Universal Health Services Inc--Form 10-K

10-K 1 d266350d10k.htm UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC--FORM 10-K Universal Health Services Inc--Form 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(MARK ONE)

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File No. 1-10765

UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		23-2077891
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

UNIVERSAL CORPORATE CENTER		19406-0958
367 South Gulph Road		(Zip Code)
P.O. Box 61558 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (610) 768-3300

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


Title of each Class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Class B Common Stock, $.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange

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

Class D Common Stock, $.01 par value

(Title of each Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one):


Large accelerated filer x		Accelerated filer ¨		Non-accelerated filer ¨		Smaller reporting company ¨

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

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates at June 30, 2011 was $4.61 billion. (For the purpose of this calculation, it was assumed that Class A, Class C, and Class D Common Stock, which are not traded but are convertible share-for-share into Class B Common Stock, have the same market value as Class B Common Stock. Also, for purposes of this calculation only, all directors, officers subject to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 10% stockholders are deemed to be affiliates.)

The number of shares of the registrant’s Class A Common Stock, $.01 par value, Class B Common Stock, $.01 par value, Class C Common Stock, $.01 par value, and Class D Common Stock, $.01 par value, outstanding as of January 31, 2012, were 6,625,708, 89,408,941, 664,000 and 33,084, respectively.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for our 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2011 (incorporated by reference under Part III).

UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

2011 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PART I
Item 1	Business	1
Item 1A	Risk Factors	15
Item 1B	Unresolved Staff Comments	28
Item 2	Properties	28
Item 3	Legal Proceedings	34
Item 4	Mine Safety Disclosure	36

PART II
Item 5	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	37
Item 6	Selected Financial Data	40
Item 7	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	41
Item 7A	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	80
Item 8	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	82
Item 9	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	82
Item 9A	Controls and Procedures	83
Item 9B	Other Information	83

PART III
Item 10	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	84
Item 11	Executive Compensation	84
Item 12	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	84
Item 13	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	84
Item 14	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	84

PART IV
Item 15	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	85
SIGNATURES		90

Exhibit Index

This Annual Report on Form 10-K is for the year ended December 31, 2011. This Annual Report modifies and supersedes documents filed prior to this Annual Report. Information that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in the future will automatically update and supersede information contained in this Annual Report.

In this Annual Report, “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Universal Health Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries. UHS is a registered trademark of UHS of Delaware, Inc., the management company for, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. Universal Health Services, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its subsidiaries including its management company, UHS of Delaware, Inc. All healthcare and management operations are conducted by subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. To the extent any reference to “UHS” or “UHS facilities” in this report including letters, narratives or other forms contained herein relates to our healthcare or management operations it is referring to Universal Health Services, Inc.’s subsidiaries including UHS of Delaware, Inc. Further, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company” in such context similarly refer to the operations of Universal Health Services Inc.’s subsidiaries including UHS of Delaware, Inc. Any reference to employees or employment contained herein refers to employment with or employees of the subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. including UHS of Delaware, Inc.

PART I

ITEM 1.

Business

Our principal business is owning and operating, through our subsidiaries, acute care hospitals, behavioral health centers, surgical hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and radiation oncology centers. As of February 24, 2012, we owned and/or operated 25 acute care hospitals and 198 behavioral health centers located in 36 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As part of our ambulatory treatment centers division, we manage and/or own outright or in partnerships with physicians, 6 surgical hospitals and surgery and radiation oncology centers located in 4 states and Puerto Rico.

In November, 2010, we acquired Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (“PSI”). PSI was formerly the largest operator of freestanding inpatient behavioral health care facilities operating a total of 105 inpatient and outpatient facilities in 32 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Net revenues from our acute care hospitals, surgical hospitals, surgery centers and radiation oncology centers accounted for 55% of our consolidated net revenues in 2011, 70% in 2010 and 74% in 2009. Net revenues from our behavioral health care facilities accounted for 45% of our consolidated net revenues during 2011, 30% during 2010 and 25% during 2009. Approximately 1% of our consolidated net revenues in 2009 were recorded in connection with two construction management contracts pursuant to the terms of which we built newly constructed acute care hospitals for an unrelated third party.

Services provided by our hospitals include general and specialty surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care, pediatric services, pharmacy services and/or behavioral health services. We provide capital resources as well as a variety of management services to our facilities, including central purchasing, information services, finance and control systems, facilities planning, physician recruitment services, administrative personnel management, marketing and public relations.

We are a Delaware corporation that was organized in 1979. Our principal executive offices are located at Universal Corporate Center, 367 South Gulph Road, P.O. Box 61558, King of Prussia, PA 19406. Our telephone number is (610) 768-3300.

Available Information

Our website is located at http://www.uhsinc.com. Copies of our annual, quarterly and current reports that we file with the SEC, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge on our website. The information posted on our website is not incorporated into this Annual Report. Our Board of Directors’ committee charters (Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating & Governance Committee), Code of Business Conduct and Corporate Standards applicable to all employees, Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Healthcare Code of Conduct, Corporate Compliance Manual and Compliance Policies and Procedures are available free of charge on our website. Copies of such reports and charters are available in print to any stockholder who makes a request. Such requests should be made to our Secretary at our King of Prussia, PA corporate headquarters. We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K relating to amendments to or waivers of any provision of our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers by promptly posting this information on our website.

In accordance with Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, we submitted our CEO’s certification to the New York Stock Exchange in 2011. Additionally, contained in Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, are our CEO’s and CFO’s certifications regarding the quality of our public disclosures under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Our Mission

Our mission and objective is to provide superior healthcare services that patients recommend to families and friends, physicians prefer for their patients, purchasers select for their clients, employees are proud of, and investors seek for long-term results. To achieve this, we have a commitment to:

•

service excellence

•

continuous improvement in measurable ways

•

employee development

•

ethical and fair treatment

•

teamwork

•

compassion

•

innovation in service delivery

Business Strategy

We believe community-based hospitals will remain the focal point of the healthcare delivery network and we are committed to a philosophy of self-determination for both the company and our hospitals.

Acquisition of Additional Hospitals. We selectively seek opportunities to expand our base of operations by acquiring, constructing or leasing additional hospital facilities. We are committed to a program of rational growth around our core businesses, while retaining the missions of the hospitals we manage and the communities we serve. Such expansion may provide us with access to new markets and new healthcare delivery capabilities. We also continue to examine our facilities and consider divestiture of those facilities that we believe do not have the potential to contribute to our growth or operating strategy.

Improvement of Operations of Existing Hospitals and Services. We also seek to increase the operating revenues and profitability of owned hospitals by the introduction of new services, improvement of existing services, physician recruitment and the application of financial and operational controls.

We are involved in continual development activities for the benefit of our existing facilities. Applications to state health planning agencies to add new services in existing hospitals are currently on file in states which require certificates of need, or CONs. Although we expect that some of these applications will result in the addition of new facilities or services to our operations, no assurances can be made for ultimate success by us in these efforts.

Quality and Efficiency of Services. Pressures to contain healthcare costs and technological developments allowing more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis have led payors to demand a shift to ambulatory or outpatient care wherever possible. We are responding to this trend by emphasizing the expansion of outpatient services. In addition, in response to cost containment pressures, we continue to implement programs at our facilities designed to improve financial performance and efficiency while continuing to provide quality care, including more efficient use of professional and paraprofessional staff, monitoring and adjusting staffing levels and equipment usage, improving patient management and reporting procedures and implementing more efficient billing and collection procedures. In addition, we will continue to emphasize innovation in our response to the rapid changes in regulatory trends and market conditions while fulfilling our commitment to patients, physicians, employees, communities and our stockholders.

In addition, our aggressive recruiting of highly qualified physicians and developing provider networks help to establish our facilities as an important source of quality healthcare in their respective communities.

Acquisition and Divestiture Activity:

Acquisitions:

During 2011, we paid approximately $29 million, excluding the assumption of $17 million of third-party debt, to: (i) acquire the real property of administrative/office buildings located in Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Washington, D.C.; (ii) fund a deposit in connection with execution of a definitive agreement, which is subject to regulatory approvals and closing conditions, to acquire the Knapp Medical Center, including a 226-bed acute care hospital, a surgery center, physician practices and other related assets located in Weslaco, Texas, and; (iii) purchase a cardiology practice in Texas.

Divestitures:

During 2011 and January of 2012, we received aggregate net cash proceeds of approximately $118 million for the sale of:

•

Hospital San Juan Capestrano, a 108-bed behavioral health facility located in Puerto Rico. The sale of this facility, which was completed in January, 2012, was made pursuant to our agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in connection with our acquisition of PSI;

•

Montevista Hospital (101-bed) and Red Rock Hospital (21-bed) located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The sales of these behavioral health facilities, which were completed during the fourth quarter of 2011, were made pursuant to our agreement with the FTC in connection with our acquisition of PSI;

•

Meadowood Behavioral Health System, a 58-bed behavioral health facility located in New Castle, Delaware. The sale of this facility, which was completed during the third quarter of 2011, was made pursuant to our agreement with the FTC in connection with our acquisition of PSI, and;

•

other dispositions during 2011 including the real property of a closed acute care hospital and the sale of our majority ownership interest in a radiation oncology center located in Nevada.

The aggregate net pre-tax gain on the above-mentioned divestitures (excluding the Hospital San Juan Capestrano which was divested in January, 2012) did not have a material impact on our 2011 consolidated results of operations. The pre-tax gain on the divestiture of the Hospital San Juan Capestrano, which will not have a material impact on our 2012 consolidated results of operations, will be reflected in our consolidated results of operations during the first quarter of 2012. The assets and liabilities for the Hospital San Juan Capestrano are reflected as “held for sale” on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2011.

The PSI Acquisition

In November, 2010, we acquired Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. for a total purchase price of $3.04 billion consisting of $1.96 billion in cash plus the assumption of approximately $1.08 billion of PSI’s debt, the majority of which has since been refinanced. PSI was formerly the largest operator of freestanding inpatient behavioral health care facilities operating a total of 105 inpatient and outpatient facilities in 32 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The facilities acquired by us, with an aggregate of approximately 11,500 licensed beds at the time of acqusition, offer an extensive continuum of behavioral health programs to critically ill children, adolescents and adults. We also acquired management contracts to manage freestanding behavioral health care inpatient facilities for government agencies and behavioral health units within certain medical/surgical hospitals owned by third-parties.

Combined with our previously existing behavioral health care operations located throughout the U.S., we believe this acquisition makes us the largest facility-based provider in the behavioral health care sector. Our increased operating scale may allow us to operate more efficiently and enhance our presence within certain

markets. We also achieved planned operating expense reductions during 2011 primarily through the elimination of PSI-related corporate overhead. This acquisition also helps diminish our geographic concentration in certain markets thereby diversifying our overall portfolio and reducing our reliance on one hospital or a cluster of hospitals in a certain market.

Hospital Utilization

We believe that the most important factors relating to the overall utilization of a hospital include the quality and market position of the hospital and the number, quality and specialties of physicians providing patient care within the facility. Generally, we believe that the ability of a hospital to meet the health care needs of its community is determined by its breadth of services, level of technology, emphasis on quality of care and convenience for patients and physicians. Other factors that affect utilization include general and local economic conditions, market penetration of managed care programs, the degree of outpatient use, the availability of reimbursement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and demographic changes such as the growth in local populations. Utilization across the industry also is being affected by improvements in clinical practice, medical technology and pharmacology. Current industry trends in utilization and occupancy have been significantly affected by changes in reimbursement policies of third party payors. We are also unable to predict the extent to which these industry trends will continue or accelerate. In addition, hospital operations are subject to certain seasonal fluctuations, such as higher patient volumes and net patient service revenues in the first and fourth quarters of the year.

The following table sets forth certain operating statistics for hospitals operated by us for the years indicated. Accordingly, information related to hospitals acquired during the five-year period has been included from the respective dates of acquisition, and information related to hospitals divested during the five year period has been included up to the respective dates of divestiture. Information related to the behavioral health care facilities acquired by us in connection with our acquisition of PSI is included for the period of November 16, 2010 through December 31, 2011, excluding the 3 former PSI facilities that are reflected as discontinued operations, as discussed herein. The licensed and available beds for those facilities are included in 2010 on a weighted average basis for the period owned.


	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Average Licensed Beds:
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		5,726			5,689			5,484			6,101			5,962
Behavioral Health Centers		19,280			9,427			7,921			7,658			7,348
Average Available Beds (2):
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		5,424			5,383			5,128			5,249			5,110
Behavioral Health Centers		19,262			9,409			7,901			7,629			7,315
Admissions:
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		258,754			264,470			265,244			268,207			262,147
Behavioral Health Centers		352,208			166,434			136,639			129,553			119,730
Average Length of Stay (Days):
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		4.4			4.4			4.4			4.5			4.5
Behavioral Health Centers		14.6			15.1			15.4			16.1			16.8
Patient Days (3):
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		1,151,183			1,155,984			1,166,704			1,200,672			1,172,130
Behavioral Health Centers		5,157,454			2,507,046			2,105,625			2,085,114			2,007,119
Occupancy Rate-Licensed Beds (4):
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		55	%		56	%		58	%		54	%		54	%
Behavioral Health Centers		73	%		73	%		73	%		74	%		75	%
Occupancy Rate-Available Beds (4):
Acute Care Hospitals (1)		58	%		59	%		62	%		62	%		63	%
Behavioral Health Centers		73	%		73	%		73	%		75	%		75	%

(1)	Central Montgomery Medical Center located in Pennsylvania was divested during the fourth quarter of 2008. The statistical information for this facility is included in the above information through the divestiture date.

(2)

“Average Available Beds” is the number of beds which are actually in service at any given time for immediate patient use with the necessary equipment and staff available for patient care. A hospital may have appropriate licenses for more beds than are in service for a number of reasons, including lack of demand, incomplete construction, and anticipation of future needs

(3)	“Patient Days” is the sum of all patients for the number of days that hospital care is provided to each patient.

(4)	“Occupancy Rate” is calculated by dividing average patient days (total patient days divided by the total number of days in the period) by the number of average beds, either available or licensed.

Sources of Revenue

We receive payments for services rendered from private insurers, including managed care plans, the federal government under the Medicare program, state governments under their respective Medicaid programs and directly from patients. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Sources of Revenue for additional disclosure. Other information related to our revenues, income and other operating information for each reporting segment of our business is provided in Note 11 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, Segment Reporting.

Regulation and Other Factors

Overview: The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws, regulations and rules including, among others, those related to government healthcare participation requirements, various licensure and accreditations, reimbursement for patient services, health information privacy and security rules, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse provisions (including, but not limited to, federal statutes and regulations prohibiting kickbacks and other illegal inducements to potential referral sources, false claims submitted to federal health care programs and self-referrals by physicians). Providers that are found to have violated any of these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to significant fines or penalties and/or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, no assurance can be given that we will not be subjected to additional governmental inquiries or actions, or that we would not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties if so subjected. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, a significant governmental inquiry or action under one of the above laws, regulations or rules could have a material adverse impact on us.

Licensing, Certification and Accreditation: All of our hospitals are subject to compliance with various federal, state and local statutes and regulations and receive periodic inspection by state licensing agencies to review standards of medical care, equipment and cleanliness. Our hospitals must also comply with the conditions of participation and licensing requirements of federal, state and local health agencies, as well as the requirements of municipal building codes, health codes and local fire departments. Various other licenses and permits are also required in order to dispense narcotics, operate pharmacies, handle radioactive materials and operate certain equipment.

All of our eligible hospitals have been accredited by the Joint Commission. All of our acute care hospitals and most of our behavioral health centers are certified as providers of Medicare and Medicaid services by the appropriate governmental authorities.

If any of our facilities were to lose its Joint Commission accreditation or otherwise lose its certification under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the facility may be unable to receive reimbursement from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and other payors. We believe our facilities are in substantial compliance with current applicable federal, state, local and independent review body regulations and standards. The requirements for licensure, certification and accreditation are subject to change and, in order to remain qualified, it may become necessary for us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel and services in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on operations.

Certificates of Need: Many of the states in which we operate hospitals have enacted certificates of need (“CON”) laws as a condition prior to hospital capital expenditures, construction, expansion, modernization or initiation of major new services. Failure to obtain necessary state approval can result in our inability to complete an acquisition, expansion or replacement, the imposition of civil or, in some cases, criminal sanctions, the inability to receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement or the revocation of a facility’s license, which could harm our business. In addition, significant CON reforms have been proposed in a number of states that would increase the capital spending thresholds and provide exemptions of various services from review requirements. In the past, we have not experienced any material adverse effects from those requirements, but we cannot predict the impact of these changes upon our operations.

Conversion Legislation: Many states have enacted or are considering enacting laws affecting the conversion or sale of not-for-profit hospitals to for-profit entities. These laws generally require prior approval from the attorney general, advance notification and community involvement. In addition, attorneys general in states without specific conversion legislation may exercise discretionary authority over these transactions. Although the level of government involvement varies from state to state, the trend is to provide for increased governmental review and, in some cases, approval of a transaction in which a not-for-profit entity sells a health care facility to a for-profit entity. The adoption of new or expanded conversion legislation and the increased review of not-for-profit hospital conversions may limit our ability to grow through acquisitions of not-for-profit hospitals.

Utilization Review: Federal regulations require that admissions and utilization of facilities by Medicare and Medicaid patients must be reviewed in order to ensure efficient utilization of facilities and services. The law and regulations require Peer Review Organizations (“PROs”) to review the appropriateness of Medicare and Medicaid patient admissions and discharges, the quality of care provided, the validity of diagnosis related group (“DRG”) classifications and the appropriateness of cases of extraordinary length of stay. PROs may deny payment for services provided, assess fines and also have the authority to recommend to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that a provider that is in substantial non-compliance with the standards of the PRO be excluded from participating in the Medicare program. We have contracted with PROs in each state where we do business to perform the required reviews.

Audits: Most hospitals are subject to federal audits to validate the accuracy of Medicare and Medicaid program submitted claims. If these audits identify overpayments, we could be required to pay a substantial rebate of prior years’ payments subject to various administrative appeal rights. The federal government contracts with third-party “recovery audit contractors” (“RACs”) and “Medicaid integrity contractors” (“MICs”), on a contingent fee basis, to audit the propriety of payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers. Permanent RAC audits were created by Section 302 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 and required the secretary to expand the program to all 50 states by no later than 2010. Similarly, Medicare zone program integrity contractors (“ZPICs”) target claims for potential fraud and abuse. Additionally, Medicare administrative contractors (“MACs”) must ensure they pay the right amount for covered and correctly coded services rendered to eligible beneficiaries by legitimate providers. We have undergone claims audits related to our receipt of federal healthcare payments during the last three years, the results of which have not required material adjustments to our consolidated results of operations. However, potential liability from future federal or state audits could ultimately exceed established reserves, and any excess could potentially be substantial. Further, Medicare and Medicaid regulations also provide for withholding Medicare and Medicaid overpayments in certain circumstances, which could adversely affect our cash flow.

Self-Referral and Anti-Kickback Legislation

The Stark Law: The Social Security Act includes a provision commonly known as the “Stark Law.” This law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients to entities with which they or any of their immediate family members have a financial relationship, unless an exception is met. These types of referrals are known as “self-referrals.” Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include civil penalties up to $15,000

for each violation, up to $100,000 for sham arrangements, up to $10,000 for each day an entity fails to report required information and exclusion from the federal health care programs. There are a number of exceptions to the self-referral prohibition, including an exception for a physician’s ownership interest in an entire hospital as opposed to an ownership interest in a hospital department unit, service or subpart. However, federal laws and regulations now limit the ability of hospitals relying on this exception to expand aggregate physician ownership interest or to expand certain hospital facilities. There are also exceptions for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including employment contracts, leases and recruitment agreements that adhere to certain enumerated requirements.

Anti-kickback Statute: A provision of the Social Security Act known as the “anti-kickback statute” prohibits healthcare providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying money or other remuneration to other individuals and entities in return for using, referring, ordering, recommending or arranging for such referrals or orders of services or other items covered by a federal or state health care program. However, recent changes to the anti-kickback statute have reduced the intent required for violation; one is no longer required to “have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of” the anti-kickback statute in order to be found guilty of violating such law.

The anti-kickback statute contains certain exceptions, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) has issued regulations that provide for “safe harbors,” from the federal anti-kickback statute for various activities. These activities, which must meet certain requirements, include (but are not limited to) the following: investment interests, space rental, equipment rental, practitioner recruitment, personnel services and management contracts, sale of practice, referral services, warranties, discounts, employees, group purchasing organizations, waiver of beneficiary coinsurance and deductible amounts, managed care arrangements, obstetrical malpractice insurance subsidies, investments in group practices, freestanding surgery centers, donation of technology for electronic health records and referral agreements for specialty services. The fact that conduct or a business arrangement does not fall within a safe harbor or exception does not automatically render the conduct or business arrangement illegal under the anti-kickback statute. However, such conduct and business arrangements may lead to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities.

Although we believe that our arrangements with physicians and other referral sources have been structured to comply with current law and available interpretations, there can be no assurance that all arrangements comply with an available safe harbor or that regulatory authorities enforcing these laws will determine these financial arrangements do not violate the anti-kickback statute or other applicable laws. Violations of the anti-kickback statute may be punished by a criminal fine of up to $25,000 for each violation or imprisonment, however, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3571, this fine may be increased to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations. Civil money penalties may include fines of up to $50,000 per violation and damages of up to three times the total amount of the remuneration and/or exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Similar State Laws: Many of the states in which we operate have adopted laws that prohibit payments to physicians in exchange for referrals similar to the anti-kickback statute and the Stark Law, some of which apply regardless of the source of payment for care. These statutes typically provide criminal and civil penalties as well as loss of licensure. In many instances, the state statutes provide that any arrangement falling in a federal safe harbor will be immune from scrutiny under the state statutes. However, in most cases, little precedent exists for the interpretation or enforcement of these state laws.

These laws and regulations are extremely complex and, in many cases, we don’t have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. It is possible that different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require

us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. A determination that we have violated one or more of these laws, or the public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of one or more of these laws (see “Legal Proceedings”), could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations and our business reputation could suffer significantly. In addition, we cannot predict whether other legislation or regulations at the federal or state level will be adopted, what form such legislation or regulations may take or what their impact on us may be.

If we are deemed to have failed to comply with the anti-kickback statute, the Stark Law or other applicable laws and regulations, we could be subjected to liabilities, including criminal penalties, civil penalties (including the loss of our licenses to operate one or more facilities), and exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs. The imposition of such penalties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Federal False Claims Act and Similar State Regulations: A current trend affecting the health care industry is the increased use of the federal False Claims Act, and, in particular, actions being brought by individuals on the government’s behalf under the False Claims Act’s qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions. Whistleblower provisions allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government by alleging that the defendant has defrauded the Federal government.

When a defendant is determined by a court of law to have violated the False Claims Act, the defendant may be liable for up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $5,500 to $11,000 for each separate false claim. There are many potential bases for liability under the False Claims Act. Liability often arises when an entity knowingly submits a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) has expanded the number of actions for which liability may attach under the False Claims Act, eliminating requirements that false claims be presented to federal officials or directly involve federal funds. FERA also clarifies that a false claim violation occurs upon the knowing retention, as well as the receipt, of overpayments. In addition, recent changes to the anti-kickback statute have made violations of that law punishable under the civil False Claims Act. Further, a number of states have adopted their own false claims provisions as well as their own whistleblower provisions whereby a private party may file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the state in state court.

Other Fraud and Abuse Provisions: The Social Security Act also imposes criminal and civil penalties for submitting false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. False claims include, but are not limited to, billing for services not rendered, billing for services without prescribed documentation, misrepresenting actual services rendered in order to obtain higher reimbursement and cost report fraud. Like the anti-kickback statute, these provisions are very broad.

Further, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) broadened the scope of the fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for health care fraud offenses that apply to all health benefit programs, whether or not payments under such programs are paid pursuant to federal programs. HIPAA also introduced enforcement mechanisms to prevent fraud and abuse in Medicare. There are civil penalties for prohibited conduct, including, but not limited to billing for medically unnecessary products or services.

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy Requirements: The administrative simplification provisions of HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for health care claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the health care industry. HIPAA also established federal rules protecting the privacy and security of personal health information. The privacy and security regulations address the use and disclosure of individual health care information and the rights of patients to understand and control how such information is used and disclosed. Violations of HIPAA can result in both criminal and civil fines and penalties.

Compliance with the electronic data transmission standards became mandatory in October 2003. However, during the following year, HHS agreed to allow providers and other electronic billers to continue to submit pre-HIPAA format electronic claims for periods after October 16, 2003, provided they can show good faith efforts to become HIPAA compliant. Since this exception expired, we believe that we have been in compliance with the electronic data transmission standards.

We were required to comply with the privacy requirements of HIPAA by April 14, 2003. We believe that we were in material compliance with the privacy regulations by that date and remain so, as we continue to develop training and revise procedures to address ongoing compliance. The HIPAA security regulations require health care providers to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of patient information. HITECH has since strengthened certain HIPAA rules regarding the use and disclosure of protected health information, extended certain HIPAA provisions to business associates, and created new security breach notification requirements. HITECH has also extended the ability to impose civil money penalties on providers not knowing that a HIPAA violation has occurred. We were required to comply with the security regulations by April 20, 2005 and believe that we have been in substantial compliance with HIPAA and HITECH requirements to date.

Red Flags Rule: In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Red Flags Rule requires financial institutions and businesses maintaining accounts to address the risk of identity theft. The Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, signed on December 18, 2010, appears to exclude certain healthcare providers from the Red Flags Rule, but permits the FTC or relevant agencies to designate additional creditors subject to the Red Flags Rule through future rulemaking if the agencies determine that the person in question maintains accounts subject to foreseeable risk of identity theft. Compliance with any such future rulemaking may require additional expenditures in the future.

Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005: On July 29, 2005, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 was enacted, which has the goal of reducing medical errors and increasing patient safety. This legislation establishes a confidential reporting structure in which providers can voluntarily report “Patient Safety Work Product” (“PSWP”) to “Patient Safety Organizations” (“PSOs”). Under the system, PSWP is made privileged, confidential and legally protected from disclosure. PSWP does not include medical, discharge or billing records or any other original patient or provider records but does include information gathered specifically in connection with the reporting of medical errors and improving patient safety. This legislation does not preempt state or federal mandatory disclosure laws concerning information that does not constitute PSWP. PSOs are certified by the Secretary of the HHS for three-year periods and analyze PSWP, provide feedback to providers and may report non-identifiable PSWP to a database. In addition, PSOs are expected to generate patient safety improvement strategies.

Environmental Regulations: Our healthcare operations generate medical waste that must be disposed of in compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws, rules and regulations. Infectious waste generators, including hospitals, face substantial penalties for improper disposal of medical waste, including civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of noncompliance, criminal penalties of up to $50,000 per day, imprisonment, and remedial costs. In addition, our operations, as well as our purchases and sales of facilities are subject to various other environmental laws, rules and regulations. We believe that our disposal of such wastes is in material compliance with all state and federal laws.

Corporate Practice of Medicine: Several states, including Florida, Nevada, California and Texas, have laws and/or regulations that prohibit corporations and other entities from employing physicians and practicing medicine for a profit or that prohibit certain direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements between health care providers that are designed to induce or encourage the referral of patients to, or the recommendation of, particular providers for medical products and services. Possible sanctions for violation of these restrictions include loss of license and civil and criminal penalties. In addition, agreements between the corporation and the physician may be considered void and unenforceable. These statutes and/or regulations vary from state to state,

are often vague and have seldom been interpreted by the courts or regulatory agencies. We do not expect these state corporate practice of medicine proscriptions to significantly affect our operations. Many states have laws and regulations which prohibit payments for referral of patients and fee-splitting with physicians. We do not make any such payments or have any such arrangements.

EMTALA: All of our hospitals are subject to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). This federal law generally requires hospitals that are certified providers under Medicare to conduct a medical screening examination of every person who visits the hospital’s emergency room for treatment and, if the patient is suffering from a medical emergency, to either stabilize the patient’s condition or transfer the patient to a facility that can better handle the condition. Our obligation to screen and stabilize emergency medical conditions exists regardless of a patient’s ability to pay for treatment. There are severe penalties under EMTALA if a hospital fails to screen or appropriately stabilize or transfer a patient or if the hospital delays appropriate treatment in order to first inquire about the patient’s ability to pay. Penalties for violations of EMTALA include civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in the Medicare program. In addition to any liabilities that a hospital may incur under EMTALA, an injured patient, the patient’s family or a medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result of another hospital’s violation of the law can bring a civil suit against the hospital unrelated to the rights granted under that statute.

The federal government broadly interprets EMTALA to cover situations in which patients do not actually present to a hospital’s emergency room, but present for emergency examination or treatment to the hospital’s campus, generally, or to a hospital-based clinic that treats emergency medical conditions or are transported in a hospital-owned ambulance, subject to certain exceptions. EMTALA does not generally apply to patients admitted for inpatient services; however, CMS has recently sought industry comments on the potential applicability of EMTALA to hospital inpatients and the responsibilities of hospitals with specialized capabilities, respectively. The government also has expressed its intent to investigate and enforce EMTALA violations actively in the future. We believe that we operate in substantial compliance with EMTALA.

Health Care Industry Investigations: 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 and litigation. Please see Item 3. Legal Proceedings included herein for additional disclosure. In addition, currently, and from time to time, some of our facilities are subjected to inquiries and/or actions and receive notices of potential non-compliance of laws and regulations from various federal and state agencies. Providers that are found to have violated these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure, certification, and/or accreditation revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services.

We monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigation or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with industry practices, including ours. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, no assurance can be given that we will not be subjected to inquiries or actions, or that we will not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties in connection with the investigations. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, the government’s inquiry and/or action in connection with these matters could have a material adverse effect on our future operating results.

Our substantial Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental billings may result in heightened scrutiny of our operations. It is possible that governmental entities could initiate additional investigations or litigation in the future and that such matters could result in significant penalties as well as adverse publicity. It is also possible that our executives and/or managers could be included as targets or witnesses in governmental investigations or litigation and/or named as defendants in private litigation.

Revenue Rulings 98-15 and 2004-51: In March 1998 and May 2004, the IRS issued guidance regarding the tax consequences of joint ventures between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. As a result of the tax rulings, the IRS has proposed, and may in the future propose, to revoke the tax-exempt or public charity status of certain not-for-profit entities which participate in such joint ventures or to treat joint venture income as unrelated business taxable income to them. The tax rulings have limited development of joint ventures and any adverse determination by the IRS or the courts regarding the tax-exempt or public charity status of a not-for-profit partner or the characterization of joint venture income as unrelated business taxable income could further limit joint venture development with not-for-profit hospitals, and/or require the restructuring of certain existing joint ventures with not-for-profits.

State Rate Review: Some states where we operate hospitals have adopted legislation mandating rate or budget review for hospitals or have adopted taxes on hospital revenues, assessments or licensure fees to fund indigent health care within the state. In the aggregate, state rate reviews and indigent tax provisions have not materially, adversely affected our results of operations.

Medical Malpractice Tort Law Reform: Medical malpractice tort law has historically been maintained at the state level. All states have laws governing medical liability lawsuits. Over half of the states have limits on damages awards. Almost all states have eliminated joint and several liability in malpractice lawsuits, and many states have established limits on attorney fees. Recently, many states had bills introduced in their legislative sessions to address medical malpractice tort reform. Proposed solutions include enacting limits on non-economic damages, malpractice insurance reform, and gathering lawsuit claims data from malpractice insurance companies and the courts for the purpose of assessing the connection between malpractice settlements and premium rates. Reform legislation has also been proposed, but not adopted, at the federal level that could preempt additional state legislation in this area.

Compliance Program: Our company-wide compliance program has been in place since 1998. Currently, the program’s elements include a Code of Conduct, risk area specific policies and procedures, employee education and training, an internal system for reporting concerns, auditing and monitoring programs, and a means for enforcing the program’s policies.

Since its initial adoption, the compliance program continues to be expanded and developed to meet the industry’s expectations and our needs. Specific written policies, procedures, training and educational materials and programs, as well as auditing and monitoring activities have been prepared and implemented to address the functional and operational aspects of our business. Specific areas identified through regulatory interpretation and enforcement activities have also been addressed in our program. Claims preparation and submission, including coding, billing, and cost reports, comprise the bulk of these areas. Financial arrangements with physicians and other referral sources, including compliance with anti-kickback and Stark laws and emergency department treatment and transfer requirements are also the focus of policy and training, standardized documentation requirements, and review and audit.

Medical Staff and Employees

Our facilities had approximately 65,400 employees on December 31, 2011, of whom approximately 46,500 were employed full-time. Our hospitals are staffed by licensed physicians who have been admitted to the medical staff of individual hospitals. Typically, physicians are not employees of our hospitals and in a number of our markets may have admitting privileges at other hospitals in addition to ours. Within our acute care division, approximately 100 physicians are employed either directly by certain of our facilities or affiliated by group practices structured as 501A corporations. Members of the medical staffs of our hospitals also serve on the medical staffs of hospitals not owned by us and may terminate their affiliation with our hospitals at any time. In addition, we employ approximately 350 psychiatrists within our behavioral health division. Each of our hospitals are managed on a day-to-day basis by a managing director employed by us. In addition, a Board of Governors, including members of the hospital’s medical staff, governs the medical, professional and ethical practices at each hospital.

Approximately 2,100 of our employees at seven of our hospitals are unionized. At Valley Hospital Medical Center, unionized employees belong to the Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). Nurses and technicians at Desert Springs Hospital are represented by the SEIU. Registered nurses at Auburn Regional Medical Center located in Washington are represented by the United Staff Nurses Union, the technical employees are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the service employees are represented by the SEIU. At The George Washington University Hospital, unionized employees are represented by the SEIU or the Hospital Police Association. Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, certain technicians and therapists, pharmacy assistants, and some clerical employees at HRI Hospital in Boston are represented by the SEIU. At Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital, unionized employees are represented by the Teamsters and the Northwestern Nurses Association/Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals. We believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.

Competition

The health care industry is highly competitive. In recent years, competition among healthcare providers for patients has intensified in the United States due to, among other things, regulatory and technological changes, increasing use of managed care payment systems, cost containment pressures and a shift toward outpatient treatment. In all of the geographical areas in which we operate, there are other hospitals that provide services comparable to those offered by our hospitals. In addition, some of our competitors include hospitals that are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or by nonprofit corporations and may be supported by endowments and charitable contributions and exempt from property, sale and income taxes. Such exemptions and support are not available to us.

In some markets, certain of our competitors may have greater financial resources, be better equipped and offer a broader range of services than us. Certain hospitals that are located in the areas served by our facilities are specialty or large hospitals that provide medical, surgical and behavioral health services, facilities and equipment that are not available at our hospitals. The increase in outpatient treatment and diagnostic facilities, outpatient surgical centers and freestanding ambulatory surgical also increases competition for us.

The number and quality of the physicians on a hospital’s staff are important factors in determining a hospital’s success and competitive advantage. Typically, physicians are responsible for making hospital admissions decisions and for directing the course of patient treatment. We believe that physicians refer patients to a hospital primarily on the basis of the patient’s needs, the quality of other physicians on the medical staff, the location of the hospital and the breadth and scope of services offered at the hospital’s facilities. We strive to retain and attract qualified doctors by maintaining high ethical and professional standards and providing adequate support personnel, technologically advanced equipment and facilities that meet the needs of those physicians.

In addition, we depend on the efforts, abilities, and experience of our medical support personnel, including our nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians and other health care professionals. We compete with other health care providers in recruiting and retaining qualified hospital management, nurses and other medical personnel. Our acute care and behavioral health care facilities are experiencing the effects of a shortage of skilled nursing staff nationwide, which has caused and may continue to cause an increase in salaries, wages and benefits expense in excess of the inflation rate. In addition, in some markets like California, there are requirements to maintain specified nurse-staffing levels. To the extent we cannot meet those levels, we may by required to limit the healthcare services provided in these markets which would have a corresponding adverse effect on our net operating revenues.

Many states in which we operate hospitals have CON laws. The application process for approval of additional covered services, new facilities, changes in operations and capital expenditures is, therefore, highly competitive in these states. In those states that do not have CON laws or which set relatively high levels of expenditures before they become reviewable by state authorities, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. See “Regulation and Other Factors.”

Our ability to negotiate favorable service contracts with purchasers of group health care services also affects our competitive position and significantly affects the revenues and operating results of our hospitals. Managed care plans attempt to direct and control the use of hospital services and to demand that we accept lower rates of payment. In addition, employers and traditional health insurers are increasingly interested in containing costs through negotiations with hospitals for managed care programs and discounts from established charges. In return, hospitals secure commitments for a larger number of potential patients. Generally, hospitals compete for service contracts with group health care service purchasers on the basis of price, market reputation, geographic location, quality and range of services, quality of the medical staff and convenience. The importance of obtaining contracts with managed care organizations varies from market to market depending on the market strength of such organizations.

A key element of our growth strategy is expansion through the acquisition of additional hospitals in select markets. The competition to acquire hospitals is significant. We face competition for acquisition candidates primarily from other for-profit health care companies, as well as from not-for-profit entities. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we do. We intend to selectively seek opportunities to expand our base of operations by adhering to our disciplined program of rational growth, but may not be successful in accomplishing acquisitions on favorable terms.

Relationship with Universal Health Realty Income Trust

At December 31, 2011, we held approximately 6.2% of the outstanding shares of Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the “Trust”). We serve as Advisor to the Trust under an annually renewable advisory agreement pursuant to the terms of which we conduct the Trust’s day-to-day affairs, provide administrative services and present investment opportunities. In addition, certain of our officers and directors are also officers and/or directors of the Trust. Management believes that it has the ability to exercise significant influence over the Trust, therefore we account for our investment in the Trust using the equity method of accounting. We earned an advisory fee from the Trust, which is included in net revenues in the accompanying consolidated statements of income, of approximately $2.0 million during 2011, $1.8 million during 2010 and $1.6 million during 2009.

Our pre-tax share of income from the Trust was $4.6 million during 2011, $1.0 million during 2010 and $1.1 million during 2009, and is included in net revenues in the accompanying consolidated statements of income for each year. Included in our share of the Trust’s income for 2011 was approximately $3.7 million related to our share of the following: (i) an aggregate gain realized by the Trust during 2011 in connection with the sale of medical office buildings by various limited liability companies (“LLCs”) in which the Trust formerly held noncontrolling, majority ownership interests; (ii) an aggregate gain recorded by the Trust during 2011 in connection with its purchases of third-party minority ownership interests in various LLCs in which the Trust formerly held noncontrolling majority ownership interests (the Trust now owns 100% of each of these entities), partially offset by; (iii) a provision for asset impairment recorded by the Trust during 2011 in connection with a medical office building located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The carrying value of our investment in the Trust was $9.9 million and $7.3 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and is included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The market value of our investment in the Trust was $30.7 million at December 31, 2011 and $28.8 million at December 31, 2010, based on the closing price of the Trust’s stock on the respective dates.

Total rent expense under the operating leases on the four hospital facilities with the Trust (as discussed below) was $16.3 million during 2011, $16.2 million during 2010 and $16.3 million during 2009. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries are tenants in several medical office buildings owned by limited liability companies in which the Trust holds either 100% of the ownership interest or various noncontrolling, majority ownership interests.

The Trust commenced operations in 1986 by purchasing certain properties from us and immediately leasing the properties back to our respective subsidiaries. Most of the leases were entered into at the time the Trust commenced operations and provided for initial terms of 13 to 15 years with up to six additional 5-year renewal

terms. Each lease also provided for additional or bonus rental, as discussed below. The base rents are paid monthly and the bonus rents are computed and paid on a quarterly basis, based upon a computation that compares current quarter revenue to a corresponding quarter in the base year. The leases with our subsidiaries are unconditionally guaranteed by us and are cross-defaulted with one another.

Pursuant to the terms of the leases with the Trust, we have the option to renew the leases at the lease terms described above by providing notice to the Trust at least 90 days prior to the termination of the then current term. In addition, we have rights of first refusal to: (i) purchase the respective leased facilities during and for 180 days after the lease terms at the same price, terms and conditions of any third-party offer, or; (ii) renew the lease on the respective leased facility at the end of, and for 180 days after, the lease term at the same terms and conditions pursuant to any third-party offer. We also have the right to purchase the respective leased facilities at the end of the lease terms or any renewal terms at their appraised fair market value as well as purchase any or all of the four leased hospital properties at their appraised fair market value upon one month’s notice should a change of control of the Trust occur.

On May 19, 2011, certain of our subsidiaries provided the required notice to the Trust exercising the 5-year renewal options on McAllen Medical Center, Wellington Regional Medical Center and Southwest Healthcare System, Inland Valley Campus which extended the lease terms to December, 2016.

The table below details the renewal options and terms for each of our four hospital facilities leased from the Trust, giving effect to the above-mentioned renewals:

Hospital Name

Type of Facility

Annual
Minimum
Rent

End of Lease Term

Renewal
Term
(years)

McAllen Medical Center

Acute Care

5,485,000

December, 2016

(a)

Wellington Regional Medical Center

Acute Care

3,030,000

December, 2016

(b)

Southwest Healthcare System, Inland Valley Campus

Acute Care

2,648,000

December, 2016

(b)

The Bridgeway

Behavioral Health

930,000

December, 2014

(c)

(a)	We have three 5-year renewal options at existing lease rates (through 2031).

(b)	We have one 5-year renewal options at existing lease rates (through 2021) and two 5-year renewal options at fair market value lease rates (2022 through 2031).

(c)	We have two 5-year renewal options at fair market value lease rates (2015 through 2024).

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The executive officers, whose terms will expire at such time as their successors are elected, are as follows:


Name and Age		Present Position with the Company
Alan B. Miller (74)		Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Marc D. Miller (41)		President and Director

Steve G. Filton (54)		Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

Debra K. Osteen (56)		Senior Vice President, President of Behavioral Health Care Division

Marvin G. Pember (58)		Senior Vice President, President of Acute Care Division

Mr. Alan B. Miller has been Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer since inception and also served as President from inception until May, 2009. Prior thereto, he was President, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of American Medicorp, Inc. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Universal Health Realty Income Trust. Mr. Miller also serves as a Director of Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company. He is the father of Marc D. Miller, President and Director.

Mr. Marc D. Miller was elected President in May, 2009 and prior thereto served as Senior Vice President and co-head of our Acute Care Hospitals since 2007. He was elected a Director in May, 2006 and Vice President in 2005. He has served in various capacities related to our acute care division since 2000. He was elected to the Board of Trustees of Universal Health Realty Income Trust in December, 2008. He is the son of Alan B. Miller, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Filton was elected Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in 2003 and he was elected Secretary in 1999. He had served as Vice President and Controller since 1991 and Director of Corporate Accounting since 1985.

Ms. Osteen was elected Senior Vice President in 2005 and serves as President of our Behavioral Health Care Division. She was elected Vice President in 2000 and has served in various capacities related to our Behavioral Health Care facilities since 1984.

Mr. Pember commenced employment with us in August, 2011 and serves as President of our Acute Care Division. He was formerly employed for 12 years at Indiana University Health, Inc. (formerly known as Clarian Health Partners, Inc.), a nonprofit hospital system that operates 16 facilities in Indiana, where he served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

ITEM 1A.

Risk Factors

We are subject to numerous known and unknown risks, many of which are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Any of the events described below could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are not aware of, or that we currently deem to be immaterial, could also impact our business and results of operations.

A significant portion of our revenue is produced by facilities located in Nevada, Texas and California.

Nevada: We own 6 acute care hospitals and 4 behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties (we owned two additional behavioral health facilities which were acquired by us from PSI in November, 2010 before the facilities were divested during the third and fourth quarters of 2011 pursuant to our agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, as discussed herein). On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 18% in 2011, 23% in 2010 and 24% in 2009 of our consolidated net revenues. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 11% in 2011, 15% in 2010 and 14% in 2009 of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Texas: We own 8 acute care hospitals and 14 behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 18% in 2011, 19% in 2010 and 20% in 2009 of our consolidated net revenues. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 14% in 2011, 15% in 2010 and 16% in 2009 of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

California: We own 4 acute care hospitals and 15 behavioral healthcare facilities as listed in Item 2. Properties. On a combined basis, these facilities contributed 10% of our consolidated net revenues during each of 2011, 2010 and 2009. On a combined basis, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, these facilities generated 5% in 2011, 4% in 2010 and 5% in 2009 of our income from operations after net income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

The significant portion of our revenues and earnings derived from these facilities makes us particularly sensitive to legislative, regulatory, economic, environmental and competition changes in Nevada, Texas and California. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, environmental or competitive conditions in these states could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business results.

Our revenues and results of operations are significantly affected by payments received from the government and other third party payors.

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from third-party payors, 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, the substantial 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. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by government payors are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

We receive Medicaid revenues in excess of $100 million annually from each of Texas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and Washington, D.C., making us particularly sensitive to reductions in Medicaid and other state based revenue programs (which have been implemented in various forms with respect to our areas of operation in the respective 2012 state fiscal years) as well as regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive changes in those states. In the states in which we operate, based upon the state budgets for the 2012 fiscal year (which generally began at various times during the second half of 2011), we estimate that, on a blended basis, our aggregate Medicaid rates have been reduced by approximately 3% to 4% (or approximately $45 million to $55 million annually) from the average rates in effect during the states’ 2011 fiscal years (which generally ended during the third quarter of 2011). Our consolidated results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 include the pro rata portion of these Medicaid rate reductions. We can provide no assurance that further reductions to Medicaid revenues (which have been proposed in certain states for fiscal year 2013), particularly in the above-mentioned states, will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations.

In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, our ability to negotiate favorable contracts with private payors, including managed care providers, significantly affects the revenues and operating results of our hospitals. Private payors, including managed care providers, increasingly are demanding that we accept lower rates of payment.

We expect continued third-party efforts to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and cost controls. Reductions in reimbursement amounts received from third-party payors could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and our results of operations.

A worsening of the economic and employment conditions in the United States could materially affect our business and future results of operations.

Our patient volumes, revenues and financial results depend significantly on the universe of patients with health insurance, which to a large extent is dependent on the employment status of individuals in our markets. A continuation or worsening of economic conditions may result in a continued increase in the unemployment rate which will likely increase the number of individuals without health insurance. As a result, our facilities may experience a decrease in patient volumes, particularly in less intense, more elective service lines, or a significant increase in services provided to uninsured patients. These factors could have a material unfavorable impact on our future patient volumes, revenues and operating results.

Our patient revenues and payor mix during the last few years were adversely affected by economic conditions, particularly in certain markets, such as Nevada, Texas and California, where a significant portion of our revenues are concentrated and unemployment rates remain high. In our acute care business, we experienced net revenue pressures caused primarily by declining commercial payor utilization and an increase in the number

of uninsured and underinsured patients treated at our facilities. We can provide no assurance that these trends will not continue. During 2011, our revenues and payor mix within our acute care operations have been volatile making it difficult to predict the results for 2012 or thereafter.

In addition, we recorded approximately $1.92 billion of goodwill as a result of our acquisition of PSI in November, 2010, and, as of December 31, 2011, we had approximately $2.63 billion of goodwill recorded on our consolidated balance sheet. Should the revenues and financial results of our acute care and/or behavioral health care facilities be materially, unfavorably impacted due to, among other things, a worsening of the economic and employment conditions in the United States that could negatively impact our patient volumes and reimbursement rates, a continued rise in the unemployment rate and continued increases in the number of uninsured patients treated at our facilities, we may incur future charges to recognize impairment in the carrying value of our goodwill and other intangible assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Reductions or changes in Medicare funding could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations.

On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “2011 Act”) was enacted into law. The 2011 Act imposed annual spending limits for most federal agencies and programs aimed at reducing budget deficits by $917 billion between 2012 and 2021, according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office. The 2011 Act provides for new spending on program integrity initiatives intended to reduce fraud and abuse under the Medicare program. Among its other provisions, the law established a bipartisan Congressional committee, known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Joint Committee”), which was tasked with making recommendations aimed at reducing future federal budget deficits by an additional $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Joint Committee was unable to reach an agreement by the November 23, 2011 deadline and, as a result, across-the-board cuts to discretionary, national defense and Medicare spending were implemented which, if triggered, would result in Medicare payment reductions of up to 2% per fiscal year with a uniform percentage reduction across all Medicare programs starting in 2013. We cannot predict whether Congress will attempt to suspend or restructure the automatic budget cuts or what other deficit reduction initiatives may be proposed by Congress.

We are subject to uncertainties regarding health care reform.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “PPACA”). The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Reconciliation Act”), which contains a number of amendments to the PPACA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. Two primary goals of the PPACA, combined with the Reconciliation Act (collectively referred to as the “Legislation”), are to provide for increased access to coverage for healthcare and to reduce healthcare-related expenses.

Although it is expected that as a result of the Legislation there may be a reduction in uninsured patients, which should 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 provides for decreases in the annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the market basket update beginning October 1, 2011 for Medicare Part B reimbursable items and services and beginning October 1, 2012 for Medicare inpatient hospital services. The Legislation will reduce Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share payments beginning in 2014, which would adversely impact the reimbursement we receive under these programs. 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 may include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates.

The various provisions in the Legislation that directly or indirectly affect reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years. Legislation provisions are likely to be affected by the incomplete nature of implementing regulations or expected forthcoming interpretive guidance, gradual implementation, future legislation, and possible judicial nullification of all or certain provisions of the Legislation. Further Legislation provisions, such as those creating the Medicare Shared Savings Program and the Independent Payment Advisory Board, create certain flexibilities in how healthcare may be reimbursed by federal programs in the future. Thus, we cannot predict the impact of the Legislation on our future reimbursement at this time.

The Legislation also contains provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amends 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 guilty of violating 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 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.

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, effective immediately, 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.

The impact of the Legislation on each of our hospitals may vary. Because Legislation provisions are effective at various times over the next several years, we anticipate that many of the provisions in the Legislation may be subject to further revision or judicial nullification. Moreover, a number of state attorneys general are challenging the legality of certain aspects of the Legislation. Currently, rulings in separate Federal District Courts regarding the constitutionality of the Legislation have been split. These decisions are in the process of being appealed to the United States Supreme Court. We cannot predict the impact the Legislation may have on our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity, the ultimate outcome of the judicial rulings or whether we will be able to successfully adapt to the changes required by the Legislation.

We are required to treat patients with emergency medical conditions regardless of ability to pay.

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 recently sought stakeholder comments concerning the potential applicability of EMTALA to hospital inpatients and the responsibilities of hospitals with specialized capabilities, respectively. 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.

If we are not able to provide high quality medical care at a reasonable price, patients may choose to receive their health care from our competitors.

In recent years, the number of quality measures that hospitals are required to report publicly has increased. CMS publishes performance data related to quality measures and data on patient satisfaction surveys that hospitals submit in connection with the Medicare program. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Additionally, the Legislation requires all hospitals to annually establish, update and make public a list of their standard charges for products and services. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results on the quality measures or patient satisfaction surveys (or results that are lower than our competitors) or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, our patient volume could decline because patients may elect to use competing hospitals or other health care providers that have better metrics and pricing. This circumstance could harm our business and results of operations.

An increase in uninsured and underinsured patients in our acute care facilities or the deterioration in the collectability of the accounts of such patients could harm our results of operations.

Collection of receivables from third-party payors and patients is our primary source of cash and is critical to our operating performance. Our primary collection risks relate to uninsured patients and the portion of the bill that is the patient’s responsibility, which primarily includes co-payments and deductibles. However, we also have substantial receivables due to us as of December 31, 2011 (a significant portion of which is past due) from certain state-based funding programs, most particularly Illinois. We estimate our provisions for doubtful accounts based on general factors such as payor mix, the agings of the receivables, historical collection experience and assessment of probability of future collections. We routinely review accounts receivable balances in conjunction with these factors and other economic conditions that might ultimately affect the collectability of the patient accounts and make adjustments to our allowances as warranted. Significant changes in business office operations, payor mix, economic conditions or trends in federal and state governmental health coverage could affect our collection of accounts receivable, cash flow and results of operations. If we experience unexpected increases in the growth of uninsured and underinsured patients or in bad debt expenses, our results of operations will be harmed.

Our hospitals face competition for patients from other hospitals and health care providers.

The healthcare industry is highly competitive, and competition among hospitals, and other healthcare providers for patients and physicians has intensified in recent years. In all of the geographical areas in which we operate, there are other hospitals that provide services comparable to those offered by our hospitals. Some of our competitors include hospitals that are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or by nonprofit corporations and may be supported by endowments and charitable contributions and exempt from property, sales and income taxes. Such exemptions and support are not available to us.

In some markets, certain of our competitors may have greater financial resources, be better equipped and offer a broader range of services than we. The number of inpatient facilities, as well as outpatient surgical and diagnostic centers, many of which are fully or partially owned by physicians, in the geographic areas in which we operate has increased significantly. As a result, most of our hospitals operate in an increasingly competitive environment.

If our competitors are better able to attract patients, recruit physicians and other healthcare professionals, expand services or obtain favorable managed care contracts at their facilities, we may experience a decline in patient volume and our business may be harmed.

Our performance depends on our ability to recruit and retain quality physicians.

Typically, physicians are responsible for making hospital admissions decisions and for directing the course of patient treatment. As a result, the success and competitive advantage of our hospitals depends, in part, on the number and quality of the physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals, the admitting practices of those physicians and our maintenance of good relations with those physicians. Physicians generally are not employees

of our hospitals, and, in a number of our markets, physicians have admitting privileges at other hospitals in addition to our hospitals. They may terminate their affiliation with us at any time. If we are unable to provide high ethical and professional standards, adequate support personnel and technologically advanced equipment and facilities that meet the needs of those physicians, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities and our results of operations may decline.

It may become difficult for us to attract and retain an adequate number of physicians to practice in certain of the non-urban communities in which our hospitals are located. Our failure to recruit physicians to these communities or the loss of physicians in these communities could make it more difficult to attract patients to our hospitals and thereby may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Generally, the top ten attending physicians within each of our facilities represent a large share of our inpatient revenues and admissions. The loss of one or more of these physicians, even if temporary, could cause a material reduction in our revenues, which could take significant time to replace given the difficulty and cost associated with recruiting and retaining physicians.

If we do not continually enhance our hospitals with the most recent technological advances in diagnostic and surgical equipment, our ability to maintain and expand our markets will be adversely affected.

The technology used in medical equipment and related devices is constantly evolving and, as a result, manufacturers and distributors continue to offer new and upgraded products to health care providers. To compete effectively, we must continually assess our equipment needs and upgrade when significant technological advances occur. If our facilities do not stay current with technological advances in the health care industry, patients may seek treatment from other providers and/or physicians may refer their patients to alternate sources, which could adversely affect our results of operations and harm our business.

If we fail to effectively and timely implement electronic health record systems, our operations could be harmed.

As required by HITECH, we are in the process of developing and implementing an incentive payment program for eligible hospitals and health care professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record technology. If our facilities or physicians are unable to meet the requirements for participation in the incentive payment program, we will not be eligible to receive incentive payments that could offset some of the costs of implementing an electronic health record system. Further, beginning in federal fiscal year 2015, eligible hospitals and professionals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology will be subject to reduced payments from Medicare. Any failure by us to effectively implement an electronic health record system in a timely manner could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our performance depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified nurses and medical support staff and we face competition for staffing that may increase our labor costs and harm our results of operations.

We depend on the efforts, abilities, and experience of our medical support personnel, including our nurses, pharmacists and lab technicians and other healthcare professionals. We compete with other healthcare providers in recruiting and retaining qualified hospital management, nurses and other medical personnel.

The nationwide shortage of nurses and other medical support personnel has been a significant operating issue facing us and other healthcare providers. This shortage may require us to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain nurses and other medical support personnel or require us to hire expensive temporary personnel. In addition, in some markets like California, there are requirements to maintain specified nurse-staffing levels. To the extent we cannot meet those levels, we may be required to limit the healthcare services provided in these markets, which would have a corresponding adverse effect on our net operating revenues.

We cannot predict the degree to which we will be affected by the future availability or cost of attracting and retaining talented medical support staff. If our general labor and related expenses increase, we may not be able to

raise our rates correspondingly. Our failure to either recruit and retain qualified hospital management, nurses and other medical support personnel or control our labor costs could harm our results of operations.

If we fail to comply with extensive laws and government regulations, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations that could reduce our revenue and profitability.

The healthcare industry is required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things: hospital billing practices and prices for services; relationships with physicians and other referral sources; adequacy of medical care and quality of medical equipment and services; ownership of facilities; qualifications of medical and support personnel; confidentiality, maintenance, privacy and security issues associated with health-related information and patient medical records; the screening, stabilization and transfer of patients who have emergency medical conditions; certification, licensure and accreditation of our facilities; operating policies and procedures, and; construction or expansion of facilities and services.

Among these laws are the federal False Claims Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, the federal anti-kickback statute and the provision of the Social Security Act commonly known as the “Stark Law.” These laws, and particularly the anti-kickback statute and the Stark Law, impact the relationships that we may have with physicians and other referral sources. We have a variety of financial relationships with physicians who refer patients to our facilities, including employment contracts, leases and professional service agreements. We also provide financial incentives, including minimum revenue guarantees, to recruit physicians into communities served by our hospitals. The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or OIG, has enacted safe harbor regulations that outline practices that are deemed protected from prosecution under the anti-kickback statute. A number of our current arrangements, including financial relationships with physicians and other referral sources, may not qualify for safe harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute. Failure to meet a safe harbor does not mean that the arrangement necessarily violates the anti-kickback statute, but may subject the arrangement to greater scrutiny. We cannot assure that practices that are outside of a safe harbor will not be found to violate the anti-kickback statute. CMS recently published a Medicare self-referral disclosure protocol, which is intended to allow providers to self-disclose actual or potential violations of the Stark law. Because there are only a few judicial decisions interpreting the Stark law, there can be no assurance that our hospitals will not be found in violation of the Stark law or that self-disclosure of a potential violation would result in reduced penalties.

Federal regulations issued under HIPAA contain provisions that require us to implement and, in the future, may require us to implement additional costly electronic media security systems and to adopt new business practices designed to protect the privacy and security of each of our patient’s health and related financial information. Such privacy and security regulations impose extensive administrative, physical and technical requirements on us, restrict our use and disclosure of certain patient health and financial information, provide patients with rights with respect to their health information and require us to enter into contracts extending many of the privacy and security regulatory requirements to third parties that perform duties on our behalf.

These laws and regulations are extremely complex, and, in many cases, we do not have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. In the future, it is possible that different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. A determination that we have violated one or more of these laws (see Item 3-Legal Proceedings), or the public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of one or more of these laws, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations and our business reputation could suffer significantly. In addition, we cannot predict whether other legislation or regulations at the federal or state level will be adopted, what form such legislation or regulations may take or what their impact on us may be. See Item 1 Business—Self-Referral and Anti-Kickback Legislation.

participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. The imposition of such penalties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We may be subject to liabilities from claims brought against our facilities.

We are subject to medical malpractice lawsuits, product liability lawsuits, class action lawsuits and other legal actions in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions may involve large claims, as well as significant defense costs. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or the effect that findings in such lawsuits may have on us. 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.

We may be subject to governmental investigations, regulatory actions and whistleblower lawsuits

The federal False Claims Act permits private parties to bring qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuits against companies. Whistleblower provisions allow private individuals to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that the defendant has defrauded the federal government. Because qui tam lawsuits are filed under seal, we could be named in one or more such lawsuits of which we are not aware.

If any of our existing health care facilities lose their accreditation or any of our new facilities fail to receive accreditation, such facilities could become ineligible to receive reimbursement under Medicare or Medicaid.

The construction and operation of healthcare facilities are subject to extensive federal, state and local regulation relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, fire prevention, rate-setting and compliance with building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, such facilities are subject to periodic inspection by government authorities to assure their continued compliance with these various standards.

All of our hospitals are deemed certified, meaning that they are accredited, properly licensed under the relevant state laws and regulations and certified under the Medicare program. The effect of maintaining certified facilities is to allow such facilities to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We believe that all of our healthcare facilities are in material compliance with applicable federal, state, local and other relevant regulations and standards. However, should any of our healthcare facilities lose their deemed certified status and thereby lose certification under the Medicare or Medicaid programs, such facilities would be unable to receive reimbursement from either of those programs and our business could be materially adversely effected.

Our level of indebtedness that we incurred in connection with the acquisition of PSI could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry and prevent us from meeting our obligations under the agreements relating to our indebtedness.

Our level of indebtedness that we incurred in connection with the acquisition of PSI could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry and could potentially prevent us from meeting our obligations under the agreements relating to our indebtedness.

In connection with the consummation of our acquisition of PSI, in addition to previously existing outstanding debt commitments and undertaking a $250 million offering of notes in September, 2010, we obtained a debt financing commitment of $3.45 billion under a senior credit facility consisting of an $800 million revolving credit facility, a $1.05 billion term loan A facility and a $1.6 billion term loan B facility. The senior credit facility became effective upon closing of the acquisition of PSI, which occurred in November, 2010. We also obtained an amended $240 million accounts receivable securitization facility during 2010 (increased from $200 million).

As of December 31, 2011, after giving effect to the use of proceeds from the various debt financing sources mentioned above, and after giving effect to our 2011 consolidated results of operations and cash flows, our total

debt was $3.65 billion and we had $482 million of unused borrowing capacity under our senior credit and accounts receivable securitization facilities, after taking into account $69 million of outstanding letters of credit and $9 million of outstanding borrowings pursuant to our short-term, on-demand note.

Subject to the limits contained in the credit agreement governing our senior credit facility, the indenture that governs the notes and our other debt instruments, we may be able to incur substantial additional debt from time to time to finance working capital, capital expenditures, investments or acquisitions, or for other purposes. If we do so, the risks related to our high level of debt could intensify. Our leverage could result in unfavorable impact on us, including the following:

•

it may limit our ability to obtain additional debt or equity financing for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, acquisitions and general corporate or other purposes;

•

a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness and will not be available for other purposes, including our operations, capital expenditures and future business opportunities;

•

some of our borrowings, including borrowings under the credit facilities, are at variable rates of interest, exposing us to the risk of increased interest rates;

•

it may limit our ability to adjust to changing market conditions and place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt, and;

•

we may be vulnerable in a downturn in general economic conditions or in our business, or we may be unable to carry out capital spending that is important to our operations.

Our growth strategy depends, in part, on acquisitions, and we may not be able to continue to acquire hospitals that meet our target criteria. We may also have difficulties acquiring hospitals from not-for-profit entities due to regulatory scrutiny.

Acquisitions of hospitals in select markets are a key element of our growth strategy. We face competition for acquisition candidates primarily from other for-profit healthcare companies, as well as from not-for-profit entities. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we do. Also, suitable acquisitions may not be accomplished due to unfavorable terms.

In addition, many states have enacted, or are considering enacting, laws that affect the conversion or sale of not-for-profit hospitals to for-profit entities. These laws generally require prior approval from the state attorney general, advance notification and community involvement. In addition, attorneys general in states without specific conversion legislation may exercise discretionary authority over such transactions. Although the level of government involvement varies from state to state, the trend is to provide for increased governmental review and, in some cases, approval of a transaction in which a not-for-profit entity sells a healthcare facility to a for-profit entity. The adoption of new or expanded conversion legislation, increased review of not-for-profit hospital conversions or our inability to effectively compete against other potential purchasers could make it more difficult for us to acquire additional hospitals, increase our acquisition costs or make it difficult for us to acquire hospitals that meet our target acquisition criteria, any of which could adversely affect our growth strategy and results of operations.

Further, the cost of an acquisition could result in a dilutive effect on our results of operations, depending on various factors, including the amount paid for the acquisition, the acquired hospital’s results of operations, allocation of the purchase price, effects of subsequent legislation and limits on rate increases.

We may fail to improve or integrate the operations of the hospitals we acquire, which could harm our results of operations and adversely affect our growth strategy.

We may be unable to timely and effectively integrate the hospitals that we acquire with our ongoing operations. We may experience delays in implementing operating procedures and systems in newly acquired

hospitals. Integrating a new hospital could be expensive and time consuming and could disrupt our ongoing business, negatively affect cash flow and distract management and other key personnel. In addition, acquisition activity requires transitions from, and the integration of, operations and, usually, information systems that are used by acquired hospitals. In addition, some of the hospitals we acquire had significantly lower operating margins than the hospitals we operate prior to the time of our acquisition. If we fail to improve the operating margins of the hospitals we acquire, operate such hospitals profitably or effectively integrate the operations of acquired hospitals, our results of operations could be harmed.

If we acquire hospitals with unknown or contingent liabilities, we could become liable for material obligations.

Hospitals that we acquire may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including, but not limited to, liabilities for failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Although we typically attempt to exclude significant liabilities from our acquisition transactions and seek indemnification from the sellers of such hospitals for these matters, we could experience difficulty enforcing those obligations or we could incur material liabilities for the past activities of hospitals we acquire. Such liabilities and related legal or other costs and/or resulting damage to a facility’s reputation could harm our business.

Our subsidiary, PSI, and its subsidiaries, are subject to pending legal actions, governmental investigations and regulatory actions.

Our subsidiary, PSI, and its subsidiaries, are subject to pending legal actions, governmental investigations and regulatory actions (see Item 3-Legal Proceedings).

State efforts to regulate the construction or expansion of health care facilities could impair our ability to expand.

Many of the states in which we operate hospitals have enacted Certificates of Need, or CON, laws as a condition prior to hospital capital expenditures, construction, expansion, modernization or initiation of major new services. Our failure to obtain necessary state approval could result in our inability to complete a particular hospital acquisition, expansion or replacement, make a facility ineligible to receive reimbursement under the Medicare or Medicaid programs, result in the revocation of a facility’s license or impose civil or criminal penalties on us, any of which could harm our business.

In addition, significant CON reforms have been proposed in a number of states that would increase the capital spending thresholds and provide exemptions of various services from review requirements. In the past, we have not experienced any material adverse effects from those requirements, but we cannot predict the impact of these changes upon our operations.

Controls designed to reduce inpatient services may reduce our revenues.

Controls imposed by third-party payors 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 payor-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payor 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. Although we cannot predict the effect these changes will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates and fees could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Fluctuations in our operating results, quarter to quarter earnings and other factors may result in decreases in the price of our common stock.

The stock markets have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to operating performance. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and, as a result, there may be significant volatility in the market price of our common stock. If we are unable to operate our hospitals as profitably as we have in the past or as our stockholders expect us to in the future, the market price of our common stock will likely decline as stockholders could sell shares of our common stock when it becomes apparent that the market expectations may not be realized.

In addition to our operating results, many economic and seasonal factors outside of our control could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock and increase fluctuations in our quarterly earnings. These factors include certain of the risks discussed herein, demographic changes, operating results of other hospital companies, changes in our financial estimates or recommendations of securities analysts, speculation in the press or investment community, the possible effects of war, terrorist and other hostilities, adverse weather conditions, the level of seasonal illnesses, managed care contract negotiations and terminations, changes in general conditions in the economy or the financial markets, or other developments affecting the health care industry.

We are subject to significant corporate regulation as a public company and failure to comply with all applicable regulations could subject us to liability or negatively affect our stock price.

As a publicly traded company, we are subject to a significant body of regulation, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. While we have developed and instituted a corporate compliance program based on what we believe are the current best practices in corporate governance and continue to update this program in response to newly implemented or changing regulatory requirements, we cannot provide assurance that we are or will be in compliance with all potentially applicable corporate regulations. For example, we cannot provide assurance that, in the future, our management will not find a material weakness in connection with its annual review of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We also cannot provide assurance that we could correct any such weakness to allow our management to assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year in time to enable our independent registered public accounting firm to state that such assessment will have been fairly stated in our Annual Report on Form 10-K or state that we have maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year. If we fail to comply with any of these regulations, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions, fines or other sanctions or litigation. If we must disclose any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, our stock price could decline.

A cyber security incident could cause a violation of HIPAA, breach of member privacy, or other negative impacts.

A cyber-attack that bypasses our information technology (“IT”) security systems causing an IT security breach, loss of protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws, loss of proprietary business information, or a material disruption of our IT business systems, could have a material adverse impact on our business and result of operations. 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.

Different interpretations of accounting principles could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Generally accepted accounting principles are complex, continually evolving and may be subject to varied interpretation by us, our independent registered public accounting firm and the SEC. Such varied interpretations could result from differing views related to specific facts and circumstances. Differences in interpretation of generally accepted accounting principles could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

We continue to see rising costs in construction materials and labor. Such increased costs could have an adverse effect on the cash flow return on investment relating to our capital projects.

The cost of construction materials and labor has significantly increased. As we continue to invest in modern technologies, emergency rooms and operating room expansions, the construction of medical office buildings for physician expansion and reconfiguring the flow of patient care, we spend large amounts of money generated from our operating cash flow or borrowed funds. In addition, we have a commitment with an unrelated third party to build a newly constructed facility with a specified minimum number of beds and services. Although we evaluate the financial feasibility of such projects by determining whether the projected cash flow return on investment exceeds our cost of capital, such returns may not be achieved if the cost of construction continues to rise significantly or the expected patient volumes are not attained.

The deterioration of credit and capital markets may adversely affect our access to sources of funding and we cannot be certain of the availability and terms of capital to fund the growth of our business when needed.

We require substantial capital resources to fund our acquisition growth strategy and our ongoing capital expenditure programs for renovation, expansion, construction and addition of medical equipment and technology. We believe that our capital expenditure program is adequate to expand, improve and equip our existing hospitals. We cannot predict, however, whether financing for our growth plans and capital expenditure programs will be available to us on satisfactory terms when needed, which could harm our business.

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.

In addition, global capital markets have experienced volatility that has tightened access to capital markets and other sources of funding. In the event we need to access the capital markets or other sources of financing, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms or within an acceptable time. Our inability to obtain financing on terms acceptable to us could have a material unfavorable impact on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

We depend heavily on key management personnel and the departure of one or more of our key executives or a significant portion of our local hospital management personnel could harm our business.

The expertise and efforts of our senior executives and key members of our local hospital management personnel are critical to the success of our business. The loss of the services of one or more of our senior executives or of a significant portion of our local hospital management personnel could significantly undermine our management expertise and our ability to provide efficient, quality healthcare services at our facilities, which could harm our business.

The number of outstanding shares of our Class B Common Stock is subject to potential increases or decreases.

At December 31, 2011, 31.2 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 holders of Class B Common Stock would own a smaller percentage of that class.

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. Conversely, as a potential means of generating additional funds to operate and expand our business, we may from time-to-time issue equity through the sale of stock which would increase the number of outstanding shares of our Class B Common Stock. Based upon factors such as, but not limited to, the market price of our stock, interest rate on borrowings and uses or potential uses for cash, repurchase or issuance of our stock could have a dilutive effect on our future basic and diluted earnings per share.

The right to elect the majority of our Board of Directors and the majority of the general shareholder voting power resides with the holders of Class A and C Common Stock, the majority of which is owned by Alan B. Miller, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our Board of Directors.

Our Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that, with respect to the election of directors, holders of Class A Common Stock vote as a class with the holders of Class C Common Stock, and holders of Class B Common Stock vote as a class with holders of Class D Common Stock, with holders of all classes of our Common Stock entitled to one vote per share.

As of March 31, 2011, the shares of Class A and Class C Common Stock constituted 7.5% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect six members of the Board of Directors and constituted 87.2% of our general voting power. As of March 31, 2011, the shares of Class B and Class D Common Stock (excluding shares issuable upon exercise of options) constituted 92.5% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect two members of the Board of Directors and constituted 12.8% of our general voting power.

As to matters other than the election of directors, our Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that holders of Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D Common Stock all vote together as a single class, except as otherwise provided by law.

Each share of Class A Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to one vote; each share of Class B Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to one-tenth of a vote; each share of Class C Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to 100 votes (provided the holder of Class C Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class A Common Stock equal to ten times the number of shares of Class C Common Stock that holder holds); and each share of Class D Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to ten votes (provided the holder of Class D Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class B Common Stock equal to ten times the number of shares of Class D Common Stock that holder holds).

In the event a holder of Class C or Class D Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock, respectively, less than ten times the number of shares of Class C or Class D Common Stock that holder holds, then that holder will be entitled to only one vote for every share of Class C Common Stock, or one-tenth of a vote for every share of Class D Common Stock, which that holder holds in excess of one-tenth the number of shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock, respectively, held by that holder. The Board of Directors, in its discretion, may require beneficial owners to provide satisfactory evidence that such owner holds ten times as many shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock as Class C or Class D Common Stock, respectively, if such facts are not apparent from our stock records.

Since a substantial majority of the Class A shares and Class C shares are controlled by Mr. Alan B. Miller and members of his family who are also directors and officers of our company, and they can elect a majority of our company’s directors and effect or reject most actions requiring approval by stockholders without the vote of any other stockholders, there are potential conflicts of interest in overseeing the management of our company.

In addition, because this concentrated control could discourage others from initiating any potential merger, takeover or other change of control transaction that may otherwise be beneficial to our businesses, our business and prospects and the trading price of our securities could be adversely affected.

ITEM 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

ITEM 2.

Properties

Executive and Administrative Offices

We own office buildings in King of Prussia and Wayne, Pennsylvania and Brentwood, Tennessee.

Facilities

The following tables set forth the name, location, type of facility and, for acute care hospitals and behavioral health care facilities, the number of licensed beds:

Acute Care Hospitals


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
Aiken Regional Medical Centers	Aiken, South Carolina		183		Owned
Aurora Pavilion	Aiken, South Carolina		59		Owned
Auburn Regional Medical Center	Auburn, Washington		159		Owned
Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center (1)	Las Vegas, Nevada		171		Owned
Corona Regional Medical Center	Corona, California		240		Owned
Desert Springs Hospital (1)	Las Vegas, Nevada		293		Owned
Doctors’ Hospital of Laredo (9)	Laredo, Texas		180		Owned
Fort Duncan Regional Medical Center	Eagle Pass, Texas		101		Owned
The George Washington University Hospital (2)	Washington, D.C.		371		Owned
Lakewood Ranch Medical Center	Bradenton, Florida		120		Owned
Manatee Memorial Hospital	Bradenton, Florida		319		Owned
Northern Nevada Medical Center	Sparks, Nevada		100		Owned
Northwest Texas Healthcare System	Amarillo, Texas		404		Owned
The Pavilion at Northwest Texas Healthcare System	Amarillo, Texas		85		Owned
Palmdale Regional Medical Center	Palmdale, California		157		Owned
South Texas Health System (4)
Edinburg Regional Medical Center	Edinburg, Texas		127		Owned
Edinburg Children’s Hospital	Edinburg, Texas		86		Owned
McAllen Medical Center (3)	McAllen, Texas		441		Leased
McAllen Heart Hospital	McAllen, Texas		60		Owned
South Texas Behavioral Health Center	McAllen, Texas		134		Owned
Southwest Healthcare System
Inland Valley Campus (3)	Wildomar, California		130		Leased
Rancho Springs Campus	Murrieta, California		122		Owned
Spring Valley Hospital Medical Center (1)	Las Vegas, Nevada		231		Owned
St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center	Enid, Oklahoma		245		Owned
Summerlin Hospital Medical Center (1)	Las Vegas, Nevada		454		Owned
Texoma Medical Center	Denison, Texas		191		Owned
TMC Behavioral Health Center	Denison, Texas		60		Owned
Valley Hospital Medical Center (1)	Las Vegas, Nevada		404		Owned
Wellington Regional Medical Center (3)	West Palm Beach, Florida		158		Leased

Behavioral Health Care Facilities


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
Alabama Clinical Schools	Birmingham, Alabama		80		Owned
Alhambra Hospital (10)	Rosemead, California		103		Owned
Alliance Health Center (10)	Meridian, Mississippi		214		Owned
Anchor Hospital	Atlanta, Georgia		111		Owned
Arbour Counseling Services	Rockland, Massachusetts		—		Owned
The Arbour Hospital	Boston, Massachusetts		118		Owned
Arbour Senior Care	Rockland, Massachusetts		—		Owned
Arbour-Fuller Hospital	South Attleboro, Massachusetts		103		Owned
Arbour-HRI Hospital	Brookline, Massachusetts		68		Owned
Arrowhead Behavioral Health (10)	Maumee, Ohio		52		Owned
Atlantic Shores Hospital (10)	Fort Lauderdale, Florida		72		Owned
Austin Lakes Hospital (10)	Austin, Texas		54		Leased
Behavioral Educational Services (10)	Riverdale, Florida		—		Leased
Belmont Pines Hospital (10)	Youngstown, Ohio		102		Owned
Benchmark Behavioral Health System (10)	Woods Cross, Utah		84		Owned
Bloomington Meadows Hospital (10)	Bloomington, Indiana		78		Owned
Blue Mountain Academy	Grand Terrace, California		—		Owned
Boulder Creek Academy	Bonners Ferry, Idaho		100		Owned
Brentwood Behavioral Health of Mississippi (10)	Flowood, Mississippi		105		Owned
Brentwood Hospital (10)	Shreveport, Louisiana		200		Owned
The Bridgeway (3)	North Little Rock, Arkansas		103		Leased
Bristol Youth Academy	Bristol, Florida		60		Owned
Brook Hospital—Dupont (10)	Louisville, Kentucky		86		Owned
Brook Hospital—KMI (10)	Louisville, Kentucky		106		Owned
Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital (10)	Fort Washington, Pennsylvania		146		Owned
Brynn Marr Hospital (10)	Jacksonville, North Carolina		100		Owned
Calvary Addiction Recovery Center (10)	Phoenix, Arizona		50		Owned
Canyon Ridge Hospital (10)	Chino, California		106		Owned
The Carolina Center for Behavioral Health	Greer, South Carolina		112		Owned
Cedar Grove Residential Treatment Center	Murfreesboro, Tennessee		36		Owned
Cedar Ridge	Oklahoma City, Oklahoma		60		Owned
Cedar Ridge Residential Treatment Center	Oklahoma City, Oklahoma		56		Owned
Cedar Springs Behavioral Health (10)	Colorado Springs, Colorado		110		Owned
Centennial Peaks	Louisville, Colorado		72		Owned
Center for Change	Orem, Utah		58		Owned
Central Florida Behavioral Hospital	Orlando, FL		120		Owned
Chicago Children’s Center for Behavioral Health (10)	Chicago, Illinois		40		Leased
Clarion Psychiatric Center	Clarion, Pennsylvania		74		Owned
Coastal Harbor Behavioral Health	Savannah, Georgia		50		Owned
Coastal Harbor Treatment Center	Savannah, Georgia		132		Owned
Columbus Behavioral Center for Children and Adolescents	Columbus, Indiana		56		Owned
Community Behavioral Health	Memphis, Tennessee		50		Leased
Community Cornerstones (10)	Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico		—		Leased
Compass Intervention Center	Memphis, Tennessee		108		Owned
Copper Hills Youth Center (10)	West Jordan, Utah		197		Owned
Cottonwood Treatment Center	S. Salt Lake City, Utah		86		Leased


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
Creekside Academy	Sacramento, California		—		Leased
Crescent Pines	Stockbridge, Georgia		50		Owned
Cumberland Hall (10)	Hopkinsville, Kentucky		97		Owned
Cumberland Hospital (10)	New Kent, Virginia		130		Owned
Cypress Creek Hospital (10)	Houston, Texas		96		Owned
Del Amo Hospital	Torrance, California		166		Owned
Desert Valley Hope Academy	Hemet, California		—		Owned
Diamond Grove Center (10)	Louisville, Mississippi		55		Owned
Dover Behavioral Health	Dover, Delaware		57		Owned
Emerald Coast Behavioral Hospital (10)	Panama City, Florida		90		Owned
Fairmount Behavioral Health System	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania		239		Owned
Fairfax Hospital (10)	Kirkland, Washington		157		Owned
First Home Care (VA) (10)	Portsmouth, Virginia		—		Leased
First Hospital Panamericano—Cidra (10)	Cidra, Puerto Rico		165		Owned
First Hospital Panamericano—San Juan (10)	San Juan, Puerto Rico		45		Owned
First Hospital Panamericano—Ponce (10)	Ponce, Puerto Rico		30		Owned
Forest View Hospital	Grand Rapids, Michigan		82		Owned
Fort Lauderdale Hospital (10)	Fort Lauderdale, Florida		100		Leased
Foundations Behavioral Health	Doylestown, Pennsylvania		118		Leased
Foundations for Living	Mansfield, Ohio		84		Owned
Fox Run Hospital (10)	St. Clairsville, Ohio		100		Owned
Fremont Hospital (10)	Fremont, California		96		Owned
Friends Hospital (10)	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania		219		Owned
Glen Oaks Hospital	Greenville, Texas		54		Owned
Good Samaritan Counseling Center	Anchorage, Alaska		—		Owned
Gulf Coast Treatment Center (10)	Fort Walton Beach, Florida		144		Owned
Gulf Coast Youth Academy (10)	Fort Walton Beach, Florida		24		Owned
Hampton Behavioral Health Center	Westhampton, New Jersey		110		Owned
Harbour Point (Pines) (10)	Portsmouth, Virginia		186		Owned
Hartgrove Hospital	Chicago, Illinois		150		Owned
Havenwyck Hospital (10)	Auburn Hills, Michigan		278		Owned
Heartland Behavioral Health Services (10)	Nevada, Missouri		159		Owned
Hermitage Hall	Nashville, Tennessee		112		Owned
Heritage Oaks Hospital (10)	Sacramento, California		125		Owned
Hickory Trail Hospital (10)	DeSoto, Texas		86		Owned
Highlands Behavioral Health System	Highlands Ranch, Colorado		86		Owned
High Point Treatment Center (10)	Cooper City, Florida		60		Owned
Hill Crest Behavioral Health Services (10)	Birmingham, Alabama		205		Owned
Holly Hill Hospital (10)	Raleigh, North Carolina		152		Owned
The Horsham Clinic	Ambler, Pennsylvania		206		Owned
Hughes Center (10)	Danville, Virginia		56		Owned
Intermountain Hospital (10)	Boise, Idaho		155		Owned
Jefferson Trail Treatment Center for Children (10)	Charlottesville, Virginia		50		Leased
John Costigan Center (Streamwood RTC) (10)	Streamwood, Illinois		73		Owned
Kempsville Center of Behavioral Health (10)	Norfolk, Virginia		82		Owned
Keys of Carolina	Charlotte, North Carolina		60		Owned
KeyStone Center	Wallingford, Pennsylvania		140		Owned
Kingwood Pines Hospital (10)	Kingwood, Texas		116		Owned


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
La Amistad Behavioral Health Services	Maitland, Florida		80		Owned
Lakeside Behavioral Health System	Memphis, Tennessee		291		Owned
Laurel Heights Hospital	Atlanta, Georgia		122		Owned
Laurel Oaks Behavioral Health Center (10)	Dothan, Alabama		118		Owned
Laurel Ridge Treatment Center (10)	San Antonio, Texas		250		Owned
Liberty Point Behavioral Health (10)	Stauton, Virginia		50		Owned
Lighthouse Care Center of Augusta (10)	Augusta, Georgia		106		Owned
Lighthouse Care Center of Conway (10)	Conway, South Carolina		112		Owned
Lincoln Prairie Behavioral Health Center (10)	Springfield, Illinois		88		Owned
Lincoln Trail Behavioral Health System	Radcliff, Kentucky		140		Owned
Macon Behavioral Health System (10)	Macon, Georgia		155		Owned
Manatee Palms Group Homes (10)	Bradenton, Florida		60		Owned
Manatee Palms Youth Services (10)	Bradenton, Florida		60		Owned
McDowell Center for Children	Dyersburg, Tennessee		32		Owned
The Meadows Psychiatric Center	Centre Hall, Pennsylvania		101		Owned
Meridell Achievement Center	Austin, Texas		134		Owned
Mesilla Valley Hospital (10)	Las Cruces, New Mexico		120		Owned
Michiana Behavioral Health Center (10)	Plymouth, Indiana		80		Owned
Midwest Center for Youth and Families	Kouts, Indiana		74		Owned
Millwood Hospital (10)	Arlington, Texas		122		Leased
Mission Bell Academy (Riverside NPS)	Riverside, California		—		Owned
Mojave Ridge Academy (Victorville NPS)	Victorville, California		—		Leased
Mountain Youth Academy	Mountain City, Tennessee		60		Owned
Natchez Trace Youth Academy	Waverly, Tennessee		90		Owned
National Deaf Academy	Mount Dora, Florida		132		Owned
Newport News Behavioral Health Center	Newport News, Virginia		108		Owned
North Spring Behavioral Healthcare (10)	Leesburg, Virginia		77		Leased
North Star Hospital	Anchorage, Alaska		74		Owned
North Star Bragaw	Anchorage, Alaska		36		Owned
North Star DeBarr Residential Treatment Center	Anchorage, Alaska		60		Owned
North Star Palmer Residential Treatment Center	Palmer, Alaska		30		Owned
Northwest Academy	Bonners Perry, Idaho		120		Owned
Oak Plains Academy	Ashland City, Tennessee		90		Owned
Okaloosa Youth Academy (10)	Crestview, Florida		254		Leased
Old Vineyard Behavioral Health	Winston-Salem, North Carolina		104		Owned
Palmetto Lowcountry Behavioral Health (10)	North Charleston, South Carolina		112		Owned
Palmetto Pee Dee Behavioral Health (10)	Florence, South Carolina		59		Leased
Palmetto Summerville (10)	Summerville, South Carolina		60		Leased
Parkwood Behavioral Health System	Olive Branch, Mississippi		128		Owned
The Pavilion	Champaign, Illinois		77		Owned
Peachford Behavioral Health System of Atlanta	Atlanta, Georgia		246		Owned
Peak Behavioral Health Services (10)	Santa Teresa, New Mexico		104		Owned
Pembroke Hospital	Pembroke, Massachusetts		115		Owned
Pinnacle Pointe Hospital (10)	Little Rock, Arkansas		124		Owned
Poplar Springs Hospital (10)	Petersburg, Virginia		199		Owned
Prairie St John’s (10)	Fargo, North Dakota		131		Owned
Pride Institute (10)	Eden Prairie, Minnesota		42		Owned
Provo Canyon School	Provo, Utah		80		Owned
Provo Canyon Behavioral Hospital	Orem, Utah		274		Owned


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
Rancho Academy of Learning (Rancho Cucamonga NPS)	Rancho Cucamonga, California		—		Owned
Rancho San Diego Academy (Steele Canyon NPS)	El Cajon, California		—		Leased
The Ridge Behavioral Health System	Lexington, Kentucky		110		Owned
Rivendell Behavioral Health Services of Arkansas	Benton, Arkansas		77		Owned
Rivendell Behavioral Health Services of Kentucky	Bowling Green, Kentucky		125		Owned
River Crest Hospital	San Angelo, Texas		80		Owned
Riveredge Hospital (10)	Forest Park, Illinois		210		Owned
River Oaks Hospital	New Orleans, Louisiana		126		Owned
River Park Hospital (10)	Huntington, West Virginia		187		Owned
River Point Behavioral Health (10)	Jacksonville, Florida		99		Owned
Rockford Center	Newark, Delaware		118		Owned
Rock River Residential Center (10)	Rockford, Illinois		59		Owned
Rolling Hills Hospital (10)	Franklin, Tennessee		80		Owned
Roxbury	Shippensburg, Pennsylvania		112		Owned
San Marcos Treatment Center (10)	San Marcos, Texas		265		Owned
Sandy Pines Hospital (10)	Tequesta, Florida		88		Owned
Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System (10)	Tulsa, Oklahoma		209		Owned
Sierra Vista Hospital (10)	Sacramento, California		120		Owned
Somerset Educational Services (10)	Riverside, California		—		Owned
St. Louis Behavioral Medicine Institute	St. Louis, Missouri		—		Owned
St. Simons by the Sea (10)	St. Simons, Georgia		101		Owned
Spring Mountain Sahara	Las Vegas, Nevada		30		Owned
Spring Mountain Treatment Center	Las Vegas, Nevada		82		Owned
Springwoods	Fayetteville, Arkansas		80		Owned
Stonington Institute	North Stonington, Connecticut		73		Owned
Streamwood Behavioral Health (10)	Streamwood, Illinois		162		Owned
Summit Oaks Hospital (10)	Summit, New Jersey		126		Owned
SummitRidge	Lawrenceville, Georgia		76		Owned
Talbott Recovery Campus	Atlanta, Georgia		—		Owned
Texas NeuroRehab Center (10)	Austin, Texas		151		Owned
Three Rivers Behavioral Health (10)	West Columbia, South Carolina		118		Owned
Three Rivers Residential Treatment-Midlands Campus (10)	West Columbia, South Carolina		59		Owned
Timberlawn Mental Health System	Dallas, Texas		144		Owned
Turning Point Hospital	Moultrie, Georgia		59		Owned
Turning Point Youth Center	St. Johns, Michigan		60		Owned
Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital	Kansas City, Missouri		105		Owned
University Behavioral Center (10)	Orlando, Florida		112		Owned
Upper East TN Juvenile Detention Facility	Johnson City, Tennessee		10		Owned
Valle Vista Hospital (10)	Greenwood, Indiana		102		Owned
Vines Hospital (10)	Ocala, Florida		98		Owned
Virgin Islands Behavioral Services (10)	St. Croix, Virgin Islands		30		Owned
Virginia Beach Psychiatric Center (10)	Virginia Beach, Virginia		100		Owned
Wekiva Springs (10)	Jacksonville, Florida		68		Owned
Wellstone Regional Hospital (10)	Jeffersonville, Indiana		100		Owned
West Hills Hospital (10)	Reno, Nevada		95		Owned
West Oaks Hospital (10)	Houston, Texas		160		Owned


Name of Facility	Location	Number of Beds		Real Property Ownership Interest
Westwood Lodge Hospital	Westwood, Massachusetts		133		Owned
Willow Springs Center (10)	Reno, Nevada		116		Owned
Windmoor Healthcare (10)	Clearwater, Florida		120		Owned
Windsor—Laurelwood Center (10)	Willoughby, Ohio		160		Leased
Wyoming Behavioral Institute	Casper, Wyoming		90		Owned

Surgical Hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Radiation Oncology Centers


Name of Facility	Location	Real Property Ownership Interest
Cancer Care Institute of Carolina	Aiken, South Carolina		Owned
Cornerstone Regional Hospital (5)	Edinburg, Texas		Leased
OJOS/Eye Surgery Specialists of Puerto Rico (6)	Santurce, Puerto Rico		Leased
Northwest Texas Surgery Center (6)	Amarillo, Texas		Leased
Palms Westside Clinic ASC (8)	Royal Palm Beach, Florida		Leased
Temecula Valley Day Surgery and Pain Therapy Center (7)	Murrieta, California		Leased

(1)

Desert Springs Hospital, Summerlin Hospital Medical Center, Valley Hospital Medical Center, Spring Valley Hospital Medical Center and Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center are owned by limited liability companies (“LLCs”) in which we hold controlling, majority ownership interests of approximately 72%. The remaining minority ownership interests in these facilities are held by unaffiliated third-parties. All hospitals are managed by us.

(2)	We hold an 80% ownership interest in this facility through a general partnership interest in a limited partnership. The remaining 20% ownership interest is held by an unaffiliated third-party.

(3)	Real property leased from Universal Health Realty Income Trust.

(4)	In October, 2007, the licenses for Edinburg Regional Medical Center, Edinburg Children’s Hospital, McAllen Medical Center, McAllen Heart Hospital and South Texas Behavioral Health Center were consolidated under one license operating as the South Texas Health System.

(5)	We manage and own a noncontrolling interest of approximately 50% in the entity that operates this facility.

(6)	We own a majority interest in an LLC that owns and operates this center.

(7)	We own minority interests in an LLC that owns and operates this center which is managed by a third-party.

(8)	We own a noncontrolling ownership interest of approximately 50% in the entity that operates this facility that is managed by a third-party.

(9)	We hold an 89% ownership interest in this facility through both general and limited partnership interests. The remaining 11% ownership interest is held by unaffiliated third parties.

(10)	These facilities were acquired by us in November, 2010 in connection with our acquisition of PSI.

We own or lease medical office buildings adjoining some of our hospitals. We believe that the leases on the facilities, medical office buildings and other real estate leased or owned by us do not impose any material limitation on our operations. The aggregate lease payments on facilities leased by us were $55 million in 2011, $45 million in 2010 and $41 million in 2009.

ITEM 3.

Legal Proceedings

U.S. v. Marion and UHS:

In November, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Virginia Attorney General intervened in a qui tam case that had been filed by former employees of Marion Youth Center under seal in 2007 against Universal Health Services, Inc. (“UHS”), and Keystone Marion, LLC (“Marion”) and Keystone Education and Youth Services, LLC (“Keystone”). The intervention by the DOJ followed the issuance of a series of subpoenas from the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services seeking documents related to the treatment of Medicaid beneficiaries at Marion. The amended complaint filed by the DOJ and Virginia Attorney General alleged causes of action pursuant to the federal and state false claims acts and the Virginia fraud statute. The former employees filed a separate amended complaint alleging employment and retaliation claims as well as false claim act violations. During the third quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the claims. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our results of operations for any of the periods presented herein. Should we be unable to finalize a definitive settlement agreement in this matter, we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously against the government’s and the former employees’ allegations. There can be no assurance that we will prevail should this matter be litigated.

Martin v. UHS of Delaware:

UHS of Delaware, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, has been named as defendants in a state False Claim Act case in Sacramento County Superior Court. Plaintiffs are a former student and employees of the Elmira School who claim that the UHS schools in California unlawfully retained public education funding from the state of California for the operation of these schools but failed to meet state requirements pertaining to the operation of non-public schools. We deny liability and intend to defend this case vigorously. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Department of Justice ICD Investigation:

In September, 2010, we, along with many other companies in the healthcare industry, received a letter from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) advising of a False Claim Act investigation being conducted in connection with the implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (“ICDs”) from 2003 to the present at several of our acute care facilities. The DOJ alleges that ICDs were implanted and billed by our facilities in contravention of a National Claims Determination regarding these devices. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital:

On April 11, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued notice of its decision terminating Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital (“Two Rivers”) in Kansas City, Missouri from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid program. The termination notice was issued as a result of surveys conducted which allegedly found Two Rivers to be out of compliance with the conditions of participation required for participation in the Medicare program and for Two Rivers’ alleged failure to alleviate an “immediate jeopardy” situation. Two Rivers filed an administrative appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeal Board, Civil Remedies Division, seeking review and reversal of that decision. In addition, Two Rivers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CMS rescinding the termination action. On April 22, 2011, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order abating the termination action pending a preliminary injunction hearing or an agreement with CMS. On May 17, 2011, Two Rivers and CMS entered into a settlement agreement which resulted in the rescission of the termination notice and actions by CMS. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Two Rivers was required to submit an acceptable plan of correction relative to the immediate jeopardy citation and engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for Two Rivers to meet the applicable Medicare conditions of participation. Both of these actions have

occurred. CMS will conduct an initial survey of Two Rivers, expected to occur in early 2012, to determine if the Medicare conditions of participation have been met. During the term of this agreement, Two Rivers remains eligible to receive reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Two Rivers remains fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the community it serves. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with CMS in an effort to resolve these matters. We can provide no assurance that Two Rivers will not ultimately lose its Medicare certification. The operating results of Two Rivers did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the years ended December 31, 2011 or 2010.

Matters Relating to PSI:

The following matters pertain to PSI or former PSI facilities (owned by subsidiaries of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.) for which we have assumed the defense as a result of our acquisition of PSI which was completed in November, 2010:

Garden City Employees’ Retirement System v. PSI:

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws. We intend to defend the case vigorously. Should we be deemed liable in this matter, we believe we would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for amounts paid by us, subject to certain limitations and deductibles. Included in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2011, is an estimated reserve (current liability) and corresponding commercial insurance recovery (current asset) which did not have a material impact on our financial statements. Although we believe the commercial insurance recoveries are adequate to satisfy potential liability in this matter, we can provide no assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed the commercial insurance recoveries which would make us liable for the excess.

Department of Justice Investigation of Sierra Vista:

In 2009, Sierra Vista Hospital in Sacramento, California learned of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) relating to Medicare services provided by the facility. The DOJ ultimately notified the facility that with respect to partial hospitalization and outpatient services, the DOJ believed that the medical record documentation did not adequately support the claims submitted for reimbursement by Medicare. We reached a tentative financial settlement with the DOJ which is subject to the negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement. As part of that agreement, the facility will be subject to a corporate integrity agreement. The reserve established in connection with this matter did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

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 have been collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July 2011 requesting additional documents. Those documents are being collected and will be provided to the DOJ. 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 and we continue to cooperate with the DOJ with respect to this investigation. 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.

Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services Recoupment Claims:

The Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (“DMAS”) has conducted audits at seven former PSI Residential Treatment Centers operated in the Commonwealth of Virginia to confirm compliance with provider rules under the state’s Medicaid Provider Services Manual (“Manual”). As a result of those audits, DMAS claims the facilities failed to comply with the requirements of the Manual and has requested repayment of Medicaid payments to those facilities. PSI had previously filed appeals to repayment demands at each facility which are currently pending. The aggregate refund of Medicaid payments made to those facilities, as requested by DMAS, and the corresponding reserve established on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, was not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

General:

The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations which include, among other things, matters such as government healthcare participation requirements, various licensure, certifications, and accreditations, reimbursement for patient services, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government action has increased with respect to investigations and/or allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse and false claims statutes and/or regulations by healthcare providers. Currently, and from time to time, some of our facilities are subjected to inquiries and/or actions and receive notices of potential non-compliance of laws and regulations from various federal and state agencies. Providers that are found to have violated these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure, certification, and/or accreditation revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. We monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigation or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with industry practices, including ours. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, there is no assurance that we will not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties in connection with such inquiries or actions, including with respect to the investigations and other matters discussed herein. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, such inquiries and/or actions 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.

ITEM 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our Class B Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of our Class A, Class C and Class D Common Stock are not traded in any public market, but are each convertible into shares of our Class B Common Stock on a share-for-share basis. In November, 2009, we declared a two-for-one stock split in the form of a 100% stock dividend which was paid on December 15, 2009 to shareholders of record as of December 1, 2009. All classes of common stock participated on a pro rata basis and, as required, all references to share quantities and share prices for all periods presented have been adjusted to reflect the two-for-one stock split.

The table below sets forth, for the quarters indicated, the high and low reported closing sales prices per share reported on the New York Stock Exchange for our Class B Common Stock for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010:


	2011		2010
	High-Low Sales Price		High-Low Sales Price
Quarter:
1^st	$	49.41-$42.06	$	36.59-$25.75
2^nd	$	56.41-$46.13	$	43.36-$34.86
3^rd	$	54.64-$34.00	$	39.15-$31.06
4^th	$	42.90-$31.91	$	43.74-$37.21

The number of stockholders of record as of January 31, 2012 were as follows:


Class A Common			20
Class B Common			315
Class C Common			3
Class D Common			130

Stock Repurchase Programs

In various prior years, our Board of Directors has approved stock repurchase programs authorizing us to purchase shares of our outstanding Class B Common Stock on the open market at prevailing market prices or in negotiated transactions off the market. There is no expiration date for our stock repurchase programs. The most recent approval occurred during 2007 at which time our Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to 10 million shares, a portion of which (as reflected below) remains available for purchase as of December 31, 2011. The following schedule provides information related to our stock repurchase programs for each of the three years ended December 31, 2011:


	Additional Shares Authorized For Repurchase		Total number of shares purchased(a)		Average price paid per share for forfeited restricted shares		Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced programs		Average price paid per share for shares purchased as part of publicly announced program		Aggregate purchase price paid (in thousands)		Maximum number of shares that may yet be purchased under the program
Balance as of January 1, 2009														4,713,548
2009		—		2,574,209	$	0.01		2,561,209	$	24.71	$	63,288		2,152,339
2010		—		301,933	$	0.01		293,933	$	39.22	$	11,528		1,858,406
2011		—		1,602,286	$	0.01		1,602,286	$	37.75	$	60,482		256,120

Total for three year period ended December 31, 2011		—		4,478,428	$	0.01		4,457,428	$	30.35	$	135,298

(a)	During 2010 and 2009, there were 8,000 and 13,000, respectively, of restricted shares that were forfeited by former employees pursuant to the terms of our restricted stock purchase plan which are included in the total number of shares purchased. No such forfeitures occurred during 2011.

During the period of October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, we repurchased the following shares:


	Additional Shares Authorized For Repurchase		Total number of shares purchased		Average price paid per share for forfeited restricted shares	Total Number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced programs		Average price paid per share for shares purchased as part of publicly announced program		Aggregate purchase price paid (in thousands)		Maximum number of shares that may yet be purchased under the program
October, 2011		—		423,919	N/A		423,919	$	34.16	$	14,482		293,264
November, 2011		—		16,029	N/A		16,029	$	38.99	$	625		277,235
December, 2011		—		21,115	N/A		21,115	$	39.88	$	842		256,120

Total October through December		—		461,063	N/A		461,063	$	34.59	$	15,949

Dividends

During the two years ending December 31, 2011, dividends per share were declared and paid as follows:


	2011		2010
First quarter	$	.05	$	.05
Second quarter	$	.05	$	.05
Third quarter	$	.05	$	.05
Fourth quarter	$	.05	$	.05

Total	$	.20	$	.20

Stock Price Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock with the cumulative total return on the stock included in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and a Peer Group Index during the five year period ended December 31, 2011. The graph assumes an investment of $100 made in our common stock and each Index as of January 1, 2007 and has been weighted based on market capitalization. Note that our common stock price performance shown below should not be viewed as being indicative of future performance.

Companies in the peer group, which consist of companies in the S&P 500 Index or S&P MidCap 400 Index (in which we are also included), are as follows: Community Health Systems, Inc., Health Management Associates, LifePoint Hospitals, Inc., Tenet Healthcare Corporation and HCA Holdings, Inc. (included from March, 2011 at which time the company’s stock began publicly trading).

COMPARISON OF FIVE YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

(The Company, S&P 500 and Peer Group)

LOGO


Company Name / Index	2006		2007		2008		2009		2010		2011
Universal Health Services, Inc	$	100.00	$	92.90	$	68.59	$	112.03	$	160.38	$	144.17
S&P 500 Index	$	100.00	$	105.49	$	66.46	$	84.05	$	96.71	$	98.76
Peer Group	$	100.00	$	75.30	$	30.58	$	80.66	$	94.13	$	67.09

ITEM 6.

Selected Financial Data

The following table contains our selected financial data for, or as of the end of, each of the five years ended December 31, 2011. You should read this table in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this report and in Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.


	Year Ended December 31
	2011			2010 (4)			2009			2008			2007
Summary of Operations (in thousands)
Net revenues	$	7,500,198		$	5,568,185		$	5,202,379		$	5,022,417		$	4,683,150
Income from continuing operations before income taxes	$	696,336		$	428,097		$	474,722		$	357,012		$	318,628
Net income attributable to UHS	$	398,167		$	230,183		$	260,373		$	199,377		$	170,387
Net margin		5.3	%		4.1	%		5.0	%		4.0	%		3.6	%
Return on average equity		18.1	%		12.1	%		15.4	%		13.0	%		11.3	%
Financial Data (in thousands)
Cash provided by operating activities	$	718,251		$	501,344		$	541,262		$	494,187		$	381,446
Capital expenditures, net (1)	$	285,682		$	239,274		$	379,748		$	354,537		$	339,813
Total assets	$	7,665,245		$	7,527,936		$	3,964,463		$	3,742,462		$	3,608,657
Long-term borrowings	$	3,651,428		$	3,912,102		$	956,429		$	990,661		$	1,008,786
UHS’s common stockholders’ equity	$	2,296,352		$	1,978,772		$	1,751,071		$	1,543,850		$	1,517,199
Percentage of total debt to total capitalization		61	%		66	%		35	%		39	%		40	%
Operating Data—Acute Care Hospitals (2)
Average licensed beds		5,726			5,689			5,484			5,452			5,292
Average available beds		5,424			5,383			5,128			5,145			4,985
Inpatient admissions		258,754			264,470			265,244			263,536			256,681
Average length of patient stay		4.4			4.4			4.4			4.5			4.5
Patient days		1,151,183			1,155,984			1,166,704			1,182,894			1,149,399
Occupancy rate for licensed beds		55	%		56	%		58	%		59	%		60	%
Occupancy rate for available beds		58	%		59	%		62	%		63	%		63	%
Operating Data—Behavioral Health Facilities
Average licensed beds		19,280			9,427			7,921			7,658			7,348
Average available beds		19,262			9,409			7,901			7,629			7,315
Inpatient admissions		352,208			166,434			136,639			129,553			119,730
Average length of patient stay		14.6			15.1			15.4			16.1			16.8
Patient days		5,157,454			2,507,046			2,105,625			2,085,114			2,007,119
Occupancy rate for licensed beds		73	%		73	%		73	%		74	%		75	%
Occupancy rate for available beds		73	%		73	%		73	%		75	%		75	%
Per Share Data (3)
Income from continuing operations attributable to UHS—basic	$	4.09		$	2.37		$	2.65		$	1.90		$	1.59
Income from continuing operations attributable to UHS—diluted	$	4.04		$	2.34		$	2.64		$	1.90		$	1.59
Net income attributable to UHS—basic	$	4.09		$	2.37		$	2.65		$	1.96		$	1.59
Net income attributable to UHS—diluted	$	4.04		$	2.34		$	2.64		$	1.96		$	1.59
Dividends declared	$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.17		$	0.16		$	0.16
Other Information (3) (in thousands)
Weighted average number of shares outstanding—basic		97,199			96,786			97,794			101,222			106,762
Weighted average number of shares and share equivalents outstanding—diluted		98,537			97,973			98,275			101,418			106,878

(1)	Amounts exclude non-cash capital lease obligations, if any.

(2)	Excludes statistical information related to divested facilities and facilities held for sale.

(3)	All periods have been adjusted to reflect the two-for-one stock split in the form of a 100% stock dividend paid in December, 2009.

(4)

Includes data for the facilities acquired from PSI on November 15, 2010 from the date of acquisition through December 31, 2010, excluding the data for the 3 former PSI facilities that were divested by us during the third and fourth quarters of 2011 and reflected as discontinued operations, as discussed herein.

ITEM 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview

Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors

This Annual Report contains “forward-looking statements” that reflect our current estimates, expectations and projections about our future results, performance, prospects and opportunities. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, the information concerning our possible future results of operations, business and growth strategies, financing plans, expectations that regulatory developments or other matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition, our competitive position and the effects of competition, the projected growth of the industry in which we operate, and the benefits and synergies to be obtained from our completed and any future acquisitions, and statements of our goals and objectives, and other similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates,” “appears,” “projects” and similar expressions, as well as statements in future tense, identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by which, such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking information is based on information available at the time and/or our good faith belief with respect to future events, and is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements. Such factors include, among other things, the following:

•

our ability to comply with the existing laws and government regulations, and/or changes in laws and government regulations;

•

an increasing number of legislative initiatives have recently been passed into law that may result in major changes in the health care delivery system on a national or state level. No assurances can be given that the implementation of these new laws will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations;

•

possible unfavorable changes in the levels and terms of reimbursement for our charges by third party payors or government programs, including Medicare or Medicaid;

•

an increase in the number of uninsured and self-pay patients treated at our acute care facilities that unfavorably impacts our ability to satisfactorily and timely collect our self-pay patient accounts;

•

our ability to enter into managed care provider agreements on acceptable terms and the ability of our competitors to do the same, including contracts with United/Sierra Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada;

•

the outcome of known and unknown litigation, government investigations, false claim act allegations, and liabilities and other claims asserted against us, including matters as disclosed in Item 3. Legal Proceedings;

•

the potential unfavorable impact on our business of deterioration in national, regional and local economic and business conditions, including a continuation or worsening of unfavorable credit market conditions;

•

competition from other healthcare providers (including physician owned facilities) in certain markets, including McAllen/Edinburg, Texas, the site of one of our largest acute care facilities and Riverside County, California;

•

technological and pharmaceutical improvements that increase the cost of providing, or reduce the demand for healthcare;

•

our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, nurses, physicians and other healthcare professionals and the impact on our labor expenses resulting from a shortage of nurses and other healthcare professionals;

•

demographic changes;

•

our acquisition of PSI which has substantially increased our level of indebtedness which could, among other things, adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund operations, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry and could potentially prevent us from meeting our obligations under the agreements related to our indebtedness;

•

our ability to successfully integrate and improve our recent acquisitions and the availability of suitable acquisitions and divestiture opportunities;

•

we receive Medicaid revenues in excess of $100 million annually from each of Texas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and Washington, D.C., making us particularly sensitive to reductions in Medicaid and other state based revenue programs (which have been implemented in various forms with respect to our areas of operation in the respective 2012 state fiscal years) as well as regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive changes in those states. In the states in which we operate, based upon the state budgets for the 2012 fiscal year (which generally began at various times during the second half of 2011), we estimate that, on a blended basis, our aggregate Medicaid rates have been reduced by approximately 3% to 4% (or approximately $45 million to $55 million annually) from the average rates in effect during the states’ 2011 fiscal years (which generally ended during the third quarter of 2011). Our consolidated results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 include the pro rata portion of these Medicaid rate reductions. We can provide no assurance that further reductions to Medicaid revenues (which have been proposed in certain states for fiscal year 2013), particularly in the above-mentioned states, will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations;

•

our ability to continue to obtain capital on acceptable terms, including borrowed funds, to fund the future growth of our business;

•

some of our acute care facilities continue to experience decreasing inpatient admission trends;

•

our financial statements reflect large amounts due from various commercial and private payors and there can be no assurance that failure of the payors to remit amounts due to us will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations;

•

the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) published final regulations in July, 2010 implementing the health information technology (“HIT”) provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (referred to as the “HITECH Act”). The final regulation defines the “meaningful use” of Electronic Health Records (“EHR”) and establishes the requirements for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR payment incentive programs. The implementation period for these new Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments started in federal fiscal year 2011 and can end as late as 2016 for Medicare and 2021 for the state Medicaid programs. Our acute care hospitals may qualify for these EHR incentive payments upon implementation of the EHR application assuming they meet the “meaningful use criteria”. Certain of our acute care hospitals implemented an EHR application in 2011 and we plan to continue the implementation at each of our acute care hospitals, on a facility-by-facility basis, during 2012 and 2013. However, there can be no assurance that we (our acute care hospitals) will ultimately qualify for these incentive payments and, should we qualify, we are unable to quantify the amount of incentive payments we may receive since the amounts are dependent upon various factors including the implementation timing at each hospital. Should we qualify for incentive payments, there may be timing differences in the recognition of the revenues and expenses recorded in connection with the implementation of the EHR application which may cause material period-to-period changes in our future results of operations. Hospitals that do not qualify as a meaningful user of EHR by 2015 are subject to a reduced market basket update to the inpatient prospective payment system (“IPPS”) standardized amount in 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year. Although we believe that our acute care hospitals will be in compliance with the EHR standards by 2015, there can be no assurance that all of our facilities will be in compliance and therefore not subject to the penalty provision of the HITECH Act;

•

in August, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “2011 Act”) was enacted into law. The 2011 Act imposed annual spending limits for most federal agencies and programs aimed at reducing budget deficits by $917 billion between 2012 and 2021, according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office. Among its other provisions, the law established a bipartisan Congressional committee, known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Joint Committee”), which was tasked with making recommendations aimed at reducing future federal budget deficits by an additional $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Joint Committee was unable to reach an agreement by the November 23, 2011 deadline and, as a result, across-the-board cuts to discretionary, national defense and Medicare spending were implemented which, if triggered, would result in Medicare payment reductions of up to 2% per fiscal year with a uniform percentage reduction across all Medicare programs starting in 2013. We cannot predict whether Congress will attempt to suspend or restructure the automatic budget cuts or what other deficit reduction initiatives may be proposed by Congress;

•

the ability to obtain adequate levels of general and professional liability insurance on current terms;

•

changes in our business strategies or development plans;

•

fluctuations in the value of our common stock, and;

•

other factors referenced herein or in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Given these uncertainties, risks and assumptions, as outlined above, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Our actual results and financial condition could differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date the statements are made. We assume no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting forward-looking information, except as may be required by law. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes.

A summary of our significant accounting policies is outlined in Note 1 to the financial statements. We consider our critical accounting policies to be those that require us to make significant judgments and estimates when we prepare our financial statements, including the following:

Revenue recognition: We record revenues and related receivables for health care services at the time the services are provided. Medicare and Medicaid revenues represented 37% of our net patient revenues during 2011 and 38% during each of 2010 and 2009. Revenues from managed care entities, including health maintenance organizations and managed Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 43% of our net patient revenues during 2011 and 46% during each of 2010 and 2009.

We report net patient service revenue at the estimated net realizable amounts from patients and third-party payors and others for services rendered. We have agreements with third-party payors that provide for payments to us at amounts different from our established rates. Payment arrangements include prospectively determined rates per discharge, reimbursed costs, discounted charges and per diem payments. Estimates of contractual allowances under managed care plans are based upon the payment terms specified in the related contractual agreements. We closely monitor our historical collection rates, as well as changes in applicable laws, rules and regulations and contract terms, to assure that provisions are made using the most accurate information available. However, due to the complexities involved in these estimations, actual payments from payors may be different from the amounts we estimate and record.

We estimate our Medicare and Medicaid revenues using the latest available financial information, patient utilization data, government provided data and in accordance with applicable Medicare and Medicaid payment rules and regulations. The laws and regulations governing the Medicare and Medicaid programs are extremely complex and subject to interpretation and as a result, there is at least a reasonable possibility that recorded estimates will change by material amounts in the near term. Certain types of payments by the Medicare program and state Medicaid programs (e.g. Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, Medicare Allowable Bad Debts and Inpatient Psychiatric Services) are subject to retroactive adjustment in future periods as a result of administrative review and audit and our estimates may vary from the final settlements. Such amounts are included in accounts receivable, net, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The funding of both federal Medicare and state Medicaid programs are subject to legislative and regulatory changes. As such, we cannot provide any assurance that future legislation and regulations, if enacted, will not have a material impact on our future Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Adjustments related to the final settlement of these retrospectively determined amounts did not materially impact our results in 2011, 2010 or 2009. If it were to occur, each 1% adjustment to our estimated net Medicare revenues that are subject to retrospective review and settlement as of December 31, 2011, would change our after-tax net income by approximately $2 million.

We provide care to patients who meet certain financial or economic criteria without charge or at amounts substantially less than our established rates. Because we do not pursue collection of amounts determined to qualify as charity care, they are not reported in net revenues or in accounts receivable, net. Our acute care hospitals provided charity care and uninsured discounts, based on charges at established rates, amounting to $956 million, $807 million and $671 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

A portion of the accounts receivable at our acute care facilities are comprised of Medicaid accounts that are pending approval from third-party payers but we also have smaller amounts due from other miscellaneous payers such as county indigent programs in certain states. Our patient registration process includes an interview of the patient or the patient’s responsible party at the time of registration. At that time, an insurance eligibility determination is made and an insurance plan code is assigned. There are various pre-established insurance profiles in our patient accounting system which determine the expected insurance reimbursement for each patient based on the insurance plan code assigned and the services rendered. Certain patients may be classified as Medicaid pending at registration based upon a screening evaluation if we are unable to definitively determine if they are currently Medicaid eligible. When a patient is registered as Medicaid eligible or Medicaid pending our patient accounting system records net revenues for the services provided to that patient based upon the established Medicaid

reimbursement rates pending ultimate disposition of the patient’s Medicaid eligibility. Based on general factors as discussed below in Provision for Doubtful Accounts, our acute care facilities make estimates at each financial reporting period to reserve for amounts that are deemed to be uncollectible. Such estimated uncollectible amounts related to Medicaid pending, as well as other accounts receivable payer classifications, are considered when the overall individual facility and company-wide reserves are developed. Adjustments related to the final determination of these accounts did not materially impact our results of operations in 2011, 2010 or 2009.

Provision for Doubtful Accounts: Collection of receivables from third-party payers and patients is our primary source of cash and is critical to our operating performance. Our primary collection risks relate to uninsured patients and the portion of the bill which is the patient’s responsibility, primarily co-payments and deductibles. We estimate our provisions for doubtful accounts based on general factors such as payer mix, the agings of the receivables and historical collection experience. We routinely review accounts receivable balances in conjunction with these factors and other economic conditions which might ultimately affect the collectability of the patient accounts and make adjustments to our allowances as warranted. At our acute care hospitals, third party liability accounts are pursued until all payment and adjustments are posted to the patient account. For those accounts with a patient balance after third party liability is finalized or accounts for uninsured patients, the patient receives statements and collection letters. Patients that express an inability to pay are reviewed for potential sources of financial assistance including our charity care policy. If the patient is deemed unwilling to pay, the account is written-off as bad debt and transferred to an outside collection agency for additional collection effort.

Uninsured patients that do not qualify as charity patients are extended an uninsured discount of at least 20% of total charges. During the collection process the hospital establishes a partial reserve in the allowance for doubtful accounts for self-pay balances outstanding for greater than 60 days from the date of discharge. All self-pay accounts at the hospital level are fully reserved if they have been outstanding for greater than 90 days from the date of discharge. Third party liability accounts are fully reserved in the allowance for doubtful accounts when the balance ages past 180 days from the date of discharge. Potential charity accounts are fully reserved when it is determined the patient may be unable to pay.

As of December 31, 2011, our accounts receivable includes $54 million due from Illinois, the collection of which has been delayed due to budgetary and funding pressures experienced by the state. Although approximately $41 million of the receivables due from Illinois have been outstanding in excess of 60 days (as of December 31, 2011), and a large portion will likely remain outstanding for the foreseeable future, we expect to eventually collect all amounts due to us and therefore 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. Failure to ultimately collect all outstanding amounts due from Illinois would have an adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations and cash flows.

On a consolidated basis, we monitor our total self-pay receivables to ensure that the total allowance for doubtful accounts provides adequate coverage based on historical collection experience. Our accounts receivable are recorded net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $253 million and $249 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Approximately 93% during 2011, 93% during 2010 and 94% during 2009, of our consolidated provision for doubtful accounts, was incurred by our acute care hospitals. Shown below is our payer mix concentrations and related aging of our billed accounts receivable, net of contractual allowances, for our acute care hospitals as of December 31, 2011 and 2010:

As of December 31, 2011:


(amounts in thousands)	0-60 days		61-120 days		121-180 days		Over 180 days
Medicare	$	62,219	$	3,890	$	1,190	$	2,962
Medicaid		27,891		15,622		9,288		24,847
Commercial insurance and other		221,850		63,216		30,984		68,118
Private pay		105,841		77,267		9,594		18,826

Total	$	417,801	$	159,995	$	51,056	$	114,753

As of December 31, 2010:


(amounts in thousands)	0-60 days		61-120 days		121-180 days		Over 180 days
Medicare	$	56,586	$	2,868	$	824	$	1,214
Medicaid		29,166		13,280		6,865		19,135
Commercial insurance and other		201,609		50,479		23,210		42,459
Private pay		92,246		73,470		23,372		21,815

Total	$	379,607	$	140,097	$	54,271	$	84,623

Self-Insured Risks: We provide for self-insured risks, primarily general and professional liability claims and workers’ compensation claims. 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, estimate of incurred but not reported claims based on historical experience, and estimates of amounts recoverable under our commercial insurance policies. All relevant information, including our own historical experience is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. 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. Our estimated self-insured reserves are reviewed and changed, if necessary, at each reporting date and changes are recognized currently as additional expense or as a reduction of expense. 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.

Professional and General Liability

Effective January 1, 2008, most of our subsidiaries became self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million per occurrence (as compared to $20 million per occurrence prior to 2008). Prior to our acquisition of PSI in November, 2010, our subsidiaries purchased several excess policies through commercial insurance carriers which provide for coverage in excess of $10 million up to $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. However, we are liable for 10% of the claims paid pursuant to the commercially insured coverage in excess of $10 million up to $60 million per occurrence and in the aggregate.

Prior to our acquisition in November, 2010, the PSI subsidiaries were commercially insured for professional and general liability insurance claims in excess of a $3 million self-insured retention to a limit of $75 million. PSI utilized its captive insurance company and that captive insurance company remains in place after our acquisition of PSI to manage the self-insured retention for all former PSI subsidiaries for claims incurred prior to

January 1, 2011. The captive insurance company also continues to manage the applicable self-insured retention for all professional and general liability claims, regardless of date incurred, for the former PSI subsidiaries located in Florida and Puerto Rico.

Since our acquisition of PSI on November 15, 2010, the former PSI subsidiaries are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $3 million per occurrence and our legacy subsidiaries (which are not former PSI subsidiaries) are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million per occurrence. Effective November, 2010, our subsidiaries (including the former PSI subsidiaries) were 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) up to $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. We remain liable for 10% of the claims paid pursuant to the commercially insured coverage in excess of $10 million up to $60 million per occurrence and in the aggregate.

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 December 31, 2011, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims, including the estimated claims related to the facilities acquired from PSI, was $292 million, of which $60 million is included in current liabilities. As of December 31, 2010, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $289 million, of which $60 million is included in other current liabilities.

Based upon the results of reserve analyses, we recorded reductions to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves (relating to prior years) amounting to $11 million during 2011, $49 million during 2010 and $23 million during 2009. The favorable change recorded during 2011 consisted primarily of third-party recoveries and reserve reductions in connection with PHICO–related claims which we became liable for upon PHICO’s (a former commercial insurance carrier) liquidation in 2002. The favorable changes in our estimated future claims payments recorded during 2010 and 2009 were due to: (i) an increased weighting given to company-specific metrics (to 75% from 50%), and decreased general industry metrics (to 25% from 50%), related to projected incidents per exposure, historical claims experience and loss development factors; (ii) historical data which measured the realized favorable impact of medical malpractice tort reform experienced in several states in which we operate, and; (iii) a decrease in claims related to certain higher risk specialties (such as obstetrical) due to a continuation of the company-wide patient safety initiative undertaken during the last several years. As the number of our facilities and our patient volumes have increased, thereby providing for a statistically significant data group, and taking into consideration our long-history of company-specific risk management programs and claims experience, our reserve analyses have included a greater emphasis on our historical professional and general liability experience which has developed favorably as compared to general industry trends.

Based upon the results of workers’ compensation reserves analyses, we recorded reductions to our prior year reserves for workers’ compensation claims amounting to $4 million during 2010 and $7 million during 2009. There were no such adjustments recorded during 2011.

Although we are unable to predict whether or not our future financial statements will include adjustments to our prior year reserves for self-insured general and professional and workers’ compensation claims, given the relatively unpredictable nature of the these potential liabilities and the factors impacting these reserves as discussed above, it is reasonably likely that our future financial results may include material adjustments to prior period reserves.

Below is a schedule showing the changes in our general and professional liability and workers’ compensation reserves during the three years ended December 31, 2011 (amount in thousands):


	General and Professional Liability			Workers’ Compensation			Total
Balance at January 1, 2009	$	271,110		$	48,497		$	319,607
Plus: accrued insurance expense, net of commercial premiums paid (a) (b)		34,963			9,351			44 314
Less: Payments made in settlement of self-insured claims		(40,465	)		(15,317	)		(55,782	)

Balance at January 1, 2010		265,608			42,531			308,139
Plus: accrued insurance expense, net of commercial premiums paid (a) (b)		4,742			14,997			19,739
Less: Payments made in settlement of self-insured claims		(31,713	)		(18,460	)		(50,173	)
Plus: Liabilities assumed in the acquisition of PSI		50,800			31,956			82,756

Balance at January 1, 2011		289,437			71,024			360,461
Plus: accrued insurance expense, net of commercial premiums paid (a)		50,865			32,747			83,612
Less: Payments made in settlement of self-insured claims		(43,786	)		(38,845	)		(82,631	)
Less: Adjustments to liabilities assumed in the acquisition of PSI		(4,467	)		—			(4,467	)

Balance at December 31, 2011	$	292,049		$	64,926		$	356,975

(a)	General and professional liability amounts are net of adjustments recorded during each year, as discussed above.

(b)	Workers’ compensation amounts for 2009 and 2010 are net of adjustments recorded during each year as discussed above.

In addition, we also maintain self-insured employee benefits programs for employee healthcare and dental claims. The ultimate costs related to these programs include expenses for claims incurred and paid in addition to an accrual for the estimated expenses incurred in connection with claims incurred but not yet reported.

Property Insurance:

We have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses, including windstorm damage, up to a $1 billion policy limit per occurrence, subject to a $250,000 deductible. 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). Our earthquake limit is $250 million, subject to a deductible of $250,000, except for facilities located within documented fault zones. Earthquake losses that affect facilities located in fault zones within the United States are subject to a $100 million limit and will have applied deductibles ranging from 1% to 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. The earthquake limit in Puerto Rico is $25 million. Flood losses have either a $250,000 or $500,000 deductible, based upon the location of the facility.

Our property insurance coverage is scheduled for renewal on June 1, 2012. Due to an increase in property losses experienced nationwide in recent years, the cost of commercial property insurance has increased. As a result, catastrophic coverage for earthquake and flood has been limited to annual aggregate losses (as opposed to per occurrence losses). Given these insurance market conditions, there can be no assurance that a continuation of these unfavorable trends, or a sharp increase in uninsured property losses sustained by us, will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations.

Long-Lived Assets: We review our long-lived assets, including amortizable intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable. The assessment of possible impairment is based on our ability to recover the carrying value of our asset based on our estimate of its undiscounted future cash flow. If the analysis indicates that the carrying value is not recoverable from future cash flows, the asset is written down to its estimated fair value and an impairment loss is recognized. Fair values are determined based on estimated future cash flows using appropriate discount rates.

Goodwill: Goodwill is reviewed for impairment at the reporting unit level on an annual basis or sooner if the indicators of impairment arise. Our judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators are based on market conditions and operational performance of each reporting unit. We have designated September 1^stas our annual impairment assessment date and performed an impairment assessment as of September 1, 2011 which indicated no impairment of goodwill. Future changes in the estimates used to conduct the impairment review, including profitability and market value projections, could indicate impairment in future periods potentially resulting in a write-off of a portion or all of our goodwill.

Income Taxes: Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the amount of taxes payable or deductible in future years as a result of differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities and their reported amounts in the financial statements. We believe that future income will enable us to realize our deferred tax assets net of recorded valuation allowances relating to state net operating loss carry-forwards.

We operate in multiple jurisdictions with varying tax laws. We are subject to audits by any of these taxing authorities. Our tax returns have been examined by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) through the year ended December 31, 2006. We believe that adequate accruals have been provided for federal, foreign and state taxes.

See Provision for Income Taxes and Effective Tax Rates below for discussion of our effective tax rates during each of the last three years.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: For a summary of recent accounting pronouncements, please see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements as included in this Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes our results of operations, and is used in the discussion below, for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31,
	2011				2010				2009
Net revenues	$	7,500,198	100.0	%	$	5,568,185	100.0	%	$	5,202,379	100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		3,394,967	45.2	%		2,423,102	43.5	%		2,204,422	42.4	%
Other operating expenses		1,385,680	18.6	%		1,005,288	18.1	%		994,923	19.1	%
Supplies expense		821,811	11.0	%		733,093	13.2	%		699,249	13.4	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		613,619	8.2	%		546,909	9.8	%		508,603	9.8	%
Depreciation and amortization		295,228	3.9	%		223,915	4.0	%		204,703	3.9	%
Lease and rental expense		91,765	1.2	%		76,961	1.4	%		69,947	1.3	%
Transaction costs		—	—			53,220	1.0	%		—	—

		6,603,070	88.0	%		5,062,488	90.9	%		4,681,847	90.0	%

Income from operations		897,128	12.0	%		505,697	9.1	%		520,532	10.0	%
Interest expense, net		200,792	2.7	%		77,600	1.4	%		45,810	0.9	%

Income before income taxes		696,336	9.3	%		428,097	7.7	%		474,722	9.1	%
Provision for income taxes		247,466	3.3	%		152,302	2.7	%		170,475	3.3	%

Net income		448,870	6.0	%		275,795	5.0	%		304,247	5.8	%
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		50,703	0.7	%		45,612	0.9	%		43,874	0.8	%

Net income attributable to UHS	$	398,167	5.3	%	$	230,183	4.1	%	$	260,373	5.0	%

Year Ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2010:

Net revenues increased 35% or $1.93 billion to $7.50 billion during 2011 as compared to $5.57 billion during 2010. The increase was primarily attributable to:

•

a $267 million or 5% increase in net revenues generated at our acute care hospitals and behavioral health care facilities owned during both periods (which we refer to as “same facility”, and includes change in revenues for the facilities acquired by us from PSI for the month of December, 2011 as compared to December, 2010), and;

•

$1.68 billion increase in revenues at the facilities acquired by us from PSI (includes the period of January through November of 2011 as compared to November 15th through November 30^th of 2010).

Income before income taxes (before deduction for income attributable to noncontrolling interests) increased $268 million to $696 million during 2011 as compared to $428 million during 2010. Included in our income before income taxes during 2011, as compared to 2010, was the following:

•

an increase of $14 million at our acute care facilities, as discussed below in Acute Care Hospital Services, exclusive of: (i) the $32 million net unfavorable change in the reductions recorded during 2011 and 2010 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks (the amounts attributable to our acute care hospitals were $10 million in 2011 and $42 million in 2010), and; (ii) the favorable change caused by the $7 million charge recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project;

•

an increase of $385 million at our behavioral health care facilities, as discussed below in Behavioral Health Services, exclusive of the $6 million net unfavorable change in the reductions recorded during

2011 and 2010 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks (the amounts attributable to our behavioral health care facilities were $1 million in 2011 and $7 million in 2010);

•

a decrease of $123 million due to an increase in interest expense resulting primarily from the cost of borrowings utilized to finance the acquisition of PSI in November, 2010;

•

a net decrease of $38 million resulting from the reductions recorded during 2011 and 2010 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks ($11 million reduction recorded during 2011 and $49 million reduction during 2010);

•

an increase of $53 million resulting from the transaction fees incurred during 2010 in connection with our acquisition of PSI, and;

•

a net decrease of $23 million from other combined net unfavorable changes consisting of: (i) a $9 million increase resulting from the charge incurred during 2010 in connection with split-dollar life insurance agreements entered into during 2010 on the lives of our chief executive officer and his wife; (ii) a $7 million increase resulting from the charge recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project, and; (iii) a net decrease of $39 million from other combined net unfavorable changes including the corporate overhead expenses incurred in connection with the behavioral health care facilities acquired from PSI.

Net income attributable to UHS increased $168 million to $398 million during 2011 as compared to $230 million during 2010. The increase consisted of:

•

an increase of $268 million in income before income taxes, as discussed above;

•

a decrease of $5 million resulting from an increase in income attributable to noncontrolling interests, and;

•

a decrease of $95 million resulting from an increase in the provision for income taxes resulting primarily from: (i) a net increase in pre-tax income of $263 million ($268 million increase in income before income taxes net of the $5 million increase in net income attributable to noncontrolling interests), and; (ii) a $4 million favorable discrete tax item recorded during the third quarter of 2010.

Year Ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2009:

Net revenues increased 7% or $366 million to $5.57 billion during 2010 as compared to $5.20 billion during 2009. The increase was attributable to:

•

a $169 million or 3% increase in net revenues generated at our acute care hospitals and behavioral health care facilities, on a same facility basis;

•

$227 million of combined behavioral health revenues generated during the period of November 16, 2010 to December 31, 2010 at the facilities acquired by us from PSI, and;

•

$30 million of other combined net decreases in revenues resulting primarily from decreased revenues earned during 2010 in connection with construction management contract pursuant to the terms of which we built a newly constructed acute care hospital for an unrelated third party that was completed during the fourth quarter of 2009.

Income from continuing operations before income taxes decreased $47 million to $428 million during 2010 as compared to $475 million during 2009 due to the following:

•

a decrease of $33 million at our acute care facilities, as discussed below in Acute Care Hospital Services, exclusive of: (i) the $22 million net favorable effect of the reductions recorded during 2010 and 2009 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks (the amounts attributable to our acute care hospitals were $42 million in 2010 and $20 million in

2009); (ii) the $5 million net unfavorable effect of the reduction to our workers’ compensation self insurance reserves recorded during 2009 that related to years prior to 2009, and; (iii) the unfavorable effect of the $7 million charge recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project;

•

an increase of $62 million at our behavioral health care facilities as discussed below in Behavioral Health Services exclusive of: (i) the $4 million net favorable effect of the reductions recorded during 2010 and 2009 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks (the amounts attributable to our behavioral health care facilities were $7 million in 2010 and $3 million in 2009), and; (ii) the $2 million unfavorable effect of the reduction to our workers’ compensation self insurance reserves recorded during 2009 that related to years prior to 2009;

•

a decrease of $53 million resulting from the transaction fees incurred during 2010 in connection with our acquisition of PSI;

•

a decrease of $32 million resulting from an increase in interest expense resulting primarily from the cost of borrowings incurred to finance the acquisition of PSI;

•

a net increase of $26 million resulting from the reductions recorded during 2010 and 2009 to our professional and general liability reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks ($49 million reduction recorded during 2010 and $23 million reduction during 2009), and;

•

a net decrease of $17 million from other combined net unfavorable changes consisting of: (i) a $9 million decrease resulting from the charge incurred during 2010 in connection with the previously disclosed split-dollar life insurance agreements entered into during 2010 on the lives of our chief executive officer and his wife; (ii) a $7 million decrease resulting from the charge recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project; (iii) a $7 million decrease resulting from a reduction to our workers’ compensation self insurance reserves recorded during 2009 that related to years prior to 2009, and; (iv) a net increase of $6 million from other combined net favorable changes.

Net income attributable to UHS decreased $30 million to $230 million during 2010 as compared to $260 million during 2009 due to the following:

•

the $47 million decrease in income from continuing operations before income taxes, as discussed above;

•

an unfavorable change of $2 million in the net income attributable to noncontrolling interests;

•

a favorable change of $19 million resulting from a decrease in the provision for income taxes resulting from the $49 million decrease in pre-tax income ($47 million decrease income from continuing operations and $2 million increase in income attributable to noncontrolling interests) and certain other nondeductible items as discussed below in Provision for Income Taxes and Effective Tax Rates.

Acute Care Hospital Services

Year Ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2010:

The following table summarizes the results of operations for our acute care facilities on a same facility basis and is used in the discussions below for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2011					Year Ended December 31, 2010
Acute Care Hospitals—Same Facility Basis	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	4,071,570		100.0	%	$	3,901,815		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		1,569,780		38.6	%		1,489,335		38.2	%
Other operating expenses		730,977		18.0	%		697,703		17.9	%
Supplies expense		637,549		15.7	%		640,451		16.4	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		535,367		13.1	%		509,681		13.1	%
Depreciation and amortization		198,038		4.9	%		178,634		4.6	%
Lease and rental expense		54,209		1.3	%		54,867		1.4	%

		3,725,920		91.5	%		3,570,671		91.5	%

Income from operations		345,650		8.5	%		331,144		8.5	%
Interest expense, net		3,903		0.1	%		3,411		0.0	%

Income before income taxes	$	341,747		8.4	%	$	327,733		8.5	%

On a same facility basis during 2011, as compared to 2010, net revenues at our acute care hospitals increased $170 million or 4%. Income before income taxes increased $14 million or 4% to $342 million or 8.4% of net revenues during 2011 as compared to $328 million or 8.5% of net revenues during 2010.

Inpatient admissions to these facilities decreased 2.2% during 2011, as compared to 2010, while patient days decreased 0.4%. Adjusted admissions (adjusted for outpatient activity) decreased 0.1% and adjusted patient days increased 1.7% during 2011, as compared to 2010. The average length of inpatient stay at these facilities was 4.4 days during each of 2011 and 2010. The occupancy rate, based on the average available beds at these facilities, was 58% during 2011 and 59% during 2010.

On a same facility basis, net revenue per adjusted admission at these facilities increased 4.5% during 2011, as compared to 2010, and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased 2.6% during 2011, as compared to 2010.

The increase in income before income taxes at our acute care hospitals during 2011, as compared to 2010, was due primarily to favorable operating trends experienced during the first six months of 2011 (a favorable change in payor mix and acuity of patients treated at our hospitals, a stabilization of our uninsured patient volumes and a reduction in our supplies expense). These favorable operating trends moderated during the second half of 2011.

A significant portion of the patients treated throughout our portfolio of acute care hospitals are uninsured patients which, in part, has resulted from an increase in the number of patients who are employed but do not have health insurance or who have policies with relatively high deductibles. We provide care to patients who meet certain financial or economic criteria without charge or at amounts substantially less than our established rates. Because we do not pursue collection of amounts that qualify as charity care, they are not reported in net revenues or in accounts receivable, net. Our acute care hospitals provided charity care and uninsured discounts, based on charges at established rates, amounting to $956 million during 2011 and $807 million during 2010.

The estimated cost of providing the charity services was $173 million during 2011 and $158 million during 2010. The estimated costs were based on a calculation which multiplied the percentage of operating expenses for our acute care hospitals to gross charges for those hospitals by the above-mentioned gross charity care and uninsured discount amounts. The percentage of cost to gross charges is calculated based on the total operating expenses for our acute care facilities (excluding provision for doubtful accounts) divided by gross patient service revenue for those facilities. An increase in the level of uninsured patients to our facilities and the resulting adverse trends in the provision for doubtful accounts and charity care provided could have a material unfavorable impact on our future operating results.

The following table summarizes the results of operations for all our acute care operations during 2011 and 2010. Included in these results, in addition to the same facility results shown above, is: (i) the favorable effect of $10 million recorded during 2011 and $42 million recorded during 2010 resulting from reductions to our professional and general liability self insurance reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks, and; (ii) the unfavorable effect of $7 million recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2011					Year Ended December 31, 2010
All Acute Care Hospitals	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	4,071,570		100.0	%	$	3,901,815		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		1,569,780		38.6	%		1,489,335		38.2	%
Other operating expenses		720,807		17.7	%		662,009		17.0	%
Supplies expense		637,549		15.7	%		640,451		16.4	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		535,367		13.1	%		509,681		13.1	%
Depreciation and amortization		198,038		4.9	%		178,634		4.6	%
Lease and rental expense		54,209		1.3	%		54,867		1.4	%

		3,715,750		91.3	%		3,534,977		90.6	%

Income from operations		355,820		8.7	%		366,838		9.4	%
Interest expense, net		3,903		0.1	%		3,411		0.1	%

Income before income taxes	$	351,917		8.6	%	$	363,427		9.3	%

During 2011, as compared to 2010, net revenues at our acute care hospitals increased 4% or $170 million to $4.07 billion due to an increase in same facility revenues, as discussed above.

Income before income taxes decreased $11 million to $352 million or 8.6% of net revenues during 2011 as compared to $363 million or 9.3% of net revenues during 2010. The decrease in income before income taxes at our acute care facilities resulted from:

•

a $14 million increase at our acute care facilities on a same facility basis, as discussed above;

•

a decrease of $32 million resulting from the reductions recorded during 2011 ($10 million) and 2010 ($42 million) to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks, and;

•

an increase of $7 million resulting from the write-off of certain costs during 2010 related to an acute care hospital construction project.

Year Ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2009:


	Year Ended December 31, 2010					Year Ended December 31, 2009
Acute Care Hospitals—Same Facility Basis	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	3,901,815		100.0	%	$	3,810,828		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		1,489,335		38.2	%		1,449,183		38.0	%
Other operating expenses		697,703		17.9	%		685,529		18.0	%
Supplies expense		640,451		16.4	%		618,321		16.2	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		509,681		13.1	%		476,408		12.5	%
Depreciation and amortization		178,634		4.6	%		165,967		4.4	%
Lease and rental expense		54,867		1.4	%		51,035		1.3	%

		3,570,671		91.5	%		3,446,443		90.4	%

Income from operations		331,144		8.5	%		364,385		9.6	%
Interest expense, net		3,411		0.1	%		3,719		0.1	%

Income before income taxes	$	327,733		8.4	%	$	360,666		9.5	%

On a same facility basis during 2010, as compared to 2009, net revenues at our acute care hospitals increased $91 million or 2%. Income before income taxes decreased $33 million or 9% to $328 million or 8.4% of net revenues during 2010 as compared to $361 million or 9.5% of net revenues during 2009.

Inpatient admissions to these facilities decreased 0.3% during 2010, as compared to 2009, while patient days decreased 0.9%. Adjusted admissions (adjusted for outpatient activity) increased 1.3% and adjusted patient days increased 0.7% during 2010, as compared to 2009. The average length of inpatient stay at these facilities was 4.4 days during each of 2010 and 2009. The occupancy rate, based on the average available beds at these facilities, was 59% during 2010 and 62% during 2009.

On a same facility basis, net revenue per adjusted admission at these facilities increased 1.0% during 2010, as compared to 2009, and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased 1.7% during 2010, as compared to 2009.

The decrease in income before income taxes at our acute care hospitals during 2010, as compared to 2009, was due primarily to net revenue pressures experienced throughout our portfolio of acute care hospitals. The revenue pressures were caused primarily by declining commercial payor utilization and an increase in the number of uninsured and underinsured patients treated at our facilities. Our acute care facilities located in Texas were also unfavorably impacted by reductions in Medicaid revenues. Also contributing to the decline in income before income taxes at our acute care facilities were increases in salaries, wages and benefits expense and supplies expense which increased beyond the rate of increase of our acute care revenues.

Our acute care hospitals provided charity care and uninsured discounts, based on charges at established rates, amounting to $807 million during 2010 and $671 million during 2009.

The following table summarizes the results of operations for all our acute care operations during 2010 and 2009. Included in these results, in addition to the same facility results shown above, is: (i) the favorable effect of $42 million recorded during 2010 and $20 million recorded during 2009 resulting from reductions to our professional and general liability self insurance reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks; (ii) the unfavorable effect of $7 million recorded during 2010 to write-off certain costs related to an acute care hospital construction project, and; (iii) the favorable effect of $5 million recorded during 2009 resulting from a reduction to our workers’ compensation self insurance reserves (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2010					Year Ended December 31, 2009
All Acute Care Hospitals	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	3,901,815		100.0	%	$	3,810,828		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		1,489,335		38.2	%		1,443,933		37.9	%
Other operating expenses		662,009		17.0	%		665,237		17.5	%
Supplies expense		640,451		16.4	%		618,321		16.2	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		509,681		13.1	%		476,408		12.5	%
Depreciation and amortization		178,634		4.6	%		165,967		4.4	%
Lease and rental expense		54,867		1.4	%		51,035		1.3	%

		3,534,977		90.6	%		3,420,901		89.8	%

Income from operations		366,838		9.4	%		389,927		10.2	%
Interest expense, net		3,411		0.1	%		3,719		0.1	%

Income before income taxes	$	363,427		9.3	%	$	386,208		10.1	%

During 2010, as compared to 2009, net revenues at our acute care hospitals increased 2% or $91 million to $3.90 billion due to an increase in same facility revenues, as discussed above.

Income before income taxes decreased $23 million to $363 million or 9.3% of net revenues during 2010 as compared to $386 million or 10.1% of net revenues during 2009. The decrease in income before income taxes at our acute care facilities resulted from:

•

a $33 million decrease at our acute care facilities on a same facility basis, as discussed above;

•

an increase of $22 million resulting from the reductions recorded during 2010 ($42 million) and 2009 ($20 million) to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves, as discussed above in Self-Insured Risks;

•

a decrease of $7 million resulting from the write-off of certain costs during 2010 related to an acute care hospital construction project, and;

•

a decrease of $5 million resulting from a reduction to our workers’ compensation reserves recorded during 2009 that related to years prior to 2009.

Behavioral Health Care Services

Year Ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2010

The following table summarizes the results of operations for our behavioral health care facilities, on a same facility basis, and is used in the discussions below for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. On November 15, 2010, we acquired PSI which was formerly the largest operator of freestanding inpatient behavioral health care facilities operating inpatient and outpatient facilities in 32 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Since the former PSI facilities were acquired by us in mid-November, 2010, for accurate comparability purposes, we have included the patient statistics and financial results for these facilities in our same facility results provided below beginning on December 1st of 2011 and 2010 (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2011					Year Ended December 31, 2010
Behavioral Health Care Facilities—Same Facility Basis	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	1,644,421		100.0	%	$	1,544,945		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		795,285		48.4	%		758,451		49.1	%
Other operating expenses		296,500		18.0	%		278,063		18.0	%
Supplies expense		87,850		5.3	%		82,606		5.3	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		39,873		2.4	%		35,044		2.3	%
Depreciation and amortization		40,854		2.5	%		36,426		2.4	%
Lease and rental expense		17,401		1.1	%		17,495		1.1	%

		1,277,763		77.7	%		1,208,085		78.2	%

Income from operations		366,658		22.3	%		336,860		21.8	%
Interest expense, net		180		0.0	%		299		0.0	%

Income before income taxes	$	366,478		22.3	%	$	336,561		21.8	%

On a same facility basis during 2011, as compared to 2010, net revenues at our behavioral health care facilities increased 6% or $99 million to $1.64 billion during 2011 as compared to $1.54 billion during 2010. Income before income taxes increased $30 million or 9% to $366 million or 22.3% of net revenues during 2011 as compared to $337 million or 21.8% of net revenues during 2010.

Inpatient admissions to these facilities increased 7.7% during 2011, as compared to 2010, while patient days increased 3.4%. Adjusted admissions increased 7.6% and adjusted patient days increased 3.3% during 2011, as compared to 2010. The average length of patient stay at these facilities was 14.2 days during 2011 and 14.8 days during 2010. The occupancy rate, based on the average available beds at these facilities, was 74% during each of 2011 and 2010.

On a same facility basis, net revenue per adjusted admission at these facilities decreased 0.8% during 2011, as compared to 2010, and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased 3.3% during 2011, as compared to 2010.

The following table summarizes the results of operations for all our behavioral health care facilities for 2011and 2010 including newly acquired or recently opened facilities and the favorable effect resulting from reductions to our professional and general liability and workers’ compensation self insurance reserves as discussed in Self-Insured Risks. The operating results for the PSI facilities are included in the following table for the eleven-month period ended November 30, 2011 and the period of November 15, 2010 (date of acquisition) through December 31, 2010 (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2011					Year Ended December 31, 2010
All Behavioral Health Care Facilities	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	3,401,118		100.0	%	$	1,635,455		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		1,677,928		49.3	%		806,837		49.3	%
Other operating expenses		607,991		17.9	%		291,825		17.8	%
Supplies expense		179,077		5.3	%		87,375		5.3	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		78,145		2.3	%		36,950		2.3	%
Depreciation and amortization		89,295		2.6	%		39,058		2.4	%
Lease and rental expense		34,230		1.0	%		19,810		1.2	%

		2,666,666		78.4	%		1,281,855		78.4	%

Income from operations		734,452		21.6	%		353,600		21.6	%
Interest expense, net		1,778		0.1	%		397		0.0	%

Income before income taxes	$	732,674		21.5	%	$	353,203		21.6	%

During 2011, as compared to 2010, net revenues at our behavioral health care facilities increased 108% or $1.77 billion to $3.40 billion during 2011 as compared to $1.64 billion during 2010. The increase in net revenues was attributable to:

•

a $97 million increase in same facility revenues, as discussed above, and;

•

a $1.67 billion increase resulting primarily from the revenues generated at the facilities acquired by us from PSI (represents the increase in revenues for the period of January through November, 2011 as compared to November 15, 2010 to November 30, 2010).

Income before income taxes increased $379 million or 107% to $733 million or 21.5% of net revenues during 2011, as compared to $353 million or 21.6% of net revenues during 2010. The increase in income before income taxes at our behavioral health facilities was attributable to:

•

a $30 million increase at our behavioral health facilities on a same facility basis, as discussed above, and;

•

a $349 million of other combined net increases, consisting primarily of the income generated at the PSI facilities acquired by us in November, 2010 (represents the increase in income before income taxes generated at these facilities for the period of January through November, 2011 as compared to November 15, 2010 to November 30, 2010).

Year Ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2009:


	Year Ended December 31, 2010					Year Ended December 31, 2009
Behavioral Health Care Facilities—Same Facility Basis	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	1,393,095		100.0	%	$	1,314,749		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		675,490		48.5	%		642,761		48.9	%
Other operating expenses		251,507		18.1	%		238,635		18.2	%
Supplies expense		74,280		5.3	%		73,549		5.6	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		29,966		2.2	%		31,939		2.4	%
Depreciation and amortization		31,967		2.3	%		31,598		2.4	%
Lease and rental expense		15,385		1.1	%		15,915		1.2	%

		1,078,595		77.4	%		1,034,397		78.7	%

Income from operations		314,500		22.6	%		280,352		21.3	%
Interest expense, net		11		0.0	%		209		0.0	%

Income before income taxes	$	314,489		22.6	%	$	280,143		21.3	%

On a same facility basis during 2010, as compared to 2009, net revenues at our behavioral health care facilities increased 6% or $78 million to $1.39 billion during 2010 as compared to $1.31 billion during 2009. Income before income taxes increased $34 million or 12% to $314 million or 22.6% of net revenues during 2010 as compared to $280 million or 21.3% of net revenues during 2009.

Inpatient admissions to these facilities increased 4.3% during 2010, as compared to 2009, while patient days increased 1.8%. Adjusted admissions increased 4.2% and adjusted patient days increased 1.7% during 2010, as compared to 2009. The average length of patient stay at these facilities was 15.0 days during 2010 and 15.3 days during 2009. The occupancy rate, based on the average available beds at these facilities, was 75% during 2010 and 74% during 2009.

On a same facility basis, net revenue per adjusted admission at these facilities increased 1.4% during 2010, as compared to 2009, and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased 3.9% during 2010, as compared to 2009.

The following table summarizes the results of operations for all our behavioral health care facilities for 2010 and 2009, including newly acquired or recently opened facilities and the favorable effect resulting from reductions to our professional and general liability and workers’ compensation self insurance reserves as discussed in Self-Insured Risks (dollar amounts in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2010					Year Ended December 31, 2009
All Behavioral Health Care Facilities	Amount		% of Revenues			Amount		% of Revenues
Net revenues	$	1,635,455		100.0	%	$	1,315,029		100.0	%
Operating charges:
Salaries, wages and benefits		806,837		49.3	%		641,920		48.8	%
Other operating expenses		291,825		17.8	%		237,378		18.1	%
Supplies expense		87,375		5.3	%		73,715		5.6	%
Provision for doubtful accounts		36,950		2.3	%		31,948		2.4	%
Depreciation and amortization		39,058		2.4	%		31,717		2.4	%