, December 31, 2006  5,828,000   4.32 
         
2007        
Granted  732,000   7.08 
Transferred *  (695,000)  5.10 
Exercised  (483,000)  3.14 
Cancelled  (230,000)  6.47 
Balance, December 31, 2007  5,152,000   4.61 
         
2008        
Granted  5,427,000   2.27 
Transferred *  (970,000)  3.55 
Exercised  -   - 
Cancelled  (1,349,000)  5.29 
Balance, December 31, 2008  8,260,000   3.07 

*  Options transferred due to status changes from employee to non-employee.

The weighted average remaining contractual life and weighted average exercise price of options outstanding as of December 31, 20082009 were as follows:

   Options outstanding  Options exercisable  Weighted 
      Weighted     Weighted  average 
      average     average  exercisable 
Range of     exercise     exercise  remaining 
exercise prices  Shares  price  Shares  price  life (yrs) 
$0 to $0.50   8,350,000  $0.36   3,834,000  $0.30   6.60 
$0.51 to $1.50   700,000   0.60   260,000   0.60   8.80 
$1.51 to $2.50   611,000   2.50   608,000   2.50   3.80 
$2.51 to $3.50   710,000   2.64   487,000   2.64   8.20 
$3.51 to $4.50   9,000   4.10   9,000   4.10   7.90 
$4.51 to $5.50   401,000   4.77   241,000   4.77   6.60 
$5.51 to $6.50   89,000   5.75   89,000   5.75   5.10 
$6.51 to $7.50   38,000   7.31   29,000   7.30   7.50 
$7.51 to $8.50   5,000   7.96   4,000   7.94   7.00 
     10,913,000  $0.88   5,561,000  $1.09   6.52 
  Options Outstanding Options Exercisable
    Weighted      
    Average Weighted   Weighted
Range of   Remaining Average   Average
Exercise Prices Shares Life (yrs) Price Shares Price
$0.51 to $1.50  850,000  9.8 $0.60  24,000 $0.62
$1.51 to $2.50  1,280,000  6.5  2.36  857,000  2.48
$2.51 to $3.50  4,506,000  7.1  2.67  2,484,000  2.69
$3.51 to $4.50  61,000  7.7  4.06  26,000  4.16
$4.51 to $5.50  557,000  7.6  4.77  223,000  4.77
$5.51 to $6.50  366,000  6.7  6.20  267,000  6.12
$6.51 to $7.50  378,000  7.0  7.26  212,000  7.27
$7.51 to $8.50  258,000  4.7  7.90  183,000  7.89
$8.51 to $9.50  4,000  8.0  9.20  4,000  9.20
    8,260,000  7.2  3.09  4,280,000  3.42

At December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, the number of options exercisable was 2,701,0005,561,000 and 2,419,000,4,280,000, respectively, at weighted-average exercise prices of $3.64$1.09 and $3.76,$3.42, respectively.

Share-based compensation expense relating to stock options granted to employees and directors was $4.4 million and $7.2 million $2.4 million and $2.3$2.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.


F-32In May 2009, we re-priced 4,739,000 previously issued stock options for directors, officers and certain employees at a price of $0.28. We accounted for the re-pricing as a modification, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and we recognized additional stock based compensation expense of $396,000 related to the modified stock options.



As of December 31, 2008,2009, there were $10.3$4.2 million of unrecognized compensation costs related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements granted under the Plans. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.92.3 years.

Stock Options and Warrants – Non-employees

In addition to stock options granted under the Plans, we have also granted options and warrants to purchase our common stock to certain non-employees that have been approved by our Board of Directors.  During 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, we granted options and warrants for 190,000, 65,00060,000 and 368,000190,000 shares, respectively.

Stock option and warrant activity for non-employee grants for services is summarized as follows:

     Weighted avg.
  Shares  exercise price
Balance, December 31, 2007  1,370,000  $4.73
        
2008       
Granted  190,000   2.59
Transfered *  970,000   3.55
Exercised  -   -
Cancelled  (435,000)  5.11
Balance, December 31, 2008  2,095,000  $3.91
        
2009       
Granted  60,000   0.52
Transfered *  -   -
Exercised  -   -
Cancelled  (465,000)  4.68
Balance, December 31, 2008  1,690,000  $3.57
        
* Options transferred due to status changes from employee to non-employee.
     Weighted Avg. 
  Shares  Exercise Price 
Balance, December 31, 2005  1,383,000  $3.14 
         
2006        
Granted  368,000   4.96 
Exercised  (623,000)  2.53 
Cancelled  (372,000)  3.78 
Balance, December 31, 2006  756,000   4.22 
         
2007        
Granted  65,000   7.47 
Transfered *  695,000   5.10 
Exercised  (104,000)  4.57 
Cancelled  (42,000)  6.24 
Balance, December 31, 2007  1,370,000   4.73 
         
2008        
Granted  190,000   2.59 
Transfered *  970,000   3.55 
Exercised  -   - 
Cancelled  (435,000)  5.13 
Balance, December 31, 2008  2,095,000   3.91 

*  Options transferred due to status changes from employee to non-employee.

Stock options and warrants granted to non-employees for services (inclusive of warrants issued for intellectual property, a debt agreement and equity offerings) outstanding at December 31, 20082009 are summarized as follows:

    Weighted    
    Average  Weighted     Weighted 
    Remaining  Average     average 
    Contractual  Exercise     exercise 
Description Shares  Life (yrs)  Price  Shares  price 
Warrants issued for intellectual property  372,000   4.7  $2.50   372,000  $2.50 
Warrants issued in connection with equity offering  2,511,000   3.7   5.63 
Warrants issued in connection with equity offerings  5,695,000   2.35 
Warrants issued in connection with debt agreement  1,300,000   4.3   2.15   1,300,000   0.28 
Options and warrants issued to consultants  2,095,000   5.5   3.91   36,000   5.23 
  6,278,000   4.5   4.15   7,403,000  $2.01 

Share-based expense relating to stock options and warrants granted to non-employees amounted to $63,000 and $176,000 ($14,000)for the years ended December 31, 2009 and $1.2 million for 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.  At December 31, 2008,2009, unvested options and warrants had an estimated value of approximately $72,000,$50,000, using the Black-Scholes pricing model.


Common Stock

During 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, we issued 601,000, 30,000914,000 and 51,000601,000 shares of common stock, respectively, for consulting services valued at $287,000 and $1.7 million, $231,000 and $326,000, respectively. Generally, these costs are amortized to share-based expense on a straight-line basis over the related service periods, generally ranging from six months to one year. Share-based expense relating to all common stock issued for consulting services was $197,000 and $1.7 million $118,000for the years ended December 31 2009 and $229,000 in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

F-34

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

In June 2006, we adopted aOur qualified employee stock purchase plan (ESPP), approved by our Board of Directors and shareholders whichand adopted in June 2006, provides that eligible employees (employed at least 90 days) have the option to purchase shares of our common stock at a price equal to 85% of the lesser of the fair market value as of the first day or the last day of each offering period. Purchase options are granted semi-annually and are limited to the number of whole shares that can be purchased by an amount equal to up to 10% of a participant’s annual base salary.  As of December 31, 2008,2009, there were 56,00014,000 shares of our common stock issued pursuant to the ESPP. Share-based expense relating to the ESPP was $4,000, $15,000$1,000 and $4,000 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.

Stock Options – CompCare Employees, Directors and Consultants
Stock Option Plans

CompCare issues stock options to its employees and non-employee directors allowing them to purchase CompCare’s common stock, pursuant to shareholder-approved stock option plans.  CompCare currently has two active incentive plans, the 1995 Incentive Plan and the 2002 Incentive Plan (the CompCare Plans), that provide for the granting of stock options, stock appreciation rights, limited stock appreciation rights, and restricted stock grants to eligible employees and consultants. Grants issued under the CompCare Plans may qualify as ISOs under Section 422A of the Internal Revenue Code.  Options for ISOs may be granted for terms of up to ten years and are generally exercisable in cumulative increments of 50% each six months.  The exercise price for ISOs must equal or exceed the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant.  The CompCare Plans also provide for the full vesting of all outstanding options under certain change of control events.  The maximum number of shares authorized for issuance is 1,000,000 under the 2002 Incentive Plan and 1,000,000 under the 1995 Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2008, under the 2002 Incentive Plan, there were 422,000 options available for grant and 538,000 options outstanding, of which 306,000 were exercisable.  Additionally, as of December 31, 2008, under the 1995 Incentive Plan, there were 185,000 options outstanding and exercisable.  There are no further options available for grant under the 1995 Incentive Plan.
CompCare also has a non-qualified stock option plan for its non-employee directors. Each non-qualified stock option is exercisable at a price equal to the average of the closing bid and ask prices of the common stock in the over-the-counter market for the most recent preceding day there was a sale of the stock prior to the grant date. Grants of options vest in accordance with vesting schedules established by CompCare’s Board of Director’s Compensation and Stock Option Committee.  Upon joining the board, directors receive an initial grant of 25,000 options.  Annually, directors are granted 15,000 options on the date of CompCare’s annual meeting.  As of December 31, 2008, under the CompCare directors’ plan, there were 777,000 shares available for option grants and 125,000 options outstanding and exercisable.


F-34


CompCare’s stock option activity for the year ended December 31, 2008 and period January 13 through December 31, 2007 was as follows:

     Weighted Avg. 
  Shares  Exercise Price 
Balance, January 12, 2007  1,166,000  $1.32 
         
2007(January 13 to December 31)
        
Granted  145,000   1.05 
Exercised  (37,000)  0.51 
Cancelled  (204,000)  1.82 
Balance, December 31, 2007  1,070,000   1.23 
         
2008        
Granted  300,000   0.54 
Exercised  (125,000)  0.26 
Cancelled  (398,000)  1.85 
Balance, December 31, 2008  847,000 (a)  0.88 
         
(a) Includes 615,000 options exercisable at 12/31/08.     

The following table summarizes information about options granted, exercised and vested for the year ended December 31, 2008 and period January 13 through December 2007.

     January 13 
     through 
     December 31, 
  2008  2007 
Options granted  300,000   145,000 
Weighted-average grant-date fair value $0.47  $0.76 
Options exercised  125,000   37,000 
Total intrinsic value of exercised options $50,000  $13,000 
Fair value of vested options $132,000  $78,000 
Stock options were granted to CompCare Board of Director members and certain employees during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.  Options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, were 125,000 and 37,000, respectively.  Total intrinsic value of exercised options during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $50,000 and $13,000, respectively.  During the year ended December 31, 2008, 398,000 of stock options expired unexercised.  These options had been granted to employees and officers.

At December 31, 2008, there was approximately $65,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested options, which was recognized in January 2009 due to accelerated vesting provisions triggered a change in control.  Total recognized compensation costs during the year ended December 31, 2008 were approximately $130,000.  Sale discussed in Note 15 – Subsequent Events.  CompCare recognized approximately $19,000 of tax benefits attributable to stock-based compensation expense recorded during the year ended December 31, 2008.  This benefit was fully offset by a valuation allowance of the same amount due to the likelihood of future realization.


F-35


A summary of options outstanding and exercisable as of December 31, 2008 is as follows:

  Options Outstanding Options Exercisable
    Weighted      
    Average Weighted   Weighted
Range of   Remaining Average   Average
Exercise Prices Shares Life (yrs) Price Shares Price
$0.25 to $0.39  66,000  2.09 $0.27  66,000 $0.27
$0.43 to $0.43  100,000  9.31  0.43  50,000  0.43
$0.51 to $0.52  52,000  3.06  0.51  52,000  0.51
$0.55 to $0.55  100,000  9.04  0.55  -  -
$0.56 to $0.56  95,000  0.52  0.56  95,000  0.56
$0.65 to $0.66  90,000  9.17  0.66  7,000  0.65
$0.78 to $1.10  56,000  7.10  0.96  56,000  0.96
$1.11 to $1.11  100,000  8.50  1.11  100,000  1.11
$1.40 to $1.78  133,000  5.80  1.62  133,000  1.62
$1.80 to $2.16  55,000  6.16  1.98  56,000  1.98
$0.25 to $2.16  847,000  6.33  0.88  615,000  1.00

Warrants

CompCare periodically issues warrants to purchase common stock as compensation for the services of consultants and marketing employees.  At December 31, 2008, 306,000 warrants were outstanding, having been issued in prior years to two consultants and two employees as compensation for introducing strategic business partners to the Company.  All such warrants have five-year terms.  No warrants were issued during the year ended December 31, 2008 and the period January 13, 2007 to December 31, 2007.

Note 11. Segment Information

We manage and report our operations through two business segments: behavioral health and healthcare servicesservices. In 2009, we revised our segments to reflect the disposal of CompCare and to properly reflect how our business is currently managed. Our behavioral health managed care services.services segment, which had been comprised entirely of the operations of CompCare, is now presented in discontinued operations and is not a reportable segment (see Note 12—Discontinued Operations). Catasys operations were previously reported as part of healthcare services, but is now segregated and reported separately in behavioral health. Prior years have been restated to reflect this revised presentation.

Behavioral Health

Catasys’s integrated substance dependence solutions combine innovative medical and psychosocial treatments with elements of traditional disease management and ongoing member support to help organizations treat and manage substance dependent populations to impact both the medical and behavioral health costs associated with substance dependence and the related co-morbidities.

We are currently marketing our Catasys integrated substance dependence solutions to managed care health plans for a case rate or monthly fee, which involves educating third party payors on the disproportionately high cost of their substance dependent population and demonstrating the potential for improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost associated with using our Catasys programs.

Healthcare Services

Our healthcare services segment providesis focused on delivering solutions for those suffering from alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine and other substance dependencies by developing, licensing and commercializing innovative physiological, nutritional, and behavioral treatment programs. Treatment with our Catasys integrated substance dependence, autismPROMETA Treatment Programs, which integrate behavioral, nutritional, and ADHD solutions to health plans, employersmedical components, are available through physicians and unions throughother licensed treatment providers who have entered into licensing agreements with us for the use of our treatment programs. Also included in this segment is a network of licensed and company managed healthcare providers, and provides licensing, administrative and management services to licensees that administer PROMETA and other treatment programs, including managed treatment centers that are licensed and/or managed by us.center, which offers a range of addiction treatment services, including the PROMETA Treatment Programs for dependencies on alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines.

Our healthcare services segment also comprises results from international and government sector operations;operations in the prior periods; however, these operating segments are not separately reported as they dodid not meet any of the quantitative thresholds under SFAS 131, Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information.

The behavioral health managed care servicescurrent accounting rules regarding segment is comprised entirely of the operations of our consolidated subsidiary, CompCare, and provides managed care services in the behavioral health, psychiatric and substance abuse fields.  Most of our consolidated revenues and assets are earned or located within the United States.disclosures.

We evaluate segment performance based on total assets, revenuesrevenue and net income or loss before provision for income taxes. Our assets are included within each discrete reporting segment. In the event that any services are provided to one reporting segment by the other, the transaction istransactions are valued at the market price. No such services were provided during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.



were provided during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. Summary financial information for our two reportable segments is as follows:

(Dollars in thousands) Year Ended December 31, 
  2008  2007  2006 
Behavioral health managed care services (1)
         
Revenues $35,156  $36,306  $- 
Loss before provision for income taxes  (6,139)  (4,105)  - 
Assets *  4,747   8,896   - 
             
Healthcare services            
Revenues $6,074  $7,695  $3,906 
Loss before provision for income taxes  (44,252)  (41,270)  (38,296)
Assets *  27,119   61,750   52,205 
             
Consolidated operations            
Revenues $41,230  $44,001  $3,906 
Loss before provision for income taxes  (50,391)  (45,375)  (38,296)
Total assets *  31,866   70,646   52,205 

*Assets are reported as of December 31.
(1)2007 results for this segment are for the period January 13 through December 31, 2007.
(in thousands)For years ended December 31, 
 2009  2008 
      
Healthcare services     
Revenues$1,530  $6,074 
Loss before provision for income taxes (15,642)  (38,878)
Assets * 19,105   26,220 
        
Behavioral health       
Revenues$-  $- 
Loss before provision for income taxes (3,947)  (5,374)
Assets * -   989 
        
Consolidated continuing operations       
Revenues$1,530  $6,074 
Loss before provision for income taxes (19,589)  (44,252)
Assets * 19,105   27,209 
        
* Assets are reported as of December 31.       

Note 12. Major Customers/ContractsDiscontinued Operations

Our Santa Monica (California) PROMETA Center accountedOn January 20, 2009, we sold our interest in CompCare, in which we had acquired a controlling interest in January 2007, for $1.5 million cash. The CompCare operations are now presented as discontinued operations in accordance with accounting rules related to the disposal of long-lived assets. Prior to this sale, the assets and results of operations related to CompCare had constituted our behavioral health managed care services segment. See Note 11— Segment Information for an updated discussion of our business segments after the sale of CompCare.
We recognized a gain of approximately 15%, 18% and 29%$11.2 million from this sale, which is included in income from discontinued operations in our consolidated statement of healthcare servicesoperations for the year ended December 31, 2009. The revenues and 2%, 3% and 29%expenses of consolidated revenues in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. In 2008, the Dallas (Texas) PROMETA Center accounted for approximately 17% of healthcare services revenues, and 3% of consolidated revenues.  No other licensee or managed medical practice accounted for over 10% of healthcare services or consolidated revenues in 2008, 2007 or 2006.

Typically, CompCare’s contracts provide for an initial one-year term with automatic annual extensions.  Such contracts generally provide for cancellation by either party with 60 to 90 days written notice.

Effective December 31, 2008, CompCare ceased providing behavioral health services to approximately 11,000 members of a Medicare Advantage HMO in the state of Maryland.  CompCare had previously served 39,000 of this HMO’s members in Pennsylvania until the contractdiscontinued operations for the membership in this state ended on July 31, 2008, due toperiod January 1 through January 20, 2009 and the HMO’s selection of another behavioral health vendor.  Services provided to members in both states accounted for $6.1 million, or 17.3%, and $5.5 million, or 14.7% of CompCare’s operating revenues for the yearsyear ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.are as follows:

In December 2008, CompCare experienced
  Period from  For the year 
  January 1 to  ended 
  January 20,  December 31, 
(in thousands) 2009  2008 
Revenues:      
Behavioral managed health care revenues $710  $35,156 
         
Expenses:        
Behavioral managed health care operating expenses $703  $36,496 
General and administrative expenses  711   3,682 
Other  50   1,117 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations before     
provision for income tax $(754) $(6,139)
         
Provision for income taxes $1  $5 
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax $(755) $(6,144)
         
Gain on sale $11,204  $- 
Results from discontinued operations, net of tax $10,449  $(6,144)
F-36


The carrying amount of the lossassets and liabilities of a major contract to provide behavioral healthcare services to approximately 278,000 Medicaid recipients in Indiana.  The contract generated $17.8 million, or 50.6%, and $15.0 million, or 40.2% of CompCare revenues for the years endeddiscontinued operations at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.on the date of the sale were as follows:

CompCare currently furnishes behavioral healthcare services to approximately 243,000 members of a health plan providing Medicaid, Medicare, and children’s health insurance plans (CHIP) benefits in Michigan, Texas and California.  Services are provided on a fee-for-service and ASO basis.  The contracts accounted for $3.7 million, or 10.6%, and $4.3 million, or 11.6%, of CompCare revenues for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The health plan has been a customer since June of 2002.  The initial contract was for a one-year period and has been automatically renewed on an annual basis.  Termination by either party may occur with 90 day written notice to the other party.
  January 20,  December 31, 
(in thousands) 2009  2008 
Cash and cash equivalents $523  $1,138 
Receivables, net  -   1,580 
Notes receivable  -   17 
Prepaids and other current assets  940   318 
Property and equipment, net  230   235 
Goodwill, net  403   493 
Intangible assets, net  608   642 
Deposits and other assets  230   234 
Total Assets $2,934  $4,657 
         
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $2,065  $1,884 
Accrued claims payable  5,637   6,791 
Long-term debt  2,346   2,341 
Accrued reinsurance claims payable  2,527   2,526 
Capital lease obligations, net of current portion  63   63 
Total Liabilities $12,638  $13,605 
         
Net liabilities of discontinued operations $(9,704) $(8,948)

Note 13.  Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Commitments

We incurred rent expense of approximately $1.4 million, $1.4$1.2 million and $0.9$1.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 20072009 and 2006,2008, respectively.  In September 2003, we signed a lease agreement for our

corporate offices at an initial lease cost of approximately $33,000 per month, with increases scheduled annually over the lease term. The term of the lease is seven years, commencing December 15, 2003, and includes a right to extend the lease for an additional five years. In April 2005 we amended the lease to expand our corporate office facilities at an additional base rent of approximately $11,000 per month, subject to annual adjustment over the remaining term. In September 2008, the lease was amended once more, concurrent with our restructuring, to include an additional 2,000 square feet in office space and an increasein crease in monthly base rent of approximately $10,000.  The new rent is similarly scheduled to increase annually over the remaining term of the lease.  As a condition to the lease agreement, we secured a letter of credit collateralized by a certificate of deposit at the current amount of $87,000 for the landlord as a security deposit. The lettercertificate of creditdeposit is included in deposits and other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2008.
our consolidated balance sheets.

In April 2005 we entered into a five year lease for approximately 5,400 square feet of medical office space at an initial base rent of approximately $19,000 per month, commencing in August 2005.  The space is occupied by The PROMETA Center, a managed medical practice, under a full business service management agreement.  As a condition to signing the lease, we secured a $90,000 letter of credit for the landlord as a security deposit, which, as of October 2008,December 31, 2009 has been subsequently reduced to $45,000. The letter of credit is collateralized by a certificate of deposit in the amount of $45,000, which is included in deposits and other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheetour consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008.2009.

In August 2006, we entered into a 62-month lease for 4,000 square feet of medical office space, located in San Francisco, California, at an initial base rent of approximately $11,000 per month, commencing in January 2007.  The space was occupied by the PROMETA Centera managed treatment center through January 31, 2008 under an amendment to our management service agreement. We are currently seeking to sublease the vacant space.

In connection with a management services agreement that we executed with a medical professional corporation in Dallas, Texas, we assumed the obligation for two lease agreements at a current combined amount of approximately $9,000 per month, which expires in May 2011.

In November 2006, we entered into a five-year lease for office space in Switzerland at an initial base rent of 4,052 Swiss Francs per month (approximately US$3,800 using the December 31, 2008 conversion rate).

CompCare leases certain office space and equipment.  The Texas office lease contains escalation clauses based on the Consumer Price Index and provisions for payment of real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance and repair expenses.  Total rental expense for all operating leases was $259,000 and $269,000, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.MSA.
 
Rent expense is calculated using the straight-line method based on the total minimum lease payments over the initial term of the lease. Landlord tenant improvement allowances and rent expense exceeding actual rent payments are accounted for as deferred rent liability in the balance sheet and amortized on a straight-line basis over the initial term of the respective leases.

F-37

Future minimum payments, by year and in the aggregate, under non-cancelable operating leases with initial or remaining terms of one year or more, consist of the following at December 31, 2008:2009:

(Dollars in thousands)   
Year Ending December 31, Amount 
2009 $1,756 
(in thousands)  
Year ending December 31, Amount
2010  1,955  $1,533
2011  251   193
2012  15   -
 $3,977 (a) $1,726
 
(a)Includes approximately $1.1 million related to CompCare operating leases.  We sold our interest in CompCare on January 10, 2009.


Clinical Research Commitments

In 2006 and 2007,prior years, we committed to a number of unrestricted grants for clinical research studies by preeminent researchers in the field of substance dependence and leading research institutions to evaluate the efficacy of our PROMETA Treatment Program in treating alcohol and stimulant dependence. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had approximately $2.7$1.5 million committed toremaining payable for such clinical research studies.  We anticipatestudies that approximately $1.4 million and $1.3 million will be paid in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Related to CompCare’s discontinued hospital operations, Medicare guidelines allow the Medicare fiscal intermediary to re-open previously filed cost reports.  CompCare’s fiscal 1999 cost report, the final year CompCare was required to file a cost report, is being reviewed, in which case the intermediary may determine that additional amounts are due to or from Medicare.  CompCare management believes cost reports for fiscal years prior to fiscal 1999 are closed and considered final.

CompCare has insurance for a broad rangewere completed as of risks as it relates to CompCare’s business operations.  CompCare maintains managed care errors and omissions, professional and general liability coverage.  These policies are written on a claims-made basis and are subject to a $10,000 per claim self-insured retention.  The managed care errors and omissions and professional liability policies include limits of liability of $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate. The general liability has a limit of liability of $5 million per claim and $5 million in the aggregate. CompCare is responsible for claims within the self-insured retentions or if the policy limits are exceeded.  CompCare management is not aware of any claims that could have a material adverse impact on their financial statements.December 31, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. As of the December 31, 2008, we were not involved in any legal proceeding that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Note 14.  Related Party TransactionsSubsequent Events
In April 2010, the holder of certain claims against us in the amount of $1,005,000, due for services provided to us which had not been paid, filed a complaint against us in California state court. On April 8, 2010 the court approved our settlement of the complaint in exchange for issuing 5,000,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended. In accordance with the approved settlement the number of shares is subject to adjustment 180 days subsequent to the issuance of the shares.  In addition, the owner of the claims will not sell more than the greater of 49,000 shares or 10% of the daily trading volume during that 180 day pe riod.

In August 2006, the Company entered into a 5 year lease agreement for approximately 4,000 square feet  of medical office space for a company managed treatment center in San Francisco, CA.  The Company ceased operations at the center in January 2008.  In the first quarter of 2009, the Company ceased making rent payments under the lease.  In November of 2009, the landlord filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking damages of at least $350,000, plus attorney fees and costs.  On March 23, 2010 the Company settled this lawsuit for $200,000 to be paid in monthly installments from March 23, 2010 through February 2011.  If the Company fails to pay these amounts, the Company has stipulated that the landlord may file a judgment against the Company in the amount of $278,000.
As previously reported in Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on May 19, 2009, August 28, 2009, September 21, 2009 and December 1, 2009, we failed to comply with various listing requirements of The NASDAQ Stock Market. We disclosed we had received a letter from NASDAQ granting our request to remain listed on NASDAQ subject to the condition that, on or before February 24, 2010, we evidence stockholders’ equity of at least $10 million or achieve a market value of its listed securities of at least $50 million. On February 23, 2010, we notified NASDAQ of our inability to comply with the conditions set forth in the letter referenced above. On February 24, 2010, we received a letter from The NASDAQ Stock Market notifying us that we failed to meet its minimum stock holders’ equity of $2.5 million. Our stock was suspended from trading on NASDAQ effective at the open of business on February 26, 2010. We did not and do not intend to appeal NASDAQ’s decision. Our common stock became quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board beginning February 26, 2010. We intend to continue filing periodic reports with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D., a member of our Board of Directors, is the founder and chief executive officer of a healthcare and policy consulting firm providing consulting services to us.  In 2008, 2007 and 2006February 2010, we paid or accrued approximately $4,000, $156,000 and $189,000, respectively, in fees to the consulting firm.

There were no other material related party transactions in 2008, 2007 or 2006.

Note 15.  Subsequent Events (Unaudited)

 Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement between WoodCliff (our wholly-owned subsidiary) and Core Corporate Consulting Group, Inc., dated January 14, 2009, and effective as of January 20, 2009, we have disposed of our entire interest in our majority-owned, controlled subsidiary CompCare, consisting of 14,400 shares of Class A Series Preferred Stock, and 1,739,130issued 650,000 restricted shares of common stock of CompCare heldto a consultant for investor relation services to be performed beginning February 22, 2010 and ending May 22, 2010. These securities were issued without registration pursuant to the exemption afforded by Woodcliff, for aggregate gross proceeds of $1.5 million.



We expect to recognize a gain of approximately $11.2 million from the sale of our CompCare interest, which will be included in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three month period ending March 31, 2009.  The following is a summarySection 4(2) of the net assets sold on the closing dateSecurities Act of January 20, 2009:1933, as a transaction by us not involving any public offering.

(Dollars in thousands) At January 20, 2009 
Cash and cash equivalents $523 
Other current assets  940 
Property and equipment, net  230 
Goodwill  403 
Intangible assets  608 
Other non-current assets  230 
Total assets  2,934 
     
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities  (2,065)
Accrued claims payable  (5,637)
Accrued reinsurance claims payable  (2,527)
Long-term capital lease obligation  (2,346)
Other liabilities  (63)
Total liabilities  (12,638)
     
   Net assets (liabilities) of discontinued operations $(9,704)
In accordance with FAS 144, CompCare’s resultsJanuary 2010, the holder of operations will be presented as Income from Discontinued Operations, and its assets and liabilities will be separately classified as relating to discontinued operations beginningcertain claims against us in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qamount of approximately $230,000, due for services provided to us which had not been paid, filed a complaint against us in California state court. In February 2010 the three months ended March 31, 2009.

Note 16.  Interim Financial Information (Unaudited)

Summarized quarterly supplemental financial information iscourt approved our settlement of the complaint in exchange for issuing 445,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 as follows:

 Quarter Ended  Total 
 March   June   September   December  Year 
 (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)    
2008                 
Revenues$11,339   $11,613   $9,658   $8,620  $41,230 
Loss from operations (13,074)(a)  (12,659)(a)  (9,443)(a)  (18,427)(a) (53,603)
Net loss (10,711)(a)  (14,093)(a)  (6,277)(a)(b)  (19,337)(a)(b) (50,418)
Basic and diluted loss per share$(0.20)(a) $(0.26)(a) $(0.11)(a)(b) $(0.35)(a)(b)$(0.92)
                       
2007                      
Revenues$8,857   $11,340   $12,020   $11,784  $44,001 
Loss from operations (10,772)   (12,020)   (13,473)(c)  (11,266)  (47,531)
Net loss (10,743)   (12,252)   (13,843)(c)  (8,624)(d) (45,462)
Basic and diluted loss per share$(0.25)  $(0.28)  $(0.31)(c) $(0.15)(d)$(0.99)
(a)  
Includes i) costs related to streamlining our operations of $1.1 million, $1.2 million, $199,000 and $510,000 for the 2008 quarters ended March, June, September and December, respectively.  See further discussion in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policiesamended., “Costs Associated with Streamlining our Operations” and ii) Goodwill impairment loss of $9.8 million recorded in December 2008.  See Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, “Goodwill.”
(b)  
Includes i) non-operating gains of $3.7 million and $1.0 million for the 2008 quarters ended September and December, respectively, for the change in fair value of warrants.  See further discussion in Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, “Warrant Liabilities” and ii) a $1.4 million ‘Other-than-temporary’ loss on marketable securities recorded in December 2008 - See Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, “Marketable Securities.”
(c)  
Includes a $2.4 million non-cash stock settlement reached with XINO Corporation, recorded in August 2007 - See Note 5 – Intangible Assets.
(d)  
Includes i) a non-operating gain of $3.5 million for the quarter ended December 2007, for the change in fair value of warrants and ii) a loss of $741,000 on extinguishment of debt resulting from the redemption of $5 million of the Highbridge senior secured notes in November 2007.  See further discussion in Note 6 – Debt Outstanding.

 

F-38

F-41