| Commitments and Contingencies | (5) Commitments and Contingencies Professional and General Liability and Workers Compensation Liability: Effective November, 2010, the vast majority of our subsidiaries are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million and $3 million per occurrence, respectively. These subsidiaries are provided with several excess policies through commercial insurance carriers which provide for coverage in excess of the applicable per occurrence self-insured retention (either $3 million or $10 million) or underlying policy limits incurred after 2013 a Our estimated liability for self-insured professional and general liability claims is based on a number of factors including, among other things, the number of asserted claims and reported incidents, estimates of losses for these claims based on recent and historical settlement amounts, estimates of incurred but not reported claims based on historical experience, and estimates of amounts recoverable under our commercial insurance policies. While we continuously monitor these factors, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates due to inherent uncertainties involved in making this estimate. Given our significant self-insured exposure for professional and general liability claims, there can be no assurance that a sharp increase in the number and/or severity of claims asserted against us will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations. As of September 30, 2016, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $209 million, of which $48 million is included in current liabilities. As of December 31, 2015, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $204 million, of which $48 million is included in current liabilities. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the total accrual for our workers’ compensation liability claims was $69 million and $68 million, respectively, of which $34 million is included in current liabilities as of each date. Property Insurance: We have commercial property insurance policies for our properties covering catastrophic losses, including windstorm damage, up to a $1 billion policy limit per occurrence, subject to a deductible ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 per occurrence. Losses resulting from named windstorms are subject to deductibles between 3% and 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. In addition, we have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses resulting from earthquake and flood damage, each subject to aggregated loss limits (as opposed to per occurrence losses). Commercially insured earthquake coverage for our facilities is subject to various deductibles and limitations including: (i) $500 million limitation for our facilities located in Nevada; (ii) $130 million limitation for our facilities located in California; (iii) $100 million limitation for our facilities located in fault zones within the United States; (iv) $40 million limitation for our facility located in Puerto Rico, and; (v) $250 million limitation for many of our facilities located in other states. Deductibles for flood losses vary in amount, up to a maximum of $500,000, based upon location of the facility. Since certain of our facilities have been designated by our insurer as flood prone, we have elected to purchase policies from The National Flood Insurance Program to cover a substantial portion of the applicable deductible. Property insurance for our behavioral health facilities located in the U.K. are provided on an all risk basis up to a £180 million limit that includes coverage for real and personal property as well as business interruption losses. Other Our accounts receivable as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 include amounts due from Illinois of approximately $25 million and $28 million, respectively. Collection of the outstanding receivables continues to be delayed due to state budgetary and funding pressures. Approximately $11 million as of September 30, 2016 and $12 million as of December 31, 2015, of the receivables due from Illinois were outstanding in excess of 60 days, as of each respective date. In addition, our accounts receivable as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 includes approximately $7 million and $80 million, respectively, due from Texas in connection with Medicaid supplemental payment programs. The $7 million due from Texas as of September 30, 2016 related to uncompensated care program and disproportionate share hospital revenues. Although the accounts receivable due from Illinois and Texas could remain outstanding for the foreseeable future, since we expect to eventually collect all amounts due to us, no related reserves have been established in our consolidated financial statements. However, we can provide no assurance that we will eventually collect all amounts due to us from Illinois and/or Texas. Failure to ultimately collect all outstanding amounts due from these states would have an adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations and cash flows. As of September 30, 2016 we were party to certain off balance sheet arrangements consisting of standby letters of credit and surety bonds which totaled $127 million consisting of: (i) $105 million related to our self-insurance programs, and; (ii) $22 million of other debt and public utility guarantees. Legal Proceedings We are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business, including those arising from care and treatment afforded by our hospitals and are party to various government investigations, regulatory matters and litigation, as outlined below. Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and Government Investigations: In February, 2013, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) served a subpoena requesting various documents from January, 2008 to the date of the subpoena directed at Universal Health Services, Inc. (“UHS”) concerning it and UHS of Delaware, Inc., and certain UHS owned behavioral health facilities including: Keys of Carolina, Old Vineyard Behavioral Health, The Meadows Psychiatric Center, Streamwood Behavioral Health, Hartgrove Hospital, Rock River Academy and Residential Treatment Center, Roxbury Treatment Center, Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center, f/k/a The Pines Residential Treatment Center, including the Crawford, Brighton and Kempsville campuses, Wekiva Springs Center and River Point Behavioral Health. Prior to receiving this subpoena: (i) the Keys of Carolina and Old Vineyard received notification during the second half of 2012 from the DOJ of its intent to proceed with an investigation following requests for documents for the period of January, 2007 to the date of the subpoenas from the North Carolina state Attorney General’s Office; (ii) Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center received a subpoena in December, 2012 from the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia requesting various documents from July, 2006 to the date of the subpoena, and; (iii) The Meadows Psychiatric Center received a subpoena from the OIG in February, 2013 requesting certain documents from 2008 to the date of the subpoena. Unrelated to these matters, the Keys of Carolina was closed and the real property was sold in January, 2013. We were advised that a qui tam action had been filed against Roxbury Treatment Center but the government declined to intervene and the case was dismissed. In April, 2013, the OIG served facility specific subpoenas on Wekiva Springs Center and River Point Behavioral Health requesting various documents from January, 2005 to the date of the subpoenas. In July, 2013, another subpoena was issued to Wekiva Springs Center and River Point Behavioral Health requesting additional records. In October, 2013, we were advised by the DOJ’s Criminal Frauds Section that they received a referral from the DOJ Civil Division and opened an investigation of River Point Behavioral Health and Wekiva Springs Center. Subsequent subpoenas have since been issued to River Point Behavioral Health and Wekiva Springs Center requesting additional documentation. In April, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) instituted a Medicare payment suspension at River Point Behavioral Health in accordance with federal regulations regarding suspension of payments during certain investigations. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration subsequently issued a Medicaid payment suspension for the facility. River Point Behavioral Health submitted a rebuttal statement disputing the basis of the suspension and requesting revocation of the suspension. Notwithstanding, CMS continued the payment suspension. River Point Behavioral Health provided additional information to CMS in an effort to obtain relief from the payment suspension but the suspension remains in effect. In August, 2016, we received notification from CMS that effective August 30, 2016, the payment suspension will be continued for another 180 days. We cannot predict if and/or when the facility’s suspended payments will resume. Although the operating results of River Point Behavioral Health did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2016 or the year ended December 31, 2015, the payment suspension has had a material adverse effect on the facility’s results of operations and financial condition. In June, 2013, the OIG served a subpoena on Coastal Harbor Health System in Savannah, Georgia requesting documents from January, 2009 to the date of the subpoena. In February, 2014, we were notified that the investigation conducted by the Criminal Frauds Section had been expanded to include the National Deaf Academy. In March, 2014, a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) was served on the National Deaf Academy requesting documents and information from the facility from January 1, 2008 through the date of the CID. We have been advised by the government that the National Deaf Academy has been added to the facilities which are the subject of the coordinated investigation referenced above. In March, 2014, CIDs were served on Hartgrove Hospital, Rock River Academy and Streamwood Behavioral Health requesting documents and information from those facilities from January, 2008 through the date of the CID. In September, 2014, the DOJ Civil Division advised us that they were expanding their investigation to include four additional facilities and were requesting production of documents from these facilities. These facilities are Arbour-HRI Hospital, Behavioral Hospital of Bellaire, St. Simons by the Sea, and Turning Point Care Center. In December, 2014, the DOJ Civil Division requested that Salt Lake Behavioral Health produce documents responsive to the original subpoenas issued in February, 2013. In March, 2015, the OIG issued subpoenas to Central Florida Behavioral Hospital and University Behavioral Center requesting certain documents from January, 2008 to the date of the subpoena. In late March, 2015, we were notified that the investigation conducted by the Criminal Frauds Section had been expanded to include UHS as a corporate entity arising out of the coordinated investigation of the facilities described above and, in particular, Hartgrove Hospital. In December, 2015, we were notified by the DOJ Civil Division that the civil investigation also includes Arbour Hospital, Arbour-Fuller Hospital, Pembroke Hospital and Westwood Lodge located in Massachusetts. To date, these facilities have not received any requests for documentation or other information. The DOJ has advised us that the civil aspect of the coordinated investigation referenced above is a False Claim Act investigation focused on billings submitted to government payers in relation to services provided at those facilities. At present, we are uncertain as to potential liability and/or financial exposure of the Company and/or named facilities, if any, in connection with these matters. In December, 2015, we were advised that the DOJ opened an investigation involving the El Paso Behavioral Health System in El Paso, Texas. The DOJ is investigating potential Stark law violations relating to arrangements between the facility and physician(s) at the facility. These agreements were entered into before we acquired the facility as a part of our acquisition of Ascend Health Corporation in October, 2012. To our knowledge, this matter is not a part of the omnibus investigation referenced above. At present, we are uncertain as to potential liability and/or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. In January, 2016, we were notified that the Department of Justice opened an investigation of the South Texas Health System of a potential False Claim Act case regarding compensation paid to cardiologists pursuant to employment agreements entered into in 2005. At present, we are uncertain as to potential liability and/or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. Regulatory Matters: On July 23, 2015, Timberlawn Mental Health System (“Timberlawn”) received notification from CMS of its intent to terminate Timberlawn’s Medicare provider agreement effective August 7, 2015. This notification resulted from surveys conducted which alleged that Timberlawn was out of compliance with conditions of participation required for participation in the Medicare/Medicaid program. We filed a request for expedited administrative appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, seeking review and reversal of the termination action. In conjunction with the administrative appeal, we filed litigation in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to have the termination stayed pending the conclusion of the administrative appeal. The trial court denied Timberlawn’s request for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the case. Timberlawn’s provider agreement was terminated effective August 14, 2015. In September, 2015 Timberlawn reached an agreement with CMS relative to its reapplication to the Medicare/Medicaid program. In exchange, Timberlawn agreed to dismiss its administrative appeal as well as not to pursue an appeal of the decision of the trial court. During this time, Timberlawn has remained open. In December, 2015, Timberlawn received notice from the Texas Department of State Health Services (“TDSHS”) of its intent to revoke Timberlawn’s license and impose an administrative penalty. We appealed and contested the proposed revocation and fine. We recently reached a settlement with TDSHS which resulted in their withdrawal of the intent to revoke Timberlawn’s license and a reduced administrative penalty. Also during the third quarter of 2016, Timberlawn successfully completed all requirements of the settlement agreement with CMS which included passing the second of two required inspections. As a result, Timberlawn has been reenrolled in the Medicare program effective September 21, 2016. Although the operating results of Timberlawn did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2016 or the year ended December 31, 2015, the termination of Timberlawn’s provider agreement has had a material adverse effect on the facility’s results of operations and financial condition. Other Matters: In late September, 2015, many hospitals in Pennsylvania, including seven of our behavioral health care hospitals located in the state, received letters from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (the “Department”) demanding repayment of allegedly excess Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital payments (“DSH”) for the federal fiscal year 2011 (“FFY2011”) amounting to approximately $4 million in the aggregate. In September, 2016, we received similar requests for repayment for alleged DSH overpayments for FFY2012. We filed administrative appeals for all of our facilities contesting the recoupment efforts for FFYs 2011 and 2012 as we believe the Department’s calculation methodology is inaccurate and conflicts with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The Department has agreed to postpone the recoupment of the state’s share of the DSH payments until all hospital appeals are resolved but recently started recoupment of the federal share. If the Department is ultimately successful in its demand related to FFY2011 and FFY2012, it could take similar action with regards to FFY2013 and FFY2014. Due to a change in the Pennsylvania Medicaid State Plan and implementation of a CMS-approved Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver, we do not believe the methodology applied by the Department to FFY2011 and FFY2012 is applicable to reimbursements received for Medicaid services provided after January 1, 2015 by our behavioral health care facilities located in Pennsylvania. We can provide no assurance that we will ultimately be successful in our legal and administrative appeals related to the Department’s repayment demands. If our legal and administrative appeals are unsuccessful, our future consolidated results of operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted by these repayments. Matters Relating to Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (“PSI”): The following matters pertain to PSI or former PSI facilities (owned by subsidiaries of PSI) which were in existence prior to the acquisition of PSI and for which we have assumed the defense as a result of our acquisition which was completed in November, 2010. Department of Justice Investigation of Friends Hospital: In October, 2010, Friends Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain documents from the facility. The requested documents were collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July, 2011 requesting additional documents, which have also been delivered to the DOJ. All documents requested and produced pertained to the operations of the facility while under PSI’s ownership prior to our acquisition. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter. Department of Justice Investigation of Riveredge Hospital: In 2008, Riveredge Hospital in Chicago, Illinois received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain information from the facility. Additional requests for documents were also received from the DOJ in 2009 and 2010. The requested documents have been provided to the DOJ. All documents requested and produced pertained to the operations of the facility while under PSI’s ownership prior to our acquisition. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter. General: We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry which subjects us to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business as well as regulatory proceedings and government investigations. These claims or suits include claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, commercial/contractual disputes, wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges, and employment related claims, In addition, health care companies are subject to investigations and/or actions by various state and federal governmental agencies or those bringing claims on their behalf. Government action has increased with respect to investigations and/or allegations against healthcare providers concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse and false claims statutes as well as compliance with clinical and operational regulations. Currently, and from time to time, we and some of our facilities are subjected to inquiries in the form of subpoenas, Civil Investigative Demands, audits and other document requests from various federal and state agencies. These inquiries can lead to notices and/or actions including repayment obligations from state and federal government agencies associated with potential non-compliance with laws and regulations. Further, the federal False Claim Act allows private individuals to bring lawsuits (qui tam actions) against healthcare providers that submit claims for payments to the government. Various states have also adopted similar statutes. When such a claim is filed, the government will investigate the matter and decide if they are going to intervene in the pending case. These qui tam lawsuits are placed under seal by the court to comply with the False Claims Act’s requirements. If the government chooses not to intervene, the private individual(s) can proceed independently on behalf of the government. Health care providers that are found to violate the False Claims Act may be subject to substantial monetary fines/penalties as well as face potential exclusion from participating in government health care programs or be required to comply with Corporate Integrity Agreements as a condition of a settlement of a False Claim Act matter. In September 2014, the Criminal Division of the DOJ, announced that all qui tam cases will be shared with their Division to determine if a parallel criminal investigation should be opened. The DOJ has also announced an intention to pursue civil and criminal actions against individuals within a company as well as the corporate entity or entities. In addition, health care facilities are subject to monitoring by state and federal surveyors to ensure compliance with program Conditions of Participation. In the event a facility is found to be out of compliance with a Condition of Participation and unable to remedy the alleged deficiency(s), the facility faces termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs or compliance with a System Improvement Agreement to remedy deficiencies and ensure compliance. The laws and regulations governing the healthcare industry are complex covering, among other things, government healthcare participation requirements, licensure, certification and accreditation, privacy of patient information, reimbursement for patient services as well as fraud and abuse compliance. These laws and regulations are constantly evolving and expanding. Further, the Affordable Care Act has added additional obligations on healthcare providers to report and refund overpayments by government healthcare programs and authorizes the suspension of Medicare and Medicaid payments “pending an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud.” We monitor our business and have developed an ethics and compliance program with respect to these complex laws, rules and regulations. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with government regulations, there is no assurance that we will not be faced with the sanctions referenced above which include fines, penalties and/or substantial damages, repayment obligations, payment suspensions, licensure revocation, and expulsion from government healthcare programs. Even if we were to ultimately prevail in any action brought against us or our facilities or in responding to any inquiry, such action or inquiry could have a material adverse effect on us. The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities. We record accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above because the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors, including, but not limited to: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties, or; (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. It is possible that the outcome of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our future results of operations, financial position, cash flows and, potentially, our reputation. In addition, various suits and claims arising against us in the ordinary course of business are pending. In the opinion of management, the outcome of such claims and litigation will not materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations. |
