| Commitments And Contingencies | Note 10 . Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings and General Liability Claims
Hospitals are, from time to time, subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, breach of contracts, wrongful restriction of or interference with physicians’ staff privileges and employment related claims. In certain of these actions, plaintiffs request payment for damages, including punitive damages that may not be covered by insurance.
In addition, hospitals are subject to the regulation and oversight of various state and federal governmental agencies. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against hospitals that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, governmental payors. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. These qui tam or “whistleblower” actions initiated under the civil False Claims Act may be pending but placed under seal by the court to comply with the False Claims Act’s requirements for filing such suits. As a result, they could be proceeding without the Company’s knowledge. Although the healthcare industry has seen numerous ongoing investigations related to compliance and billing practices, hospitals, in particular, continue to be a primary enforcement target for the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and other governmental fraud and abuse programs. Certain of the Company’s individual facilities have received, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, inquiries or subpoenas from fiscal intermediaries, federal and state agencies. Any proceedings against the Company may involve potentially substantial amounts as well as the possibility of civil, criminal, or administrative fines, penalties, or other sanctions, which could be material. Settlements of suits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments as well as corporate integrity agreements. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and liquidity.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 imposed an affirmative obligation on healthcare providers to report and refund any overpayments received. “Overpayments” in this context include any amount received from a government program by a provider to which it is not entitled, regardless of the cause. Such overpayments are deemed to be fraudulent and become violations of the False Claims Act if not reported and refunded within the later of 60 days of identification or the date any corresponding cost report is due (if applicable). Hospitals can meet the obligation to report and refund in three ways: (1) refunding overpayments directly to the program; (2) self-disclosing the overpayment to the OIG via its voluntary self-disclosure protocol (with respect to False Claims Act and other violations not related to the Stark law); and (3) self-disclosing to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) via the self-referral disclosure protocol (with respect to overpayments caused by potential violations of the Stark law only) for which CMS has the authority to reduce the amounts otherwise owed.
In connection with the Company’s acquisitions of Marquette General Hospital (“Marquette General”) and Conemaugh, the two sellers self-disclosed various potentially non-compliant physician arrangements under the CMS voluntary self-disclosure protocol. These self-disclosures are pending with CMS. With respect to Marquette General, t o the extent that the seller’s satisfaction of its retained liabilities, including those under its CMS voluntary self-disclosure, causes its net proceeds from the acquisition to be less than $15.0 million, the Company has agreed to pay additional purchase consideration to the seller. With respect to Conemaugh, to the extent that the potential settlement exceeds the seller’s indemnification threshold in accordance with the asset purchase agreement, the Company will likely be responsible for funding any deficit. The Company’s management believes it has made reasonable estimates of its potential exposure for these two matters and at June 30, 2015 has recorded a reserve for Marquette General of $18.0 million.
On September 16, 2013, the Company and two of its hospitals, Vaughan Regional Medical Center, located in Selma, Alabama, and Raleigh General Hospital, located in Raleigh, West Virginia, made a voluntary self-disclosure to the Civil Division of the DOJ. The voluntary self-disclosure related to concerns regarding the clinical appropriateness of certain interventional cardiology procedures conducted by one physician in each of these hospitals’ cardiac catheterization laboratories. On September 24, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of West Virginia served a subpoena on Raleigh General Hospital. Raleigh General Hospital produced responsive documents to the subpoena, including patient files. The government investigations are ongoing and the Company continues to cooperate with the government in addressing these matters. Following reviews by independent interventional cardiologists, the Company notified patients of these two physicians who may have received an unnecessary procedure of such fact.
The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company’s subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 28 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center received improper interventional cardiology procedures. One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21, 2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut. This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys’ fees. In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the requested stay of discovery.
Through July 31 , 2015, the Company, and two of its subsidiaries, including Raleigh General Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been named in 17 individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. These lawsuits allege that patients at Raleigh General Hospital received unnecessary interventional cardiol ogy procedures. Through July 31 , 2015, 23 additional patients have notified Raleigh General Hospital that they intend to file lawsuits against the hospital.
The lawsuits identified above variously seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other available damages. Additional claims, including claims involving patients to whom the Company did not send notice, have been threatened and may be asserted agai nst the Company or the hospital. Any present or future claims that are ultimately successful could result in the Company and/or the hospitals being found liable and the government investigations may also result in damages, fines and penalties. Such liability, damages and penalties could be material. The Company cannot, however, reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, in connection with any of these matters, and no liability has been recorded as of June 30, 2015.
The Company does not control and cannot predict with certainty the progress or final outcome of discussions with government agencies, investigations and legal proceedings against the Company. Therefore, the final amounts paid to resolve the foregoing matters could be material and could materially differ from amounts currently recorded, if any. Any such changes in the Company’s estimates or any adverse judgments will impact the Company’s future results of operations and cash flows.
Physician Commitments
The Company has committed to provide certain financial assistance pursuant to recruiting agreements with various physicians practicing in the communities it serves. In consideration for a physician’s relocating to one of its communities and agreeing to engage in private practice for the benefit of the respective community, the Company may advance certain amounts of money to a physician, normally over a period of one year, to assist in establishing the physician’s practice. The Company has committed to advance a maximum amount of approximately $ 19.3 million at June 30 , 2015. The actual amount of such commitments to be subsequently advanced to physicians is estimated at $ 8.4 million and often depends upon the financial results of a physician’s private practice during the guarantee period. Generally, amounts advanced under the recruiting agreements may be forgiven pro rata over a period of 36 to 48 months contingent upon the physician continuing to practice in the respective community. Pursuant to the Company’s standard physician recruiting agreement, any breach or non-fulfillment by a physician under the physician recruiting agreement gives the Company the right to recover any payments made to the physician under the agreement. Additionally, the Company is subject to annual commitments for certain physician recruiting activities, including the continuation of existing or initiation of new activities with several of its facilities.
Capital Expenditure Commitments
The Company is reconfiguring some of its facilities to more effectively accommodate patient services and to provide for a greater variety of services, as well as implementing various information system initiatives in its efforts to comply with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act . The Company has incurred approximately $ 96.3 million in costs related to uncompleted projects as of June 30, 2015 , which is included under the caption “Construction in progress” in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet. At June 30, 2015 , these uncompleted projects had an estimated cost to compl ete and equip of approximately $157.1 million. Additionally, the Company is subject to annual capital expenditure commitments in connection with several of its facilities. As part of the Company’s current acquisition strategy, management expects capital expenditure commitments to be a significant component of future purchase transactions . At June 30, 2015, the Company estimated its total remaining capital expenditure commitments, including commitments for routine projects, to be approximately $1,595.4 million.
Acquisitions
The Company has historically acquired businesses with prior operating histories. Acquired businesses may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including liabilities for failure to comply with healthcare laws and regulations, medical and general professional liabilities, workers compensation liabilities, previous tax liabilities and unacceptable business practices. Although the Company institutes policies designed to conform practices to its standards following completion of acquisitions, there can be no assurance that the Company will not become liable for past activities that may later be asserted to be improper by private plaintiffs or government agencies. Although the Company generally seeks to obtain indemnification from prospective sellers covering such matters, there can be no assurance that any such matter will be covered by indemnification, or if covered, that such indemnification will be adequate to cover potential losses and fines. |
