UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC

Previous wording

Texas: We own 7 inpatient acute care hospitals, 12 free-standing emergency departments and 21 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 17% of our consolidated net revenues during both 2023 and 2022, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 26% in 2023 and 27% in 2022, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Current wording

Texas: We own 7 inpatient acute care hospitals, 13 free-standing emergency departments, 1 acute outpatient center and 20 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 16% and 17% of our consolidated net revenues during 2024 and 2023, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 21% in 2024 and 26% in 2023, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Previous wording

Nevada: We own 9 inpatient acute care hospitals, 9 free-standing emergency departments, 3 acute outpatient centers and 3 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 16% and 17% of our consolidated net revenues during 2023 and 2022, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 16% in 2023 and 14% in 2022, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. Excluding the impact of the $57.6 million provision for asset impairment recorded during 2022, as discussed in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Provision for Asset Impairments, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 18% of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest during 2022.

Current wording

Nevada: We own 10 inpatient acute care hospitals, 11 free-standing emergency departments, 3 acute outpatient centers and 4 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 18% and 16% of our consolidated net revenues during 2024 and 2023, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 27% in 2024 and 16% in 2023, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Previous wording

California: We own 5 inpatient acute care hospitals, 2 acute outpatient centers, 9 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities and 3 behavioral healthcare outpatient facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 11% our consolidated net revenues during both 2023 and 2022, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 12% in 2023 and 15% in 2022, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Current wording

California: We own 5 inpatient acute care hospitals, 2 acute outpatient centers, 9 inpatient behavioral healthcare facilities and 3 behavioral healthcare outpatient facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 11% of our consolidated net revenues during both 2024 and 2023, respectively. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 12% in both 2024 and 2023, of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Previous wording

This geographic concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory, economic, public health, environmental and competitive conditions in those states. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, public health, environmental or competitive conditions in those states could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business results. In addition, certain of our facilities and our operations in those states may be adversely impacted by wildfires, winter storms, and other severe weather conditions, which adverse weather conditions may be more frequent and/or severe as the result of climate change. Such wildfires, storms or other severe weather conditions may cause considerable disruptions in our operations due to property damage or electrical outages experienced in affected areas by our personnel, payers, vendors and others.

Current wording

This geographic concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory, economic, public health, environmental and competitive conditions in those states. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, public health, environmental or competitive conditions in those states could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business results. In addition, certain of our facilities and our operations in those states may be adversely impacted by wildfires (most particularly in California), winter storms, and other severe weather conditions, which adverse weather conditions may be more frequent and/or severe as the result of climate change. Such wildfires, storms or other severe weather conditions may cause considerable disruptions in our operations due to property damage or electrical outages experienced in affected areas by our personnel, payers, vendors and others, and may cause our commercial property insurance premiums and/or self-insured retentions to increase significantly.

Previous wording

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from third-party payers, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for healthcare services. Payments from federal and state government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease program payments, as well as affect the cost of providing service to patients and the timing of payments to facilities. We are unable to predict the effect of recent and future policy changes on our operations. In addition, the uncertainty and fiscal pressures placed upon federal and state governments as a result of, among other things, deterioration in general economic conditions and the funding requirements from the federal healthcare reform legislation, may affect the availability of taxpayer funds for Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, the vast majority of the net revenues generated at our behavioral health facilities located in the United Kingdom are derived from governmental payers. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by governmental payers in the United States or United Kingdom are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Current wording

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from third-party payers, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for healthcare services. Payments from federal and state government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease program payments, as well as affect the cost of providing service to patients and the timing of payments to facilities. Changes resulting from the outcome of the 2024 elections may include increased reliance on Medicare Advantage programs, work requirements for Medicaid waiver program eligibility, increased focus on hospital outpatient site neutral payment policies, and similar initiatives that may reduce the availability of funding for federal healthcare programs or make eligibility for benefits more difficult. There have been proposals to substantially decrease federal funding for state Medicaid Programs. Any significant reduction in federal Medicaid funding to states would likely result in states reducing Medicaid payments to us which would have a material adverse effect on us. We are unable to predict the effect of recent and future policy changes on our operations. In addition, the uncertainty and fiscal pressures placed upon federal and state governments as a result of, among other things, deterioration in general economic conditions and the funding requirements from the federal healthcare reform legislation, may affect the availability of taxpayer funds for Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, the vast majority of the net revenues generated at our behavioral health facilities located in the United Kingdom are derived from governmental payers. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by governmental payers in the United States or United Kingdom are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Previous wording

We receive annual Medicaid revenues of approximately $100 million, or greater, from each of Texas, California, Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Virginia. We also receive Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments from certain states including, most significantly, Texas. We are therefore particularly sensitive to potential reductions in Medicaid and other state-based revenue programs as well as regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive changes in those states.

Current wording

As discussed in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Summary of Various State Medicaid Supplemental Payment Programs, we receive revenues from various state and county-based programs, including Medicaid in all states in which we operate. We receive annual Medicaid revenues of approximately $100 million, or greater, from each of Texas, Nevada, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, Massachusetts and Mississippi. We also receive Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments from certain states including, most significantly,

Previous wording

In our acute care segment, we have experienced a significant increase in hospital based physician related expenses (especially in the areas of emergency room care and anesthesiology) which has had a material unfavorable impact on our results of operations during 2023. Increases in these physician related expenses could continue to have an unfavorable material impact on our results of operations for the foreseeable future.

Current wording

In our acute care segment, during the past few years we experienced significant increases in hospital-based physician related expenses, especially in the areas of emergency room care and anesthesiology. We have implemented various initiatives to mitigate the increased expense, to the degree possible, which has moderated the rate of increase experienced during 2024 and 2023. However, significant increases in these physician related expenses could have a material unfavorable impact on our future results of operations.

Previous wording

The nationwide shortage of nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel has been a significant operating issue facing us and other healthcare providers. In particular, like others in the healthcare industry, we continue to experience a shortage of nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel at our acute care and behavioral health care hospitals in many geographic areas, which shortage has been exacerbated by the COVID‑19 pandemic. We are treating patients with COVID‑19 in our facilities and, in some areas, the increased demand for care is putting a strain on our resources and staff, which has required us to utilize higher‑cost temporary labor and pay premiums above standard compensation for essential workers. This staffing shortage may require us to further enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel or require us to hire expensive temporary personnel. To the extent we cannot maintain sufficient staffing levels at our hospitals, we may be required to limit the acute and behavioral health care services provided at certain of our hospitals which would have a corresponding adverse effect on our net revenues. In addition, in some markets such as California, there are requirements to maintain specified nurse-staffing levels which could adversely affect our net revenues to the extent we cannot meet those levels. If these states increase mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or additional states in which we operate adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios, such changes could significantly affect labor costs and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit admissions in order to meet the required ratios.

Current wording

The nationwide shortage of nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel has been a significant operating issue facing us and other healthcare providers. In particular, like others in the healthcare industry, we experienced a shortage of nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel at our acute care and behavioral health care hospitals in many geographic areas which was exacerbated by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In some areas, the increased demand for care during the COVID-19 pandemic put a strain on our resources and staff, which required us to utilize higher‑cost temporary labor and pay premiums above standard compensation for essential workers. Personnel shortages may require us to further enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other clinical staff and support personnel or require us to hire expensive temporary personnel. To the extent we cannot maintain sufficient staffing levels at our hospitals, we may be required to limit the acute and behavioral health care services provided at certain of our hospitals which would have a corresponding adverse effect on our net revenues. In addition, in some markets such as California, there are requirements to maintain specified nurse-staffing levels which could adversely affect our net revenues to the extent we cannot meet those levels. If these states increase mandatory nurse-staffing ratios or additional states in which we operate adopt mandatory nurse-staffing ratios, such changes could significantly affect labor costs and have an adverse impact on revenues if we are required to limit admissions in order to meet the required ratios.

Previous wording

Controls imposed by third-party payers designed to reduce admissions and lengths of stay, commonly referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Utilization review entails the review of the admission and course of treatment of a patient by managed care plans. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by payer-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative healthcare delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. In addition, we have been experiencing increasing rates of denied claims (“denials”) from managed care payers which have reduced our net revenues and increased our operating costs as we devote additional resources to enhanced documentation and collection efforts. Although we cannot predict the effect these factors will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed, and reimbursements withheld due to denials, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Current wording

Controls imposed by third-party payers designed to reduce admissions and lengths of stay, commonly referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Utilization review entails the review of the admission and course of treatment of a patient by managed care plans. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by payer-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payer pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative healthcare delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. In addition, we have been experiencing increasing rates of denied claims (“denials”) from managed care payers, including managed Medicare, which have reduced our net revenues and increased our operating costs as we devote additional resources to enhanced documentation and collection efforts. Although we cannot predict the effect these factors will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed, and reimbursements withheld due to denials, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Previous wording

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “Budget Control Act”) mandated significant reductions in federal spending for fiscal years 2012-2021, including a reduction of 2% on all Medicare payments during this period. Subsequent legislation enacted by Congress eliminated the 2% reduction through 2021 but extended these reductions through 2030 in exchange. The payment reduction suspension was extended through March 31, 2022, with a 1% payment reduction from then until June 30, 2022 and the full 2% payment reduction thereafter. The most recent legislation extended these reductions through 2032. Please see Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Sources of Revenue-Medicare, for additional disclosure.

Current wording

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “Budget Control Act”) mandated significant reductions in federal spending for fiscal years 2012-2021, including a reduction of 2% on all Medicare payments during this period. The most recent legislation extended these reductions through 2032. Please see Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Sources of Revenue-Medicare, for additional disclosure.

Previous wording

Beginning in 2024 and continuing through 2027, the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) allotment to the states from federal funds will be reduced. Such reductions have been delayed several times, most recently under the CAA, which further delays the DSH reductions through 2024. During the reduction period, state Medicaid DSH allotments from federal funds will be reduced by $8 billion annually. Reductions are imposed on states based on percentage of uninsured individuals, Medicaid utilization and uncompensated care.

Current wording

Beginning in 2025 and continuing through 2027, the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) allotment to the states from federal funds will be reduced. Such reductions have been delayed several times, most recently under the American Relief Act 2025, which delayed the DSH reductions through March 31, 2025. During the reduction period, state Medicaid DSH allotments from federal funds will be reduced by $8 billion annually. Reductions are imposed on states based on percentage of uninsured individuals, Medicaid utilization and uncompensated care. We receive Medicaid DSH payments in certain states including, most significantly, Texas. We are therefore particularly sensitive to potential reductions in Medicaid and other state-based revenue programs as well as regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive changes in those states. We can provide no assurance that reductions to revenues earned pursuant to these programs, particularly in the above-mentioned states, will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations.

Previous wording

Although it was expected that as a result of the Legislation there would be a reduction in uninsured patients, which would reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable, the Legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid which we believe may have an adverse impact on us. The Legislation revises reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to emphasize the efficient delivery of high quality care and contains a number of incentives and penalties under these programs to achieve these goals. The Legislation implements a value-based purchasing program, which will reward the delivery of efficient care. Conversely, certain facilities will receive reduced reimbursement for failing to meet quality parameters; such hospitals will include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates. It remains unclear what portions of that legislation may remain, or what any replacement or alternative programs may be created by future legislation.

Current wording

Although it was expected that as a result of the Legislation there would be a reduction in uninsured patients, which would reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable, the Legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid which we believe may have an adverse impact on us. The Legislation revises reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to emphasize the efficient delivery of high quality care and contains a number of incentives and penalties under these programs to achieve these goals. The Legislation implements a value-based purchasing program, which will reward the delivery of efficient care. Conversely, certain facilities will receive reduced reimbursement for failing to meet quality parameters; such hospitals will include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates. As a result of the 2024 federal elections and the Braidwood Management v. Becerra litigation currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, it remains unclear what portions of that legislation may remain, or what any replacement or alternative programs may be created by future legislation.

Previous wording

A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the federal government’s ability to expand health insurance coverage by holding unconstitutional sections of the Legislation that sought to withdraw federal funding for state noncompliance with certain Medicaid coverage requirements. Pursuant to that decision, the federal government may not penalize states that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program by reducing their existing Medicaid funding. Therefore, states can choose to accept or not to participate without risking the loss of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, many states, including Texas, have not expanded their Medicaid programs without the threat of loss of federal funding. CMS had granted section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals. However, most recently, the Biden Administration has expressed disfavor with Medicaid program work requirements, with the understanding that such requirements pose a substantial risk that many potential demonstration beneficiaries would be prevented from initially enrolling in coverage or that the requirements would lead to a sizable number of eligibility suspensions and eventual disenrollments among beneficiaries who are initially able to enroll. Accordingly, CMS has recently revoked certain State Medicaid program approvals including work requirements.

Current wording

A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the federal government’s ability to expand health insurance coverage by holding unconstitutional sections of the Legislation that sought to withdraw federal funding for state noncompliance with certain Medicaid coverage requirements. Pursuant to that decision, the federal government may not penalize states that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program by reducing their existing Medicaid funding. Therefore, states can choose to accept or not to participate without risking the loss of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, many states, including Texas, have not expanded their Medicaid programs without the threat of loss of federal funding. In the past, CMS has granted section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals. The previous Trump administration's section 1115 waiver policy emphasized work requirements, eligibility restrictions on Medicaid, and capped funding. The second Trump administration may, again, take a similar approach.

Previous wording

The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amended several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to “have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of” the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act, although certain final regulations implementing this statutory requirement remain pending. The Legislation also expands the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations.

Current wording

The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amended several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to “have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of” the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation also expanded the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations.

Previous wording

We have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of certain of our facilities. These investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law. The Legislation permits existing physician investments in a hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians are prohibited from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Legislation also imposes certain compliance and disclosure requirements upon existing physician-owned hospitals and restricts the ability of physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. As discussed below, should the Legislation be repealed in its entirety, this aspect of the Legislation would also be repealed restoring physician ownership of hospitals and expansion right to its position and practice as it existed prior to the Legislation.

Current wording

We have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of certain of our facilities. These investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law. The Legislation permits existing physician investments in a hospital to continue under a “grandfather” clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians are prohibited from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Legislation also imposes certain compliance and disclosure requirements upon existing physician-owned hospitals and restricts the ability of physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. A repeal of the Legislation, in whole or in relevant part, may result in physicians being able to expand ownership interest in hospitals.

Previous wording

The impact of the Legislation on each of our hospitals may vary. Initiatives to repeal the Legislation, in whole or in part, to delay elements of implementation or funding, and to offer amendments or supplements to modify its provisions have been persistent. The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown. Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain health coverage that was part of the original Legislation. In addition, Congress has considered legislation that would, if enacted, in material part: (i) eliminate the large employer mandate to obtain or provide health insurance coverage, respectively; (ii) permit insurers to impose a surcharge up to 30 percent on individuals who go uninsured for more than two months and then purchase coverage; (iii) provide tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance, with a phase-out of tax credits accordingly to income level; (iv) expand health savings accounts; (v) impose a per capita cap on federal funding of state Medicaid programs, or, if elected by a state, transition federal funding to block grants, and; (vi) permit states to seek a waiver of certain federal requirements that would allow such state to define essential health benefits differently from federal standards and that would allow certain commercial health plans to take health status, including pre-existing conditions, into account in setting premiums.

Current wording

Initiatives to repeal or modify the Legislation, in whole or in part, have been persistent. While President Trump did not campaign on repeal of the Legislation, executive and legislative efforts to eliminate or reduce the effect of certain Legislation provisions may yet occur. The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown. Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain health coverage that was an integral part of the original Legislation.

Previous wording

While attempts to repeal the entirety of the Legislation have not been successful to date, a key provision of the Legislation was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and on December 14, 2018, a Texas Federal District Court Judge declared the Legislation unconstitutional, reasoning that the individual mandate tax penalty was essential to and not severable from the remainder of the Legislation. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately held in California v. Texas that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Legislation’s requirement to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or the individual mandate. The Court dismissed the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Legislation. On September 7, 2022, the same Texas Federal District Court judge, in the case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra, ruled that the requirement that certain health plans cover services with an “A” or “B” recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the coverage of certain HIV prevention medication violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government has appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact at this time. While the results of the 2020 elections potentially reduce the risk of the Legislation being eliminated in whole or in part, the continued uncertainties regarding implementation of the Legislation create unpredictability for the strategic and business planning efforts of health care providers, which in itself constitutes a risk.

Current wording

The Legislation and its implementation have been, and remain, politically controversial. While attempts to repeal the entirety of the Legislation have not been successful to date, a key provision of the Legislation was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and on December 14, 2018, a Texas Federal District Court Judge declared the Legislation unconstitutional, reasoning that the individual mandate tax penalty was essential to and not severable from the remainder of the Legislation. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately held in California v. Texas that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Legislation’s requirement to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or the individual mandate. The Court dismissed the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Legislation. On September 7, 2022, the same Texas Federal District Court judge, in the case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra, ruled that the requirement that certain health plans cover services with an “A” or “B” recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the coverage of certain HIV prevention medication violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact at this time.

Previous wording

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan (“ARP”) into law. The ARP extends eligibility for Legislation health insurance subsidies to people buying their own health coverage on the Marketplace who have household incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level. ARP also increased the amount of financial assistance for people at lower incomes who were already eligible under the Legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was passed on August 16, 2022, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The IRA also continued the expanded subsidies for individuals to obtain private health insurance under the Legislation through 2025. The effect of IRA on hospitals and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Current wording

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was passed on August 16, 2022, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The IRA also continued certain subsidies for individuals to obtain private health insurance under the Legislation through 2025. The effect of the 2024 federal elections on IRA price negotiation provisions or on the likelihood of extended health insurance enrollment subsidies beyond 2025 is not yet known. The Trump administration has already taken steps to undo certain Biden-era executive orders, including those intended to lower drug costs for beneficiaries, and to freeze funding for federal programs. While the administration’s initial freeze has since been rescinded, the administration is likely to make other attempts to reduce federal program expenditures and can generally be expected to oppose increases in ACA and Medicaid enrollment.

Previous wording

In accordance with our internal policies and procedures, as well as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, we provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to one of our hospitals while in active labor and/or seeking medical treatment (whether or not such individual is eligible for insurance benefits and regardless of ability to pay) to determine if such individual has an emergency medical condition. If it is determined that such person has an emergency medical condition, we provide such further medical examination and treatment as is required to stabilize the patient’s medical condition, within the facility’s capability, or arrange for transfer of such individual to another medical facility in accordance with applicable law and the treating hospital’s written procedures. Our obligations under EMTALA may increase substantially going forward; CMS has sought stakeholder comments concerning the potential applicability of EMTALA to hospital inpatients and the responsibilities of hospitals with specialized capabilities, respectively, but has yet to issue further guidance in response to that request. If the number of indigent and charity care patients with emergency medical conditions we treat increases significantly, or if regulations expanding our obligations to inpatients under EMTALA is proposed and adopted, our results of operations will be harmed.

Current wording

In accordance with our internal policies and procedures, as well as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, we provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to one of our hospitals while in active labor and/or seeking medical treatment (whether or not such individual is eligible for insurance benefits and regardless of ability to pay) to determine if such individual has an emergency medical condition. If it is determined that such person has an emergency medical condition, we provide such further medical examination and treatment as is required to stabilize the patient’s medical condition, within the facility’s capability, or arrange for transfer of such individual to another medical facility in accordance with applicable law and the treating hospital’s written procedures. Our obligations under EMTALA may increase substantially going forward. If the number of indigent and charity care patients with emergency medical conditions we treat increases significantly, or if regulations expanding our obligations to inpatients under EMTALA is proposed and adopted, our results of operations will be harmed.

Previous wording

Pursuant to Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) regulations, hospitals that did not qualify as a meaningful user of EHR by 2015 were subject to a reduced market basket update to the inpatient prospective payment system (“IPPS”) standardized amount in 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year. In the 2019 IPPS final rule, CMS re-named the meaningful use program to “promoting interoperability”. We believe that all of our acute care hospitals have met the applicable promoting interoperability criteria and therefore are not subject to a reduced market basked update to the IPPS standardized amount. However, under the HITECH Act, hospitals must continue to meet the applicable criteria in each fiscal year or they will be subject to a market basket update reduction in a subsequent fiscal year. Failure of our acute care hospitals to continue to meet the applicable meaningful use criteria would have an adverse effect on our future net revenues and results of operations.

Current wording

Pursuant to Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) regulations, hospitals that did not qualify as a meaningful user of EHR by 2015 were subject to a reduced market basket update to the inpatient prospective payment system (“IPPS”) standardized amount in 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year. In the 2019 IPPS final rule, CMS re-named the meaningful use program to “promoting interoperability”. We believe that all of our acute care hospitals have met the applicable promoting interoperability criteria and therefore are not subject to a reduced market basked update to the IPPS standardized amount. However, under the HITECH Act, hospitals must continue to meet the applicable criteria in each fiscal year or they will be subject to a market basket update reduction in a subsequent fiscal year. Failure of our acute care hospitals to continue to meet the applicable criteria would have an adverse effect on our future net revenues and results of operations.

Previous wording

Our operations in the United Kingdom are also subject to a high level of regulation relating to registration and licensing requirements employee regulation, clinical standards, environmental rules as well as other areas. We are also subject to a highly regulated business environment, and failure to comply with the various laws and regulations, applicable to us could lead to substantial penalties, and other adverse effects on our business. Aspects of United Kingdom data protection law, including the UK Data Protection Act and legislation commonly referred to as the UK GDPR, remain unclear following the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, including with respect to data transfers between the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. We cannot fully predict how the Data Protection Act, the UK GDPR, and other United Kingdom data protection laws or regulations may develop in the medium to longer term nor the effects of divergent laws and guidance regarding data transfers.

Current wording

Our operations in the United Kingdom are also subject to a high level of regulation relating to registration and licensing requirements employee regulation, clinical standards, environmental rules, data protection as well as other areas. We are also subject to a highly regulated business environment, and failure to comply with the various laws and regulations, applicable to us could lead to substantial penalties, and other adverse effects on our business. United Kingdom data protection laws, including the UK Data Protection Act and legislation commonly referred to as the UK GDPR, has required us to implement, and in the future may require us to implement, additional costly, technical and organizational measures designed to protect the privacy and security of each of our patient’s health and related financial information, and other personal information.

Previous wording

Defending ourselves against the allegations in the lawsuits and governmental investigations, or similar matters and any related publicity, could potentially entail significant costs and could require significant attention from our management and our reputation could suffer significantly. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any such loss; however, these lawsuits and the related publicity and news articles that have been published concerning these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows which in turn could cause a decline in our stock price. In an effort to resolve one or more of these matters, we may choose to negotiate a settlement. Amounts we pay to settle any of these matters may be material. All professional and general liability insurance we purchase is subject to policy limitations. We believe that, based on our past experience and actuarial estimates, our insurance coverage is adequate considering the claims arising from the operations of our hospitals. While we continuously monitor our coverage, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates. If such policy limitations should be partially or fully exhausted in the future, or payments of claims exceed our estimates or are not covered by our insurance, it could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Current wording

Defending ourselves against the allegations in the lawsuits and governmental investigations, or similar matters and any related publicity, could potentially entail significant costs and could require significant attention from our management and our reputation could suffer significantly.

Previous wording

As cyber criminals continue to become more sophisticated through evolution of their tactics, techniques and procedures, we have taken, and will continue to take, additional preventive measures to strengthen the cyber defenses of our networks and data. However, if any of our or our third-party service providers’ systems are damaged, fail to function properly or otherwise become unavailable, we may incur substantial costs to repair or replace them, and may experience loss or corruption of critical data such as protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws and proprietary business information and interruptions or disruptions and delays in our ability to perform critical functions, which could materially and adversely affect our businesses and results of operations and could result in significant penalties or fines, litigation, loss of customers, significant damage to our reputation and business, and other losses. In the event of a material breach or cyber-attack, the associated expenses and losses may exceed our current insurance coverage for such events. In addition, some adverse consequences are not insurable, such as reputational harm and third-party business interruption. In addition, our future results of operations, as well as our reputation, could be adversely impacted by theft, destruction, loss, or misappropriation of public health information, other confidential data or proprietary business information. Further, consumer confidence in the integrity, availability and confidentiality of information systems and information, including patient personal information and critical operations data, in the healthcare industry generally could be impacted to the extent there are successful cyberattacks at other healthcare services companies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

Current wording

As cyber criminals continue to become more sophisticated through evolution of their tactics, techniques and procedures, we have taken, and will continue to take, additional preventive measures to strengthen the cyber defenses of our networks and data. Although we continue to regularly review and enhance our IT systems and cybersecurity controls, we and our third-party provider have experienced, and may experience in the future, cybersecurity incidents. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 (as filed on February 27, 2024) for information regarding the 2024 cyber incident at UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and the cyber incident we experienced in 2020. While to date no incident had a material impact on our operations or financial results, we cannot guarantee that material incidents will not occur in the future. If any of our or our third-party service providers’ systems are damaged, fail to function properly or otherwise become unavailable, we may incur substantial costs to repair or replace them, and may experience loss or corruption of critical data such as protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws and proprietary business information and interruptions or disruptions and delays in our ability to perform critical functions, which could materially and adversely affect our businesses and results of operations and could result in significant penalties or fines, litigation, loss of customers, significant damage to our reputation and business, and other losses. In the event of a material breach or cyber-attack, the associated expenses and losses may exceed our current insurance coverage for such events. In addition, some adverse consequences are not insurable, such as reputational harm and third-party business interruption. In addition, our future results of operations, as well as our reputation, could be adversely impacted by theft, destruction, loss, or misappropriation of public health information, other confidential data or proprietary business information. Further, consumer confidence in the integrity, availability and confidentiality of information systems and information, including patient personal information and critical operations data, in the healthcare industry generally could be impacted to the extent there are successful cyberattacks at other healthcare services companies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

Previous wording

Our revenues and volume trends are dependent on many factors, including physicians’ clinical decisions and availability, payer programs shifting to a more outpatient-based environment, whether or not certain services are offered, seasonal and severe weather conditions, including the effects of extreme low temperatures, hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, climate change, current local economic and demographic changes. We have a high concentration of facilities in various geographic areas, including states that have a potentially higher risk of experiencing events such as severe weather conditions and earthquakes. Given the location of our facilities, we are particularly susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase, or damage caused by severe weather conditions or natural disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, or tornadoes. Any significant loss due to a natural disaster may not be covered by insurance and may lead to an increase in the cost of insurance or unavailability on acceptable terms. Climate change may also have effects on our business by increasing the cost of property insurance or making coverage unavailable on acceptable terms. To the extent that significant changes in the climate occur in areas where our facilities are located, we may experience increased frequency of severe weather conditions or natural disasters or other changes to weather patterns, all of which may result in physical damage to or a decrease in demand for properties affected by these conditions. Should the impact of climate change be material in nature or occur for lengthy periods of time, our financial condition, revenues, results of operations, or cash flow may be adversely affected. In addition, government regulation intended to mitigate the impact of climate change, severe weather patterns, or natural disasters could result in additional required capital expenditures to comply with such regulation without a corresponding increase in our revenues. In addition, technological developments and pharmaceutical improvements may reduce the demand for healthcare services or the profitability of the services we offer. Further, the Medicare program’s three-year phase out and eventual elimination of the Inpatient Only List, a list of surgeries and procedures that are only covered by Medicare when provided in an inpatient setting, may reduce inpatient volumes.

Current wording

Our revenues and volume trends are dependent on many factors, including physicians’ clinical decisions and availability, payer programs shifting to a more outpatient-based environment, whether or not certain services are offered, seasonal and severe weather conditions, including the effects of extreme low temperatures, hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, climate change, current local economic and demographic changes. We have a high concentration of facilities in various geographic areas, including states that have a potentially higher risk of experiencing events such as severe weather conditions and earthquakes. Given the location of our facilities, we are particularly susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase, or damage caused by severe weather conditions or natural disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, or tornadoes. Any significant loss due to a natural disaster may not be covered by insurance and may lead to an increase in the cost of insurance or unavailability on acceptable terms. Climate change may also have effects on our business by increasing the cost of property insurance or making coverage unavailable on acceptable terms. To the extent that significant changes in the climate occur in areas where our facilities are located, we may experience increased frequency of severe weather conditions or natural disasters or other changes to weather patterns, all of which may result in physical damage to or a decrease in demand for properties affected by these conditions. Should the impact of climate change be material in nature or occur for lengthy periods of time, our financial condition, revenues, results of operations, or cash flow may be adversely affected. In addition, government regulation intended to mitigate the impact of climate change, severe weather patterns, or natural disasters could result in additional required capital expenditures to comply with such regulation without a corresponding increase in our revenues. In addition, technological developments and pharmaceutical improvements may reduce the demand for healthcare services or the profitability of the services we offer.

Previous wording

To fund all or a portion of our future financing needs, we rely on borrowings from various sources including fixed rate, long-term debt as well as borrowings pursuant to our revolving credit facility and accounts receivable securitization program. If any of the lenders were unable to fulfill their future commitments, our liquidity could be impacted, which could have a material unfavorable impact our results of operations and financial condition. The increase in interest rates has substantially increased our borrowing costs and reduced our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms. Additional increases in interest rates and the effect on capital markets could adversely affect our ability to carry out our strategy.

Current wording

To fund all or a portion of our future financing needs, we rely on borrowings from various sources including fixed rate, long-term debt as well as borrowings pursuant to our revolving credit facility. If any of the lenders were unable to fulfill their future commitments, our liquidity could be impacted, which could have a material unfavorable impact our results of operations and financial condition. The increase in interest rates has substantially increased our borrowing costs and reduced our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms. Additional increases in interest rates and the effect on capital markets could adversely affect our ability to carry out our strategy.

Previous wording

At December 31, 2023, 20.5 million shares of Class B Common Stock were reserved for issuance upon conversion of shares of Class A, C and D Common Stock outstanding, for issuance upon exercise of options to purchase Class B Common Stock and for issuance of stock under other incentive plans. Class A, C and D Common Stock are convertible on a share for share basis into Class B Common Stock. To the extent that these shares were converted into or exercised for shares of Class B Common Stock, the number of shares of Class B Common Stock available for trading in the public market place would increase substantially and the current holders of Class B Common Stock would own a smaller percentage of that class.

Current wording

At December 31, 2024, 24.4 million shares of Class B Common Stock were reserved for issuance upon conversion of shares of Class A, C and D Common Stock outstanding, for issuance upon exercise of options to purchase Class B Common Stock and for issuance of stock under other incentive plans. Class A, C and D Common Stock are convertible on a share for share basis into Class B Common Stock. To the extent that these shares were converted into or exercised for shares of Class B Common Stock, the number of shares of Class B Common Stock available for trading in the public market place would increase substantially and the current holders of Class B Common Stock would own a smaller percentage of that class.

Previous wording

In addition, from time-to-time, our Board of Directors approve stock repurchase programs authorizing us to purchase shares of our Class B Common Stock on the open market at prevailing market prices or in negotiated transactions off the market. Such repurchases decrease the number of outstanding shares of our Class B Common Stock. During 2023, in conjunction with our stock repurchase program, we have repurchased approximately 3.9 million shares at an aggregate cost of approximately $525 million.

Current wording

In addition, from time-to-time, our Board of Directors approve stock repurchase programs authorizing us to purchase shares of our Class B Common Stock on the open market at prevailing market prices or in negotiated transactions off the market. Such repurchases decrease the number of outstanding shares of our Class B Common Stock. Pursuant to our stock repurchase program, shares of our Class B Common Stock may be repurchased, from time to time as conditions allow, on the open market or in negotiated private transactions. There is no expiration date for our stock repurchase programs.

Previous wording

As of March 22, 2023, the shares of Class A and Class C Common Stock constituted 10.3% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect five members of the Board of Directors and constituted 90.4% of our general voting power as of that date. And as of that date, the shares of Class B and Class D Common Stock (excluding shares issuable upon exercise of options) constituted 89.7% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect two members of the Board of Directors and constituted 9.6% of our general voting power as of that date.

Current wording

As of March 18, 2024, the shares of Class A and Class C Common Stock, which constituted 10.8% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect five members of the Board of Directors and constituted 90.5% of our general voting power as of that date. Also as of that date, the shares of Class B and Class D Common Stock (excluding shares issuable upon exercise of options), which constituted 89.2% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect two members of the Board of Directors and constituted 9.5% of our general voting power as of that date.