UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

_________________________________________

FORM 10-K

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

OR

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

Commission File Number 001-10315

________________________________________________________

Encompass Health Corporation

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware	63-0860407
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

9001 Liberty Parkway

Birmingham, Alabama 35242

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(205) 967-7116

(Registrant’s telephone number)

_____________________________________________________

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class	Trading Symbol	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.01 par value	EHC	New York Stock Exchange

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

_________________________________________________________

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

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

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 ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

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

Large accelerated filer ☒        Accelerated filer ☐        Emerging growth company ☐

Non-Accelerated filer ☐        Smaller reporting company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐  

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

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $6.2 billion. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, executive officers and directors of the registrant have been deemed to be affiliates. There were 98,433,352 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding, net of treasury shares, as of February 13, 2020.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The definitive proxy statement relating to the registrant’s 2020 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated by reference in Part III to the extent described therein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements		ii
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	18
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	39
Item 2.	Properties	39
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	41
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	41
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	42
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	45
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	46
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	71
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	72
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	72
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	72
Item 9B.	Other Information	73
PART III
Item 10.	Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant	74
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	74
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	74
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	74
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	74
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	75
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	75

NOTE TO READERS

As used in this report, the terms “Encompass Health,” “we,” “us,” “our,” and the “Company” refer to Encompass Health Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless otherwise stated or indicated by context. This drafting style is suggested by the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not meant to imply that Encompass Health Corporation, the publicly traded parent company, owns or operates any specific asset, business, or property. The hospitals, operations, and businesses described in this filing are primarily owned and operated by subsidiaries of the parent company. In addition, we use the term “Encompass Health Corporation” to refer to Encompass Health Corporation alone wherever a distinction between Encompass Health Corporation and its subsidiaries is required or aids in the understanding of this filing. We may refer to our consolidated subsidiary, EHHI Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries, which collectively operate our home health and hospice business, as “EHHI.”

i

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This annual report contains historical information, as well as forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and relate to, among other things, future events, changes to Medicare reimbursement and other healthcare laws and regulations from time to time, our business strategy, our dividend and stock repurchase strategies, our financial plans, our growth plans, our future financial performance, our projected business results, or our projected capital expenditures. In some cases, the reader can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “targets,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. Any forward-looking statement is based on information current as of the date of this report and speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made. Actual events or results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors. While it is impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could cause actual results to differ, such as decreases in revenues or increases in costs or charges, materially from those estimated by us include, but are not limited to, the following:

• each of the factors discussed in Item 1A, Risk Factors; as well as uncertainties and factors, if any, discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K, in our other filings from time to time with the SEC, or in materials incorporated therein by reference;

• changes in the rules and regulations of the healthcare industry at either or both of the federal and state levels, including those contemplated now and in the future as part of national healthcare reform and deficit reduction (such as the re-basing of payment systems, the introduction of site neutral payments or case-mix weightings across post-acute settings, the Patient-Driven Groupings Model for home health, the new patient assessment measures, which we refer to as “Section GG functional measures,” for inpatient rehabilitation, and other payment system reforms), which may decrease revenues and increase the costs of complying with the rules and regulations;

• reductions or delays in, or suspension of, reimbursement for our services by governmental or private payors, including our ability to obtain and retain favorable arrangements with third-party payors;

• restrictive interpretations of the regulations governing the claims that are reimbursable by Medicare;

• our ability to comply with extensive and changing healthcare regulations as well as the increased costs of regulatory compliance and compliance monitoring in the healthcare industry, including the costs of investigating and defending asserted claims, whether meritorious or not;

• any adverse outcome of various lawsuits, claims, and legal or regulatory proceedings, including disclosed and undisclosed qui tam suits;

• the use by governmental agencies and contractors of statistical sampling and extrapolation to expand claims of overpayment or noncompliance;

• delays in the administrative appeals process associated with denied Medicare reimbursement claims, including from various Medicare audit programs, and our exposure to the related delay or reduction in the receipt of the reimbursement amounts for services previously provided, including through recoupment of ongoing claims reimbursement by CMS;

• the ongoing evolution of the healthcare delivery system, including alternative payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives, which may decrease our reimbursement rate or increase costs associated with our operations;

• a pandemic, epidemic, or other widespread outbreak of an infectious disease or other public health crisis, which could decrease our patient volumes and revenues and lead to staffing and supply shortages and associated cost increases;

• our ability to attract and retain nurses, therapists, and other healthcare professionals in a highly competitive environment with often severe staffing shortages and the impact on our labor expenses from potential union activity and staffing recruitment and retention;

• competitive pressures in the healthcare industry, including from other providers that may be participating in integrated delivery payment arrangements in which we do not participate, and our response to those pressures;

ii

• our ability to successfully complete and integrate de novo developments, acquisitions, investments, and joint ventures consistent with our growth strategy, including realization of anticipated revenues, cost savings, productivity improvements arising from the related operations and avoidance of unanticipated difficulties, costs or liabilities that could arise from acquisitions or integrations;

• increased costs of defending and insuring against alleged professional liability and other claims and the ability to predict the costs related to claims;

• potential incidents affecting the proper operation, availability, or security of our or our vendors’ or partners’ information systems, including the patient information stored there;

• new or changing quality reporting requirements impacting operational costs or our Medicare reimbursement;

• the price of our common stock as it affects our willingness and ability to repurchase shares and the financial and accounting effects of any repurchases;

• our ability and willingness to continue to declare and pay dividends on our common stock;

• our ability to maintain proper local, state and federal licensing, including compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation and provider enrollment requirements, which is required to participate in the Medicare program;

• our ability to attract and retain key management personnel;

• changes in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients affecting reimbursement rates; and

• general conditions in the economy and capital markets, including any disruption, instability, or uncertainty related to armed conflict or an act of terrorism, a governmental impasse over approval of the United States federal budget, an increase to the debt ceiling, an international trade war, a sovereign debt crisis, or a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease.

The cautionary statements referred to in this section also should be considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that may be issued by us or persons acting on our behalf. We undertake no duty to update these forward-looking statements, even though our situation may change in the future. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee future results, events, levels of activity, performance, or achievements.

iii

PART I 

Item 1. Business.

Overview of the Company

General

We are a leading provider of integrated healthcare services, offering both facility-based and home-based patient care through our network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, and hospice agencies. As of December 31, 2019, our national footprint spans 37 states and Puerto Rico and includes 133 hospitals and 245 home health and 83 hospice locations. We are committed to delivering high-quality, cost-effective, integrated patient care across the healthcare continuum with a primary focus on the post-acute sector.

In 2018, we undertook a rebranding to reinforce our strategy and position as an integrated provider of facility-based and home-based patient care. As part of the rebranding, we changed our corporate name from HealthSouth Corporation to Encompass Health Corporation and the NYSE ticker symbol for our common stock from “HLS” to “EHC.” Our principal executive offices are located at 9001 Liberty Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35242, and the telephone number of the principal executive offices is (205) 967-7116. Our website address is www.encompasshealth.com.

In addition to the discussion here, we encourage the reader to review Item 1A, Risk Factors, Item 2, Properties, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which highlight additional considerations about our company.

We manage our operations in two operating segments which are also our reportable segments: (1) inpatient rehabilitation and (2) home health and hospice. The table below provides selected operating and financial data for our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, and hospice agencies. See Note 19, Segment Reporting, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for detailed financial information for each of our segments.

	As of or for the Year Ended December 31,
	2019			2018		2017
Consolidated data:	(Actual Amounts)
Inpatient rehabilitation:
Number of hospitals (1)	133			130		127
Discharges	186,842			179,846		171,922
Number of licensed beds	9,249			8,966		8,851
Home health and hospice:
Number of home health locations (2)	245			220		200
Home health admissions	159,727			137,396		124,870
Number of hospice locations	83			58		37
Hospice admissions	10,452			7,474		4,870
Net operating revenues:			(In Millions)
Inpatient	$	3,423.5		$	3,247.9	$	3,039.3
Outpatient and other	89.5			98.3		102.0
Total inpatient rehabilitation	3,513.0			3,346.2		3,141.3
Home health	918.0			814.6		702.4
Hospice	174.0			116.5		70.2
Total home health and hospice	1,092.0			931.1		772.6
Net operating revenues	$	4,605.0		$	4,277.3	$	3,913.9

⁽¹⁾  These amounts include one hospital as of December 31, 2018, and 2017 operating as a joint venture, which we accounted for using the equity method of accounting. As a result of an amendment to the joint venture agreement related to this hospital, the accounting for it changed from the equity method to consolidated effective July 1, 2019. 

⁽²⁾  These amounts include two locations as of December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 which we account for using the equity method of accounting.

1

Inpatient Rehabilitation

We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in terms of patients treated and discharged, revenues, and number of hospitals. We provide specialized rehabilitative treatment on predominantly an inpatient basis. We operate hospitals in 33 states and Puerto Rico, with concentrations in the eastern half of the United States and Texas. In addition to our hospitals, we manage four inpatient rehabilitation units through management contracts.

Our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals offer specialized rehabilitative care across an array of diagnoses and deliver comprehensive, high-quality, cost-effective patient care services. As participants in the Medicare program, our hospitals must be licensed and certified and otherwise comply with various requirements that are discussed below in the “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement—Inpatient Rehabilitation” section. Substantially all (90%) of the patients we serve are admitted from acute care hospitals following physician referrals for specific acute inpatient rehabilitative care. Most of those patients have experienced significant physical and cognitive disabilities or injuries due to medical conditions, such as strokes, hip fractures, and a variety of debilitating neurological conditions, that are generally nondiscretionary in nature and require rehabilitative healthcare services in a facility-based setting. Our teams of highly skilled nurses and physical, occupational, and speech therapists utilize proven technology and clinical protocols with the objective of restoring our patients’ physical and cognitive abilities. Patient care is provided by nursing and therapy staff as directed by physician orders while case managers monitor each patient’s progress and provide documentation and oversight of patient status, achievement of goals, discharge planning, and functional outcomes. Our hospitals provide a comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical approach to treatment that leverages innovative technologies and advanced therapies and leads to superior outcomes.

Home Health and Hospice

Our home health business is the nation’s fourth largest provider of Medicare-certified skilled home health services in terms of revenues. Our hospice business is the nation’s eleventh largest provider of Medicare-certified hospice services in terms of revenues. We operate home health and hospice agencies in 31 states, with concentrations in the Southeast and Texas. As participants in the Medicare program, our agencies must comply with various requirements that are discussed below in the “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement—Home Health” and “—Hospice” sections. We acquired a significant portion of our home health and hospice business when we purchased EHHI Holdings, Inc. (“EHHI”) on December 31, 2014. In the acquisition, we acquired 83.3% of the issued and outstanding equity interests of EHHI, and certain members of EHHI management, including April Anthony, its chief executive officer, acquired the remaining interests. As of February 19, 2020, we own 98.8% of EHHI. See Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for further discussion of the ownership structure of our home health and hospice business.

Our home health agencies provide a comprehensive range of Medicare-certified home care services. These services include, among others, skilled nursing, physical, occupational and speech therapy, medical social work, and home health aide services. We also offer evidence-based specialty programs related to post-operative care, fall prevention, chronic disease management, and transitional care. Home health patients are frequently referred to us following a stay in an acute care or inpatient rehabilitation hospital or other facility, but many patients are referred from primary care settings and specialty physicians without a preceding inpatient stay. Our patients are typically older adults with three or more chronic conditions and significant functional limitations, and require greater than ten medications. Our teams of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, physical, speech and occupational therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides work closely with patients and their families and physicians to deliver patient-centered care plans focused on their needs and their goals.

We also provide hospice services to terminally ill patients and their families. These in-home services address patients’ physical needs, including pain control and symptom management, and provide emotional and spiritual support. Our hospice care teams consist of physician medical directors, nurses, social workers, chaplains, therapists, home health aides, and volunteers.

Competitive Strengths

We believe we differentiate ourselves from our competitors based on, among other things, the quality of our clinical outcomes, our cost-effectiveness, our financial strength, and our extensive application of technology. We also believe our competitive strengths discussed below give us the ability to adapt and succeed in a healthcare industry shifting toward integrated delivery payment models, value-based purchasing, and post-acute site neutrality. For example, we believe we are well-positioned to treat all types of post-acute patients by leveraging our operational expertise across our network of facility- and home-based assets in the event multiple or all post-acute settings (long-term acute care, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing, and home health) transition in the future to site neutral patient criteria for reimbursement. Our hospitals have the physical construct (including aspects such as the therapy gym and training areas), clinical staffing, and operating expertise to address the broad spectrum of needs for higher acuity post-acute patients needing inpatient care. Our home health agencies can

2

often treat patients leaving our or other inpatient facilities who need additional post-acute care services in lieu of skilled nursing facility-based care. Additionally, those agencies can serve the lower acuity patients that do not require facility-based care.

• People. We believe our employees share a steadfast commitment to providing outstanding care to our patients. We undertake significant efforts to ensure our clinical and support staff receives the education and training necessary to provide the highest quality care in the most cost-effective manner. We also have hospital staff trained for all patient acuity levels faced in the post-acute setting. We embrace the Encompass Health Way, our core set of values developed through input from a broad cross section of our employees. The Encompass Health Way calls on each of our employees to set the standard, lead with empathy, do what’s right, focus on the positive, and ensure we are stronger together.

• Change Agility. We have a demonstrated ability to adapt in the face of numerous and significant regulatory and legislative changes. For example, we successfully managed through the significant regulatory, financial, and other challenges associated with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) rule commonly referred to as the “75% Rule” in 2004, reimbursement rate reductions associated with the shift from the 75% Rule to the “60% Rule” in 2007, sequestration beginning in 2013, multiple reimbursement rate reductions associated with healthcare reform and otherwise, introduction of significantly more quality reporting requirements beginning in 2013, and implementation of both voluntary and mandatory alternative payment models in recent years.

• Strategic Relationships. We have a long and successful history of building strategic relationships with major healthcare systems. Our experience will be important in growing the Company as the industry evolves toward integrated delivery models. We entered into our first joint venture in 1991 with a nationally prominent university’s acute care hospital. Approximately one-third of our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals currently operate as joint ventures with acute care hospitals or systems. Joint ventures with market leading acute care hospitals establish a solid foundation for operating our business within integrated delivery and alternative payment models.

Our combined platform of facility-based and home-based services provides us with an opportunity to succeed in value-based purchasing programs and to participate in more coordinated care and integrated delivery payment models, such as accountable care organizations (“ACOs”) and bundled payment arrangements. We believe clinical collaboration between our hospitals and home health agencies offers an excellent means to deliver the quality of care and the cost effectiveness the healthcare partners in these new models seek. We have focused, and will continue to focus, on increasing this collaboration. For additional discussion of our participation in these models, including the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced initiative, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview.”

In 2017, we formed the Post-Acute Innovation Center in collaboration with Cerner Corporation, a global leader in health information technology, to develop enhanced tools to manage patients across the continuum of care. The objective of the Post-Acute Innovation Center is to develop clinical decision support tools and other initiatives that enhance the effective and efficient management of patients across multiple post-acute care settings by facilitating high-quality patient care, enhanced care coordination, network provider performance and cost management.

We also have a strategic sponsorship with the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association on a nationwide basis to increase patient independence after a stroke and reduce stroke mortality through community outreach and information campaigns. This strategic sponsorship is a three-year project beginning in 2019 to accelerate adoption of the AHA/ASA Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines, increase patient awareness of their post-stroke options, and provide practical support to patients and their families to improve recovery outcomes. These Guidelines recommend, among other things, that stroke patients be treated at an inpatient rehabilitation facility, or “IRF,” rather than a skilled nursing facility. In 2019, we began offering the patient, caregiver, and provider tools, the special events, and the educational programs developed in partnership with the AHA/ASA. Echoing the AHA/ASA Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Journal of the American Medical Association published in 2019 guidelines and an article, respectively, advocating for the treatment of stroke patients in inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

• Clinical Expertise and High-Quality Outcomes. We have extensive facility-based and home-based clinical experience from which we have developed standardized best practices and protocols. We believe these clinical best practices and protocols, particularly as leveraged with industry-leading technology, help ensure the delivery of consistently high-quality healthcare services. Our “TeamWorks” program is a series of operations-focused initiatives using identified and standardized best practices to reduce inefficiencies and improve performance

3

across a spectrum of operational areas. We believe these initiatives have enhanced, and will continue to enhance, patient-employee interactions, clinical collaboration, and communication among the patient, the patient’s family, our treatment teams, other care providers, and payors, which, in turn, improves patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Our best practices and protocols have helped our hospitals consistently achieve patient outcomes, such as the rate of discharge to community, that exceed industry averages. Additionally, our hospitals participate in The Joint Commission's Disease-Specific Care Certification Program. Under this program, Joint Commission accredited organizations may seek certification for chronic diseases or conditions such as brain injury, stroke, or hip fracture rehabilitation by complying with Joint Commission standards, effectively using evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines to manage and optimize patient care, and using an organized approach to performance measurement and evaluation of clinical outcomes. Obtaining such certifications demonstrates our commitment to excellence in providing disease-specific care. As of December 31, 2019, 123 of our hospitals held stroke-specific certifications, and some of those hospitals held other disease-specific certifications.

In home health, we place a significant emphasis on technology for the purpose of furthering clinical excellence and consistency. We have also developed programs to, among other things, create physician-specific custom treatment protocols and provide care transition from inpatient facilities to home for higher acuity patients. We consistently achieve an acute care readmission rate lower than the industry average along with an average quality of patient care star rating above the industry average.

Clinical collaboration between our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and home health agencies furthers our pursuit of quality patient outcomes and improved patient experiences. Institutional programs and advanced treatment protocols connect facility-based and home-based care and allow seamless transition of patients across the healthcare continuum. An important component of clinical collaboration has been the placement of care transition coordinators in markets where we operate both inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and home health agencies, which we refer to as “overlap markets.” These highly skilled professionals collaborate with clinicians and case managers in our hospitals to assess patients who may require home health services and prepare these patients for the care they will receive at home. The coordinators also work with patients’ families to ensure those family members are prepared to bring their loved ones home safely. We believe our clinical collaboration efforts contributed to reductions in discharges to skilled nursing facilities, higher discharges to home, and improved patient satisfaction.

• Cost Effectiveness. Our size, data-driven business practices, and culture help us provide facility-based and home-based healthcare services on a cost-effective basis. For example, our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals historically have received, on average, a lower per discharge payment from Medicare than the industry average payment while also treating patients with higher average acuity. Additionally, our hospitals historically have received, on average, significantly less Medicare high cost outlier reimbursement than other inpatient rehabilitation providers have. High cost outlier payments are supplemental payments from Medicare intended to cover high cost cases in excess of a fixed-loss threshold amount.

Specifically, we can leverage our comprehensive IT capabilities and centralized administrative functions, identify best practices, utilize proven staffing models, and take advantage of supply chain efficiencies across our extensive platform of operations. At the location level, we also enjoy economies of scale as our hospitals are often larger (more beds) than the industry average. Also, we target patient density in the home health markets we serve, which is central to our ability to deliver an efficient cost per visit. In addition, our proprietary information systems, discussed below, aggregate data from our business into a comprehensive reporting package and database used by management in the field and in the home office. Our information systems allow users to analyze data and trends and create custom reports on a timely basis.

With a significant presence in both facility-based and home-based healthcare services, we have the opportunity to take advantage of the broader industry focus on reducing costs. Home-based services, which typically have significantly lower cost structures than facility-based care settings, have increasingly been serving larger populations of higher acuity patients than in the past. Home-based services provide a cost-effective alternative to facility-based care in cases where lower acuity patients do not require a hospital stay.

• Financial Resources. We have a proven track record of generating strong cash flows from operations that have allowed us to successfully pursue our growth strategy, manage our financial leverage, and make significant shareholder distributions. As of December 31, 2019, we have a strong, well-capitalized balance sheet, including ownership of approximately 70% of our hospital real estate, no significant debt maturities prior to 2023, and ample availability under our revolving credit facility, which along with the cash flows generated from operations should, we believe, provide sufficient support for our business strategy.

4

• Advanced Technology and Innovation. We are focused on developing technology-enabled real-time strategies for the next generation of integrated healthcare. Our post-acute innovation strategy is based on leveraging our clinical expertise, our large post-acute datasets, and our proven capabilities in enterprise-level electronic medical record technologies, data analytics, data integration, and predictive analytics to drive value-based performance across the healthcare continuum for our patients, our partners, and our payors. We have devoted substantial resources, effort and expertise to leveraging technology to create post-acute solutions that improve patient care and operating efficiencies.

We have developed and implemented information technology, such as our rehabilitation-specific electronic medical record system (“ACE-IT”) and our internally developed management reporting system described above (“BEACON”), which we then leverage to enhance our clinical and business processes. ACE-IT allows us to interface with the clinical information systems of acute care hospitals to facilitate patient transfers, reduce readmissions, and enhance patient outcomes. We believe ACE-IT improves patient care and safety, streamlines operating efficiencies, and enhances staff recruitment and retention, making it a key competitive differentiator. BEACON gives us the ability to build from disparate data sources clinical and business dashboards that contribute to our ability to make data driven decisions in the day-to-day operation of our business and clinical care of our patients.

Members of our home health management team developed Homecare Homebase^SM, an industry-leading, comprehensive information platform designed to manage the entire patient work flow and allow home health providers to process clinical, compliance, financial, and marketing information as well as analyze data and trends for management purposes using custom reports on a timely basis. Our knowledge of Homecare Homebase, of which we are now a licensee, as well as the thorough integration of it into the operating culture allow us to optimize the system’s capability to drive superior clinical, operational, and financial outcomes. We also offer a number of evidence-based home health specialty programs, including post-operative care, fall prevention, chronic disease management and transitional care. In 2019, we began rolling out to our agencies a new data analytics tool designed to optimize patient health care plans and reduce emergency room visits and hospital readmissions.

We intend to continue to design, pilot and implement post acute information system solutions to improve our clinical care, including clinical decision support tools and home health care plan optimization tools. In recent years, we have designed and implemented a program we refer to as ReAct that uses predictive modeling and an extensive proprietary database of our IRF patients in an effort to identify patients at risk for acute care transfers and to implement intervention strategies in the care plan. In 2019, we developed a post-acute readmission prediction model to reduce readmissions for our patients. We piloted this model in 9 hospitals and corresponding overlap home health locations and will roll it out to all of our hospitals in 2020. We will continue to expand the depth and reach of our tools and the development of new tools that will help maximize patient outcomes and reduce episodic costs across the post-acute continuum.

We believe our information systems and post-acute solutions, in addition to improving patient care and operating efficiencies, allow us to collect, analyze, and share information on a timely basis making us an ideal partner for other healthcare providers in a coordinated care delivery environment. Systems such as ACE-IT and Homecare Homebase allow for interoperability with referral sources and other providers coordinating care. Homecare Homebase also allows us to share valuable data with payors to promote better patient outcomes on a more cost-effective basis.

Patients and Demographic Trends

Demographic trends, such as population aging, should continue to increase long-term demand for the services we provide. While we treat patients of all ages, most of our patients are 65 and older, and the number of Medicare enrollees is expected to grow approximately 3% per year for the foreseeable future. Even more specifically, the average age of our patients is approximately 76, and the population group ranging in ages from 75 to 79 is expected to grow at approximately 5% per year through 2026. We believe the demand for the services we provide will continue to increase as the U.S. population ages. We believe these factors align with our strengths in, and focus on, post-acute services. In addition, we believe we can address the demand for facility-based and home-based post-acute care services in markets where we currently do not have a presence by constructing or acquiring new hospitals and by acquiring or opening home health and hospice agencies in those extremely fragmented industries.

5

Strategy and 2020 Strategic Priorities

Our strategy is to expand our network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and home health and hospice locations, further strengthen our relationships with healthcare systems, provider networks, and payors in order to connect patient care across the healthcare continuum, and to deliver superior patient outcomes. We believe this strategy, along with our demonstrated ability to adapt to changes in healthcare, will position us for success in the evolving healthcare delivery system. In pursuit of our strategy, we established the following strategic priorities for 2020.

Growth. We will continue to expand our portfolio of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, and hospice agencies. Each year we target adding four to six new inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and $50 million to $100 million in home health and hospice acquisitions. We also believe we will continue to have excellent organic growth opportunities in our inpatient rehabilitation and home health and hospice segments based on our track record of consistent growth in both segments, planned bed additions at a number of existing hospitals, and the maturation of acquired home health and hospice locations.

Operational Initiatives. Our priorities include operational initiatives that build on momentum from recent years. We will seek to continue to increase clinical collaboration. We believe our clinical collaboration efforts have and will continue to contribute to reductions in discharges to skilled nursing facilities, higher discharges to home, and improved patient experiences. Given the significant number of stroke patients in need of post-acute care, we are attempting to build our stroke market share by leveraging our strategic sponsorship of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, the IRF treatment recommendations published by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Journal of the American Medical Association, our clinical collaboration, and our hospitals’ participation in The Joint Commission’s Disease-Specific Care Certification Program. As of December 31, 2019, 123 of our 133 hospitals held stroke-specific certifications that required us to demonstrate effective use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to manage and optimize stroke care and an organized approach to performance measurement and evaluation of clinical outcomes. We will also continue to develop and implement post-acute solutions by leveraging our clinical expertise, large post-acute datasets, electronic medical record technologies, and strategic partnerships to drive improved patient outcomes and lower the cost of care across the entire post-acute episode. Additionally, we will continue the transition to the new Medicare reimbursement systems for both inpatient rehabilitation and home health, which are discussed further below under “—Sources of Revenue—Medicare Reimbursement.”

Capital Structure. We will seek to maintain balance sheet flexibility, consider opportunistic refinancings and augment returns from investments in operations with shareholder distributions via common stock dividends and repurchases of our common stock.

For additional discussion of our strategic priorities as well as our progress toward our priorities in 2019, including operating results, growth, and shareholder distributions, and our business outlook, see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview,” “Results of Operations,” and “Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we employed approximately 31,570 individuals, of whom approximately 18,980 were full-time employees, in our inpatient rehabilitation business and approximately 11,840 individuals, of whom approximately 8,990 were full-time employees, in our home health and hospice business. We are subject to various state and federal laws that regulate wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions relating to employment. Except for approximately 58 employees at one hospital (approximately 15% of that hospital’s workforce), none of our employees are represented by a labor union as of December 31, 2019. In some markets, the lack of availability of medical personnel is a significant operating issue facing healthcare providers. To address this challenge, we will continue to focus on maintaining the competitiveness of our compensation and benefit programs and improving our recruitment, retention, and productivity. Shortages of nurses and other medical personnel, including therapists, may, from time to time, require us to increase use of more expensive temporary personnel, which we refer to as “contract labor,” and other types of premium pay programs.

Competition

Inpatient Rehabilitation. The inpatient rehabilitation industry, outside of our leading position, is highly fragmented. Our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals compete primarily with rehabilitation units, most of which are within acute care hospitals, in the markets we serve. An acute care hospital, particularly one owned or operated by a large public company or not-for-profit that has a dominant position in the local market, can be a formidable competitor because 90% of our patients come from acute care hospitals. There are several privately held companies offering post-acute rehabilitation services that compete with us primarily in select geographic markets. In addition, there is a public company that is primarily focused on other post-acute care services, including approximately 1,700 outpatient clinics, but also operates approximately 29 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.

6

Other providers of post-acute care services compete for some rehabilitation patients. For example, nursing homes may market themselves as offering certain rehabilitation services, particularly to patients not in need of intensive rehabilitation therapy, even though those nursing homes are not required to offer the same level of care, and are not licensed, as hospitals. The primary competitive factors in any given market include the quality of care and service provided, the treatment outcomes achieved, the relationship and reputation with managed care and other private payors and the acute care hospitals, physicians, or other referral sources in the market, and the regulatory barriers to entry in certificate of need states. The ability to work as part of an integrated delivery payment model with other providers, including the ability to deliver quality patient outcomes and cost-effective care, is likely to become an increasingly important factor in competition. See the “Regulation—Relationships with Physicians and Other Providers” and “Regulation—Certificates of Need” sections below for further discussion of some of these factors. For a list of our inpatient rehabilitation markets by state, see the table in Item 2, Properties.

Home Health and Hospice. The home health and hospice services industries are also highly competitive and fragmented. There are more than 11,500 home health agencies and approximately 4,600 hospice agencies nationwide certified to participate in Medicare. We are the fourth largest provider of Medicare-certified skilled home health services in the United States in terms of Medicare revenues. Our primary competition varies from market to market. Providers of home health and hospice services include both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. There are four other public healthcare companies with significant presences in the Medicare-certified home health industry, one of which is an insurance company that is one of the largest providers of Medicare-certified skilled home health services. The primary competitive factors in any given market include the quality of care and service provided, the treatment outcomes achieved, the relationship and reputation with managed care and other private payors and the acute care hospitals, physicians, or other referral sources in the market, and the regulatory barriers to entry in certificate of need states. The ability to work as part of an integrated care delivery model with other providers is likely to become an increasingly important factor in competition. For example, we are currently the preferred home health provider in two ACOs serving approximately 26,000 patients. Home health providers with scale, which include the other public companies, may have competitive advantages, including professional management, efficient operations, sophisticated information systems, brand recognition, and large referral bases. For a list of our home health and hospice markets by state, see the table in Item 2, Properties.

Regulatory and Reimbursement Challenges

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry facing many well-publicized regulatory and reimbursement challenges driven by escalating costs and the pursuit of better quality of care. The industry also is facing uncertainty associated with the efforts to identify and implement workable coordinated care and integrated delivery payment models as well as post-acute site neutrality in Medicare reimbursement. The Medicare reimbursement systems for both inpatient rehabilitation and home health are undergoing significant changes. The future of many aspects of healthcare regulation remains uncertain. Any regulatory or legislative changes impacting the healthcare industry ultimately may affect, among other things, reimbursement of healthcare providers, consumers’ access to coverage of health services, including among non-Medicare aged population segments within commercial insurance markets and Medicaid enrollees, and competition among providers. Changes may also affect the delivery of healthcare services to patients by providers and the regulatory compliance obligations associated with those services.

Successful healthcare providers are those able to adapt to changes in the regulatory and operating environments, build strategic relationships across the healthcare continuum, and consistently provide high-quality, cost-effective care. We believe we have the necessary capabilities — change agility, strategic relationships, quality of patient outcomes, cost effectiveness, and ability to capitalize on growth opportunities — to adapt to and succeed in a dynamic, highly regulated industry, and we have a proven track record of doing so. For more in-depth discussion of the primary challenges and risks related to our business, particularly the changes in Medicare reimbursement (including the impact of alternative payment models, value-based purchasing initiatives and site neutrality), increased compliance and enforcement burdens, and changes to our operating environment resulting from healthcare reform, see “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement” and “Regulation” below in this section as well as Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”

7

Sources of Revenues

We receive payment for patient care services from the federal government (primarily under the Medicare program), managed care plans and private insurers, and, to a considerably lesser degree, state governments (under their respective Medicaid or similar programs) and directly from patients. Revenues and receivables from Medicare are significant to our operations. The federal and state governments establish payment rates as described in more detail below. We negotiate the payment rates with non-governmental group purchasers of healthcare services that are included in “Managed care” in the tables below, including private insurance companies, employers, health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”), preferred provider organizations (“PPOs”), and other managed care plans. Patients are generally not responsible for the difference between established gross charges and amounts reimbursed for such services under Medicare, Medicaid, and other private insurance plans, HMOs, or PPOs but are responsible to the extent of any exclusions, deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance features of their coverage. Medicare, through its Medicare Advantage program, offers Medicare-eligible individuals an opportunity to participate in managed care plans. Revenues from Medicare and Medicare Advantage represent approximately 86% of total revenues.

The following tables identify the sources and relative mix of our revenues for the periods stated for each of our business segments:

Inpatient Rehabilitation
	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2019		2018		2017
Medicare	72.2	%	73.2	%	73.6	%
Medicare Advantage	10.7	%	9.2	%	8.3	%
Managed care	9.8	%	10.3	%	10.7	%
Medicaid	3.1	%	3.0	%	3.0	%
Other third-party payors	1.2	%	1.5	%	1.6	%
Workers' compensation	0.8	%	0.8	%	0.9	%
Patients	0.7	%	0.6	%	0.6	%
Other income	1.5	%	1.4	%	1.3	%
Total	100.0	%	100.0	%	100.0	%

Home Health and Hospice
	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2019		2018		2017
Medicare	84.2	%	85.3	%	85.7	%
Medicare Advantage	10.2	%	9.5	%	9.7	%
Managed care	3.6	%	3.6	%	3.8	%
Medicaid	1.7	%	1.2	%	0.6	%
Workers' compensation	0.1	%	0.2	%	—	%
Patients	0.1	%	0.1	%	0.1	%
Other income	0.1	%	0.1	%	0.1	%
Total	100.0	%	100.0	%	100.0	%

Medicare Reimbursement

Medicare is a federal program that provides hospital and medical insurance benefits to persons aged 65 and over, qualified disabled persons, and persons with end-stage renal disease. Medicare, through statutes and regulations, establishes reimbursement methodologies and rates for various types of healthcare providers, facilities, and services. Each year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”), an independent agency that advises the United States Congress on issues affecting Medicare, makes payment policy recommendations to Congress for a variety of Medicare payment systems including, among others, the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (the “IRF-PPS”), the home health prospective payment system (the “HH-PPS”), and the hospice payment system (the “Hospice-PS”). Congress is not obligated to

8

adopt MedPAC recommendations, and, based on outcomes in previous years, there can be no assurance Congress will adopt MedPAC’s recommendations in a given year. However, MedPAC’s recommendations have, and could in the future, become the basis for subsequent legislative or, as discussed below, regulatory action.

The Medicare statutes are subject to change from time to time. For example, in March 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as subsequently amended, the “2010 Healthcare Reform Laws”). In December 2018, a federal district court in Texas invalidated the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws in their entirety but postponed enforcement of that decision pending appeal. On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court decision but remanded the case for additional analysis on the question of severability. With respect to Medicare reimbursement, the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws provided for specific reductions to healthcare providers’ annual market basket updates and other payment policy changes. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 providing for an automatic 2% reduction, or “sequestration,” of Medicare program payments for all healthcare providers. Sequestration took effect April 1, 2013 and, as a result of subsequent legislation, will continue through fiscal year 2029 unless Congress and the President take further action. On February 9, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the “2018 Budget Act”), which includes several provisions affecting Medicare reimbursement. Among those changes, the 2018 Budget Act mandated the adoption of a new Medicare payment model for home health providers which went into effect January 1, 2020. In the future, concerns about the federal deficit and national debt levels could result in enactment of further federal spending reductions, further entitlement reform legislation affecting the Medicare program, or both. The future of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws as well as the nature and substance of any other healthcare legislation remain uncertain. The 2020 presidential election is likely to involve extensive debate over dramatically different approaches to federal healthcare policy.

From time to time, Medicare regulations, including reimbursement methodologies and rates, can be further modified by CMS. CMS, subject to its statutory authority, may make some prospective payment system changes, including in response to MedPAC recommendations. For example, CMS recently instituted a rebasing adjustment in the HH-PPS consistent with a MedPAC recommendation. In some instances, CMS’s modifications can have a substantial impact on healthcare providers. In accordance with Medicare laws and statutes, CMS makes annual adjustments to Medicare payment rates in prospective payment systems, including the IRF-PPS and HH-PPS, by what is commonly known as a “market basket update.” CMS may take other regulatory action affecting rates as well. For example, under the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws, CMS requires IRFs to submit data on certain quality of care measures for the IRF quality reporting program. A facility’s failure to submit the required quality data results in a two percentage point reduction to that facility’s annual market basket increase factor for payments made for discharges in a subsequent Medicare fiscal year. IRFs began submitting quality data to CMS in October 2012. All of our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals have met the reporting deadlines to date resulting in no corresponding reimbursement reductions. Similarly, home health and hospice agencies are required to submit quality data to CMS each year, and the failure to do so in accordance with the rules will result in a two percentage point reduction in their market basket update. For 2020, we expect no more than seven of our home health and hospice agencies will incur a reduction in their reimbursement rates.

We cannot predict the adjustments to Medicare payment rates Congress or CMS may make in the future. Congress, MedPAC, and CMS will continue to address reimbursement rates for a variety of healthcare settings. Any additional downward adjustment to rates or limitations on reimbursement for the types of facilities we operate and services we provide could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional discussion of the risks associated with our concentration of revenues from the federal government or with potential changes to the statutes or regulations governing Medicare reimbursement, including the 2018 Budget Act, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”

Although reductions or changes in reimbursement from governmental or third-party payors and regulatory changes affecting our business represent one of the most significant challenges to our business, our operations are also affected by other rules and regulations that indirectly affect reimbursement for our services, such as data coding rules and patient coverage rules and determinations. For example, Medicare providers like us can be negatively affected by the adoption of coverage policies, either at the national or local level, that determine whether an item or service is covered and under what clinical circumstances it is considered to be reasonable and necessary. Current CMS coverage rules require inpatient rehabilitation services to be ordered by a physician and be coordinated by an interdisciplinary team. The interdisciplinary team must meet weekly to review patient status and make any needed adjustments to the individualized plan of care. Qualified personnel must provide the rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, social services, psychological services, and prosthetic and orthotic services that may be needed. Medicare contractors processing claims for CMS make coverage determinations regarding medical necessity that can represent restrictive interpretations of the CMS coverage rules.

9

Those interpretations are not made through a notice and comment review process. We cannot predict how future CMS coverage rule interpretations or any new local coverage determinations will affect us.

In the ordinary course, Medicare reimbursement claims made by healthcare providers, including inpatient rehabilitation hospitals as well as home health and hospice agencies, are subject to audit from time to time by governmental payors and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) that act as fiscal intermediaries for all Medicare billings, as well as the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”), CMS, and state Medicaid programs. In addition to those audits conducted by existing MACs, CMS has developed and instituted various Medicare audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. Some contractors are paid a percentage of the overpayments recovered. The Recovery Audit Contractors (“RACs”) conduct payment reviews of claims, which can examine coding, overall billing accuracy, and medical necessity. When conducting an audit, the RACs receive claims data directly from MACs on a monthly or quarterly basis.

CMS has also established Unified Program Integrity Contractors (“UPICs”), previously known as Zone Program Integrity Contractors, to perform fraud, waste, and abuse detection, deterrence and prevention activities for Medicare and Medicaid claims. Like the RACs, the UPICs conduct audits and have the ability to refer matters to the HHS-OIG or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Unlike RACs, however, UPICs do not receive a specific financial incentive based on the amount of the payment errors they identify.

As a matter of course, we undertake significant efforts through training, education, and documentation to ensure compliance with coding and medical necessity coverage rules. Despite our belief that our coding and assessment of patients are accurate, audits may lead to assertions that we have been underpaid or overpaid by Medicare or submitted improper claims in some instances, require us to incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and defend the validity of payments and claims, and ultimately require us to refund any amounts determined to have been overpaid. We cannot predict when or how these audit programs will affect us. Any denial of a claim for payment, either as a result of an audit or ordinary course payment review by the MAC, is subject to an appeals process that is currently taking numerous years to complete. For additional discussion of these audits and the risks associated with them, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”

A basic summary of current Medicare reimbursement in our business segments follows:

Inpatient Rehabilitation. As discussed above, our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals receive a fixed payment reimbursement amount per discharge under the IRF-PPS based on the patient’s rehabilitation impairment category established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and other characteristics and conditions identified by the attending clinicians. In order to qualify for reimbursement under the IRF-PPS, our hospitals must comply with various Medicare rules and regulations including documentation and coverage requirements, or specifications as to what conditions must be met to qualify for reimbursement. These requirements relate to, among other things, pre-admission screening, post-admission evaluations, and individual treatment planning that all delineate the role of physicians in ordering and overseeing patient care. For example, a physician must admit each patient and in doing so determine that the treatment of the patient in an IRF setting is reasonable and necessary. In addition, to qualify as an IRF under Medicare rules, a facility must be primarily focused on treating patients with one of 13 specified medical conditions that typically require intensive therapy and supervision, such as stroke, brain injury, hip fracture, certain neurological conditions, and spinal cord injury. Specifically, at least 60% of a facility’s patients must have a diagnosis from at least one of these 13 conditions, which requirement is known as the “60% Rule.” Also, each patient admitted to an IRF must be able to tolerate a minimum of three hours of therapy per day for five days per week and must have a registered nurse available 24 hours, each day of the week.

Under IRF-PPS, CMS is required to adjust the payment rates based on an IRF-specific market basket index. The annual market basket update is designed to reflect changes over time in the prices of a mix of goods and services used by IRFs. In setting annual market basket updates, CMS uses data furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for price proxy purposes, primarily in three categories: Producer Price Indexes, Consumer Price Indexes, and Employment Cost Indexes. With IRF-PPS, our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals retain the difference, if any, between the fixed payment from Medicare and their operating costs. Thus, our hospitals benefit from being cost-effective providers.

On July 31, 2018, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2019 IRF-PPS (the “2019 IRF Rule”). The 2019 IRF Rule implemented a 2.9% market basket update that was reduced by 75 basis points under the requirements of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws effective for discharges between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. The 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws also required the market basket update to be reduced by a productivity adjustment on an annual basis. The productivity adjustment equals the trailing 10-year average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity. The productivity adjustment effective October 1, 2018 decreased the market basket update by 80 basis points. Additionally, the 2019 IRF Rule included a change to the IRF-PPS, effective October 1, 2019, that replaced the

10

FIM™ assessment instrument with new patient assessment measures, which we refer to as “Section GG functional measures” or “Section GG” based on the designation CMS assigned to them.

On July 31, 2019, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2020 IRF-PPS (the “2020 IRF Rule”). The 2020 IRF Rule implements a net 2.5% market basket increase (market basket update of 2.9% reduced by a productivity adjustment of 40 basis points) effective for discharges between October 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020. The 2020 IRF Rule includes the final form of Section GG changes. Section GG affects patients’ classification into case-mix groupings, relative weights, and length-of-stay values under the IRF-PPS, which in turn will likely negatively impact our reimbursement amounts. The 2020 IRF Rule also includes changes that impact our hospital-by-hospital base rate for Medicare reimbursement. Such changes include, but are not limited to, revisions to the wage index and labor-related share values. There are also changes to the IRF quality reporting program that require IRFs to collect and report more quality data and clinical information in the future. Based on the market basket update, our analysis of the Section GG changes and the other adjustments included in the 2020 IRF Rule and other factors, we currently estimate Medicare payment rates for our inpatient rehabilitation segment will be flat to up 0.75% in fiscal year 2020.

Unlike our inpatient services, our outpatient services are primarily reimbursed under the Medicare Part B physician fee schedule. On November 1, 2019, CMS released its final notice of rulemaking for the payment policies under the physician fee schedule and other revisions to Part B policies for calendar year 2020. The provisions of this rule, including the updates to the fee schedule, are not expected to be material to us.

Home Health. Medicare pays home health benefits for patients discharged from a hospital or patients otherwise suffering from chronic conditions that require ongoing but intermittent skilled care. As a condition of participation under Medicare, patients must be homebound (meaning unable to leave their home without a considerable and taxing effort), require intermittent skilled nursing, physical therapy or speech therapy services, or have a continuing need for occupational therapy, and receive treatment under a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician. A physician must document that he or she or a qualifying nurse practitioner has had a face-to-face encounter with the patient and then certify to CMS that a patient meets the eligibility requirements for the home health benefit. This initial certification of Medicare patient eligibility, plan of care, and comprehensive assessment is valid for a 60-day episode of care. Prior to January 1, 2020, Medicare paid home health providers under the HH-PPS for each 60-day episode of care for each patient. Providers typically received either 50% or 60% of the estimated base payment for the full 60 days for each patient upon submission of the initial claim at the beginning of the episode of care based on the patient’s condition and treatment needs. The provider received the remaining portion of the payment after the 60-day treatment period, subject to any applicable adjustments. This partial early payment process is referred to as the Request for Anticipated Payment or “RAP.”

Beginning January 1, 2020, Medicare reimburses home health providers under a new payment system, referred to as the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (“PDGM”). PDGM replaces the current 60-day episode of payment methodology with a 30-day payment period and relies more heavily on clinical characteristics and other patient information (such as principal diagnosis, functional level, referral source, and timing), rather than the current therapy service-use thresholds, to determine payments. Under PDGM, the initial certification will remain valid for 60-days. If a patient remains eligible for care after the initial period as certified by a physician, a new treatment period may begin. There are currently no limits to the number of home health treatment periods a Medicare patient may receive assuming there is eligibility for each successive period. PDGM also reduces the early payment opportunity available through RAP in 2020 and eliminates RAP completely in 2021. Additionally, beginning in 2022, home health providers will be required to submit a Notice of Admission, or “NOA,” within 5 days of the start of the initial treatment period and within 5 days of day 31 for the second 30-day payment period. CMS will reduce reimbursement for agencies that fail to submit a NOA timely. For additional discussion of PDGM and other regulatory and legislative initiatives that could impact our home health business, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”

Home health Medicare payments are adjusted based on each patient’s condition and clinical treatment. This is referred to as the case-mix adjustment. In addition to the case-mix adjustment, payments for periods of care may be adjusted for other reasons, including unusually large (outlier) costs, low-utilization patients (such as those requiring one to five visits based on the case-mix group), and geographic differences in wages. Payments are also made for non-routine medical supplies that are used in treatment.

On October 31, 2018, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for calendar year 2019 for home health agencies under the HH-PPS (the “2019 HH Rule”). The 2019 HH Rule provided for a net market basket update of 2.2%, after taking into account a productivity adjustment reduction of 80 basis points and offsetting adjustments for the rural add-on program and outlier patients, effective for episodes ending in calendar year 2019. The 2019 HH Rule also included other pricing changes, such as a reduction to the case-mix weights for certain cases.

11

On October 31, 2019, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for calendar year 2020 for home health agencies under the HH-PPS (the “2020 HH Rule”). Pursuant to the requirements of the 2018 Budget Act, the 2020 HH Rule finalized the implementation of PDGM for 2020. In addition to the significant changes to the home health reimbursement model related to PDGM discussed above, the 2020 HH Rule requires additional quality reporting measures and significantly increases the standardized patient assessment data elements collected by providers beginning in 2022. With respect to Medicare reimbursement rates, the 2020 HH Rule implements a net 1.3% market basket increase (market basket update of 1.5% reduced by 0.2% for an extension of the rural payment add-on factor) in 2020. The 2020 HH Rule then reduces the base payment rate by 4.4% to offset the provider behavioral changes that CMS assumes PDGM will drive. Based on the market basket update, our analysis of PDGM’s significant changes to the reimbursement model and the other adjustments included in the 2020 HH Rule as well as other factors, we currently estimate Medicare payment rates for our home health business will decrease between 2.0% and 3.0% in 2020.

For additional discussion of PDGM and other regulatory and legislative initiatives that could impact our home health business, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”

Hospice. Medicare pays hospice benefits for patients with life expectancies of six months or less, as documented by the patient’s physician(s). Under Medicare rules, patients seeking hospice benefits must agree to forgo curative treatment for their terminal medical conditions. For each day a patient elects hospice benefits, Medicare pays an adjusted daily rate based on patient location, and payments represent a prospective per diem amount tied to one of four different categories or levels of care: routine home care, continuous home care, inpatient respite care, and general inpatient care. Medicare hospice reimbursements to each provider are also subject to two annual caps, one limiting total hospice payments based on the average annual payment per beneficiary and another limiting payments based on the number of days of inpatient care billed by the hospice provider. There are currently no limits to the number of hospice benefit periods an eligible Medicare patient may receive, and a patient may revoke the benefit at any time.

On August 1, 2018, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2019 for hospice agencies under the Hospice-PS (the “2019 Hospice Rule”). The final rule updated hospice payments between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. The 2019 Hospice Rule provided for a net market basket update of 1.8%.

On July 31, 2019, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2020 for hospice agencies under the Hospice-PS (the “2020 Hospice Rule”). The 2020 Hospice Rule provides for various pricing updates for hospice payments between October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 and makes other policy updates, including adding a requirement to provide additional cost sharing information to beneficiaries if there are services that will not be covered by the hospice agency. Based on our analysis of the various pricing adjustments included in the 2020 Hospice Rule as well as other factors, we currently estimate Medicare payment rates for our hospice business will increase between 0.25% and 0.75% in fiscal year 2020.

For additional discussion of matters and risks related to reimbursement, see Item 1A, Risk Factors.

Managed Care and Other Discount Plans

We negotiate payment rates with certain large group purchasers of healthcare services, including Medicare Advantage, managed care plans, private insurance companies, and third-party administrators. Managed care contracts typically have terms between one and three years, although we have a number of managed care contracts that automatically renew each year (with pre-defined rate increases) unless a party elects to terminate the contract. In 2019, typical rate increases for our inpatient rehabilitation contracts ranged from 2-4% and for our home health and hospice contracts ranged from 0-3%. We cannot provide any assurance we will continue to receive increases in the future. Our managed care staff focuses on establishing and re-negotiating contracts that provide equitable reimbursement for the services provided.

Medicaid Reimbursement

Medicaid is a jointly administered and funded federal and state program that provides hospital and medical benefits to qualifying individuals who are deemed unable to afford healthcare. As the Medicaid program is administered by the individual states under the oversight of CMS in accordance with certain regulatory and statutory guidelines, there are substantial differences in reimbursement methodologies and coverage policies from state to state. Many states have experienced shortfalls in their Medicaid budgets and are implementing significant cuts in Medicaid reimbursement rates. Additionally, certain states control Medicaid expenditures through restricting or eliminating coverage of some services. Continuing downward pressure on Medicaid payment rates could cause a decline in that portion of our Net operating revenues. However, for the year ended December 31, 2019, Medicaid payments represented only 2.8% of our consolidated Net operating revenues. In certain states in which we operate, we are experiencing an increase in Medicaid patients, partially the result of expanded coverage consistent

12

with the intent of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws. For additional discussion, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Changes in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients could adversely impact our revenues or our profitability.”

Cost Reports

Because of our participation in Medicare and Medicaid, we are required to meet certain financial reporting requirements. Federal and, where applicable, state regulations require the submission of annual cost reports covering the revenue, costs, and expenses associated with the services provided by inpatient hospital, home health, and hospice providers to Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients. These annual cost reports are subject to routine audits which may result in adjustments to the amounts ultimately determined to be due to us under these reimbursement programs. These audits are used for determining if any under- or over-payments were made to these programs and to set payment levels for future years. Medicare also makes retroactive adjustments to payments for certain low-income patients after comparing subsequently published statistical data from CMS to the cost report data. We cannot predict what retroactive adjustments, if any, will be made, but we do not anticipate these adjustments will have a material impact on us.

Regulation

The healthcare industry is subject to significant federal, state, and local regulation that affects our business activities by controlling the reimbursement we receive for services provided, requiring licensure or certification of our operations, regulating our relationships with physicians and other referral sources, regulating the use of our properties, and controlling our growth. State and local healthcare regulation may cover additional matters such as nurse staffing ratios, healthcare worker safety, marijuana legalization, and assisted suicide. We are also subject to the broader federal and state regulations that prohibit fraud and abuse in the delivery of healthcare services. Congress, HHS-OIG, and the DOJ have historically focused on fraud and abuse in healthcare. Since the 1980s, a steady stream of changes have stiffened penalties or made it easier for DOJ to impose liability on companies and individuals, and the pace of these changes has only been increasing. The 2018 Budget Act continues this emphasis by increasing the criminal and civil penalties that can be imposed for violating federal health care laws. As a healthcare provider, we are subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, government investigative and oversight agencies. Failure to comply with applicable federal and state healthcare regulations can result in a provider’s exclusion from participation in government reimbursement programs and in substantial civil and criminal penalties.

We undertake significant effort and expense to provide the medical, nursing, therapy, and ancillary services required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations, as well as, for most facilities, accreditation standards of The Joint Commission and, for some facilities, the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. We also maintain accreditation for our home health and hospice agencies where required and in other instances where it facilitates more efficient Medicare enrollment. The Community Health Accreditation Program is the most common accrediting organization for our agencies. Accredited facilities and agencies are subject to periodic resurvey to ensure the standards are being met.

Beyond healthcare specific regulations, we face increasing state and local regulation in areas, such as labor and employment and data privacy, traditionally subject to only or primarily federal regulation. In addition to the risk and burden of new, additional, or more stringent regulatory standards, these state and local regulations often conflict with federal regulation, and with each other. Given the number of locations in which we operate, increasing state and local regulation, which may be more stringent than federal regulation and may even conflict with federal or other state or local regulation, represents a significant burden and risk to us.

We maintain a comprehensive ethics and compliance program to promote conduct and business practices that meet or exceed requirements under laws, regulations, and industry standards. The program monitors the Company’s performance on and raises awareness of various regulatory requirements among employees and emphasizes the importance of complying with governmental laws and regulations. As part of the compliance program, we provide annual compliance training to our employees, Board members, Medical Directors, vendors, and other non-employees that operate within our hospitals, and require all employees to report any violations to their supervisor or another person of authority or through a toll-free telephone hotline. Another integral part of our compliance program is a policy of non-retaliation against employees who report compliance concerns.

Licensure and Certification

Healthcare facility construction and operation are subject to numerous federal, state, and local regulations relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, acquisition and dispensing of pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, infection control, maintenance of adequate records and patient privacy, fire prevention, and compliance with building codes and environmental protection laws. Our inpatient rehabilitation

13

hospitals are subject to periodic inspection and other reviews by governmental and non-governmental certification authorities to ensure continued compliance with the various standards necessary for facility licensure. All of our hospitals are required to be licensed.

In addition, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals must be certified by CMS to participate in the Medicare program and generally must be certified by Medicaid state agencies to participate in Medicaid programs. Certification and participation in these programs involve numerous regulatory obligations. For example, hospitals must treat at least 30 patients free-of-charge prior to certification and eligibility for Medicare reimbursement. Once certified by Medicare, hospitals undergo periodic on-site surveys and revalidations in order to maintain their certification. All of our inpatient hospitals participate in the Medicare program.

Our home health and hospice agencies are each licensed under applicable law, certified by CMS for participation in the Medicare program, and generally certified by the applicable state Medicaid agencies to participate in those programs.

Failure to comply with applicable certification requirements may make our hospitals and agencies, as the case may be, ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement. In addition, Medicare or Medicaid may seek retroactive reimbursement from noncompliant providers or otherwise impose sanctions for noncompliance. Non-governmental payors often have the right to terminate provider contracts if the provider loses its Medicare or Medicaid certification.

The 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws added new screening requirements and associated fees for all Medicare providers. The screening of employees with patient access must include a licensure check and may include other procedures such as fingerprinting, criminal background checks, unscheduled and unannounced site visits, database checks, and other screening procedures prescribed by CMS.

We have developed operational systems to oversee compliance with the various standards and requirements of the Medicare program and have established ongoing quality assurance activities; however, given the complex nature of governmental healthcare regulations, there can be no assurance Medicare, Medicaid, or other regulatory authorities will not allege instances of noncompliance. A determination by a regulatory authority that a facility or agency is not in compliance with applicable requirements could also lead to the assessment of fines or other penalties, loss of licensure, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and the imposition of requirements that the offending facility or agency must take corrective action.

Certificates of Need

In some states and U.S. territories where we operate, the construction or expansion of facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities or agencies, or the introduction of new beds or inpatient, home health, and hospice services may be subject to review by and prior approval of state regulatory bodies under a “certificate of need,” or “CON,” law. As of December 31, 2019, approximately 51% of our licensed beds and 36% of our home health and hospice locations are in states or U.S. territories that have CON laws. CON laws require a reviewing authority or agency to determine the public need for additional or expanded healthcare facilities and services. These laws also generally require approvals for capital expenditures involving inpatient rehabilitation hospitals if such capital expenditures exceed certain thresholds. In addition, CON laws in some states require us to abide by certain charity care commitments as a condition for approving a CON. Any instance where we are subject to a CON law, we must obtain it before acquiring, opening, reclassifying, or expanding a healthcare facility, starting a new healthcare program, or opening a new home health or hospice agency.

We potentially face opposition any time we initiate a project requiring a new or amended CON or seek to acquire an existing CON. This opposition may arise either from competing national or regional companies or from local hospitals, agencies, or other providers which file competing applications or oppose the proposed CON project. Opposition to our applications may delay or prevent our future addition of beds, hospitals, or agencies in given markets or increase our costs in seeking those additions. The necessity for these approvals serves as a barrier to entry and has the potential to limit competition for us (in markets where we hold a CON) and for other providers (in markets where we are seeking a CON). We have generally been successful in obtaining CONs or similar approvals, although there can be no assurance we will achieve similar success in the future, and the likelihood of success varies by locality and state.

In an attempt to reduce regulation and increase competition, lawmakers in several states have recently proposed modification or even full repeal of CON laws. In 2019, Florida enacted legislation to repeal CON laws for several provider types, including IRFs, in two stages. Effective July 1, 2019, existing IRFs became eligible to expand without first obtaining a CON. Effective July 1, 2021, new IRFs may operate without first obtaining a CON. Other states are expected to consider CON-related legislation and regulation changes, including in some cases expanding CON requirements, in 2020 and beyond.

14

False Claims

The federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”) imposes liability for the knowing presentation of a false claim to the United States government and provides for penalties equal to three times the actual amount of any overpayments plus up to approximately $23,000 per claim. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. In addition, the FCA allows private persons, known as “relators,” to file complaints under seal and provides a period of time for the government to investigate such complaints and determine whether to intervene in them and take over the handling of all or part of such complaints. The government and relators may also allege violations of the FCA for the knowing and improper failure to report and refund amounts owed to the government in a timely manner following identification of an overpayment. This is known as a “reverse false claim.” The government deems identification of the overpayment to occur when a person has, or should have through reasonable diligence, determined that an overpayment was received and quantified the overpayment.

Because we perform thousands of similar procedures a year for which we are reimbursed by Medicare and other federal payors and there is a relatively long statute of limitations, a billing error, cost reporting error or disagreement over physician medical judgment could result in significant damages and civil and criminal penalties under the FCA. Many states have also adopted similar laws relating to state government payments for healthcare services. The 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws amended the FCA to expand the definition of false claim, to make it easier for the government to initiate and conduct investigations, to enhance the monetary reward to relators where prosecutions are ultimately successful, and to extend the statute of limitations on claims by the government. The federal government has become increasingly aggressive in asserting that incidents of erroneous billing or record keeping represent FCA violations and in challenging the medical judgment of independent physicians as the basis for FCA allegations. Furthermore, well-publicized enforcement actions indicate that the federal government has increasingly sought to use statistical sampling to extrapolate allegations to larger pools of claims or to infer liability without proving knowledge of falsity of individual claims. For additional discussion, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Note 18, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Relationships with Physicians and Other Providers

Anti-Kickback Law. Various state and federal laws regulate relationships between providers of healthcare services, including management or service contracts and investment relationships. Among the most important of these restrictions is a federal law prohibiting the offer, payment, solicitation, or receipt of remuneration by individuals or entities to induce referrals of patients for services reimbursed under the Medicare or Medicaid programs (the “Anti-Kickback Law”). The 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws amended the federal Anti-Kickback Law to provide that proving violations of this law does not require proving actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation. Another amendment made it clear that Anti-Kickback Law violations can be the basis for claims under the FCA. These changes and those described above related to the FCA, when combined with other recent federal initiatives, are likely to increase investigation and enforcement efforts in the healthcare industry generally. In addition to standard federal criminal and civil sanctions, including imprisonment and penalties of up to $100,000 for each violation plus tripled damages for improper claims, violators of the Anti-Kickback Law may be subject to exclusion from the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. In 1991, the HHS-OIG issued regulations describing compensation arrangements that are not viewed as illegal remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Law. Those regulations provide for certain safe harbors for identified types of compensation arrangements that, if fully complied with, assure participants in the particular arrangement that the HHS-OIG will not treat that participation as a criminal offense under the Anti-Kickback Law or as the basis for an exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs or the imposition of civil sanctions. Failure to fall within a safe harbor does not constitute a violation of the Anti-Kickback Law, but the HHS-OIG has indicated failure to fall within a safe harbor may subject an arrangement to increased scrutiny. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Law by us or one or more of our joint ventures could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation could have an adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation.

We operate a number of our rehabilitation hospitals and a few of our home health agencies through joint ventures with institutional healthcare providers that may be in a position to make or influence referrals to us. In addition, we have a number of relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, including management or service contracts. Some of these investment relationships and contractual relationships may not fall within the protection offered by a safe harbor. Despite our compliance and monitoring efforts, there can be no assurance violations of the Anti-Kickback Law will not be asserted in the future, nor can there be any assurance our defense against any such assertion would be successful.

For example, we have entered into agreements to manage our hospitals that are owned by joint ventures. Most of these agreements incorporate a percentage-based management fee. Although there is a safe harbor for personal services and management contracts, this safe harbor requires, among other things, the aggregate compensation paid to the manager over the term of the agreement be set in advance. Because our management fee may be based on a percentage of revenues, the fee

15

arrangement may not meet this requirement. However, we believe our management arrangements satisfy the other requirements of the safe harbor for personal services and management contracts and comply with the Anti-Kickback Law.

Physician Self-Referral Law. The federal law commonly known as the “Stark law” and CMS regulations promulgated under the Stark law prohibit physicians from making referrals for “designated health services” including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, radiology services, and home health services, to an entity in which the physician (or an immediate family member) has an investment interest or other financial relationship, subject to certain exceptions. The Stark law also prohibits those entities from filing claims or billing Medicare for those referred services. Violators of the Stark law and regulations may be subject to recoupments, civil monetary sanctions (up to $26,000 for each violation and assessments up to three times the amount claimed for each prohibited service) and exclusion from any federal, state, or other governmental healthcare programs. The statute also provides a penalty of up to $172,000 for a circumvention scheme. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. There are statutory exceptions to the Stark law for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including personal services contracts and leases. However, in order to be afforded protection by a Stark law exception, the financial arrangement must comply with every requirement of the applicable exception.

Under the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws, the exception to the Stark law that currently permits physicians to refer patients to hospitals in which they have an investment or ownership interest has been dramatically limited by providing that only physician-owned hospitals with a provider agreement in place on December 31, 2010 are exempt from the general ban on self-referral. Existing physician-owned hospitals are prohibited from increasing the physician ownership percentage in the hospital after March 23, 2010. Additionally, physician-owned hospitals are prohibited from increasing the number of licensed beds after March 23, 2010, except when certain market and regulatory approval conditions are met. Currently, we have no hospitals that would be considered physician-owned under this law.

The complexity of the Stark law and the associated regulations and their associated strict liability provisions are a challenge for healthcare providers, who do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of these laws and regulations. We attempt to structure our relationships to meet one or more exceptions to the Stark law, but the regulations implementing the exceptions are detailed and complex. Accordingly, we cannot assure that every relationship complies fully with the Stark law.

Additionally, no assurances can be given that any agency charged with enforcement of the Stark law and regulations might not assert a violation under the Stark law, nor can there be any assurance our defense against any such assertion would be successful or that new federal or state laws governing physician relationships, or new interpretations of existing laws governing such relationships, might not adversely affect relationships we have established with physicians or result in the imposition of penalties on us. A violation of the Stark law by us could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation could have an adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, commonly known as “HIPAA,” broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for healthcare fraud offenses that apply to all health benefit programs. HIPAA also added a prohibition against incentives intended to influence decisions by Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries as to the provider from which they will receive services. In addition, HIPAA created new enforcement mechanisms to combat fraud and abuse, including the Medicare Integrity Program, and an incentive program under which individuals can receive a monetary reward for providing information on Medicare fraud and abuse that leads to the recovery of at least Medicare funds. Penalties for violations of HIPAA include civil and criminal monetary penalties. The HHS Office of Civil Rights (“HHS-OCR”) implemented a permanent HIPAA audit program for healthcare providers nationwide in 2016. As of December 31, 2019, we have not been selected for audit.

HIPAA and related HHS regulations contain certain administrative simplification provisions that require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for certain healthcare claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. HIPAA regulations also regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health-related information, whether communicated electronically, on paper, or orally. The regulations provide patients with significant rights related to understanding and controlling how their health information is used or disclosed and require healthcare providers to implement administrative, physical, and technical practices to protect the security of individually identifiable health information.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act modifies and expands the privacy and security requirements of HIPAA. The HITECH Act applies certain of the HIPAA privacy and security requirements directly to business associates of covered entities. The modifications to existing HIPAA requirements include: expanded

16

accounting requirements for electronic health records, tighter restrictions on marketing and fundraising, and heightened penalties and enforcement associated with noncompliance. Significantly, the HITECH Act also establishes new mandatory federal requirements for notification of breaches of security involving protected health information. The HHS-OCR rules implementing the HITECH Act expand the potential liability for a breach involving protected health information to cover some instances where a subcontractor is responsible for the breaches and that individual or entity was acting within the scope of delegated authority under the related contract or engagement. These rules generally define “breach” to mean the acquisition, access, use or disclosure of protected health information in a manner not permitted by the HIPAA privacy standards, which compromises the security or privacy of protected health information. Under these rules, improper acquisition, access, use, or disclosure is presumed to be a reportable breach, unless the potentially breaching party can demonstrate a low probability that protected health information has been compromised.

HHS-OCR is responsible for enforcing the requirement that covered entities notify HHS and any individual whose protected health information has been improperly acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed. In certain cases, notice of a breach is required to be made to media outlets. The heightened penalties for noncompliance range from $100 to $50,000 per violation for most violations. In the event of violations due to willful neglect that are not corrected within 30 days, penalties start at $50,000 per violation and are not subject to a per violation statutory maximum. Penalties are also subject to an annual cap for multiple identical violations in a single calendar year. Pursuant to 2019 guidance from HHS-OCR, this enforcement caps ranges from $25,000 per year to $1,500,000 per year depending on an entity’s level of culpability. Importantly, HHS-OCR has indicated that the failure to conduct a security risk assessment or adequately implement HIPAA compliance policies could qualify as willful neglect.

In addition, there are numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing patient privacy concerns. Healthcare providers will continue to remain subject to any federal or state privacy-related laws, including but not limited to the California Consumer Privacy Act, that are more restrictive than the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties. HHS-OIG and other regulators have also increasingly interpreted laws and regulations in a manner as to increase exposure of healthcare providers to allegations of noncompliance. Any actual or perceived violation of privacy-related laws and regulations, including HIPAA and the HITECH Act, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Civil Monetary Penalties Law

Under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, HHS may impose civil monetary penalties on healthcare providers that present, or cause to be presented, ineligible reimbursement claims for services. The 2018 Budget Act increased the civil monetary penalties, which vary depending on the offense from $5,000 to $100,000 per violation, plus treble damages for the amount at issue and may include exclusion from federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The penalties will be adjusted annually to account for inflation. HHS may seek to impose monetary penalties under this law for, among other things, offering inducements to beneficiaries for program services and filing false or fraudulent claims.

Available Information

We make available through our website, www.encompasshealth.com, the following documents, free of charge: our annual reports (Form 10-K), our quarterly reports (Form 10-Q), our current reports (Form 8-K), and any amendments to those reports promptly after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

17

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business, operations, and financial position are subject to various risks. Some of these risks are described below, and the reader should take such risks into account in evaluating Encompass Health or any investment decision involving Encompass Health. This section does not describe all risks that may be applicable to us, our industry, or our business, and it is intended only as a summary of material risk factors. More detailed information concerning other risks and uncertainties as well as those described below is contained in other sections of this annual report. Still other risks and uncertainties we have not or cannot foresee as material to us may also adversely affect us in the future. If any of the risks below or other risks or uncertainties discussed elsewhere in this annual report are actually realized, our business and financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. In the event the impact is materially adverse, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Reductions or changes in reimbursement from government or third-party payors could adversely affect our Net operating revenues and other operating results.

We derive a substantial portion of our Net operating revenues from the Medicare program. See Item 1, Business, “Sources of Revenues,” for a table identifying the sources and relative payor mix of our revenues. In addition to many ordinary course reimbursement rate changes that the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), adopts each year as part of its annual rulemaking process for various healthcare provider categories, Congress and some state legislatures have periodically proposed significant changes in laws and regulations governing the healthcare system. Many of these changes have resulted in limitations on the increases in and, in some cases, significant roll-backs or reductions in the levels of payments to healthcare providers for services under many government reimbursement programs. There can be no assurance that future governmental initiatives will not result in pricing freezes, reimbursement reductions, or reduced levels of reimbursement increases that are less than the increases we experience in our costs of operation.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as subsequently amended, the “2010 Healthcare Reform Laws”). Many provisions within the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws have impacted or could in the future impact our business, including Medicare reimbursement reductions and promotion of alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations (“ACOs”) and bundled payment initiatives. The Trump administration and the United States Congress have previously attempted, and may in the future attempt, to change or repeal provisions of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws through both legislative and regulatory action. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which eliminated the tax penalty for individuals for failing to enroll in health insurance beginning in 2019. On January 20, 2017, President Trump issued his first executive order titled “Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal,” that directs federal regulators to begin dismantling those laws through regulatory and policy-making processes and procedures, “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” In December 2018, a federal district court in Texas invalidated the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws in their entirety based on the elimination of the tax penalty but postponed enforcement of that decision pending appeal. On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court decision but remanded the case for additional analysis on the question of severability. The future of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws as well as the nature and substance of any other healthcare legislation remain uncertain. The 2020 presidential election is likely to involve extensive debate over dramatically different approaches to federal healthcare policy. Any future changes may ultimately impact the provisions of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws discussed below or other laws or regulations that either currently affect, or may in the future affect, our business.

For Medicare providers like us, these laws include reductions in CMS’s annual adjustments to Medicare reimbursement rates, commonly known as a “market basket update.” In accordance with Medicare laws and statutes, CMS makes market basket updates by provider type in an effort to compensate providers for rising operating costs. The 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws required reductions, the last of which ended in 2019, in the annual market basket updates for hospital providers ranging from 10 to 75 basis points and for hospice agencies 30 basis points. For home health agencies, the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws directed CMS to improve home health payment accuracy through rebasing home health payments over four years starting in 2014. In addition, the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws require the market basket updates for hospital, home health, and hospice providers to be reduced by a productivity adjustment on an annual basis. The productivity adjustment equals the trailing 10-year average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity. To date, the productivity adjustments have resulted in decreases to the market basket updates ranging from 30 to 100 basis points.

Other federal legislation can also have a significant direct impact on our Medicare reimbursement. On August 2, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which provided for an automatic 2% reduction of Medicare program payments. This automatic reduction, known as “sequestration,” began affecting payments received after April 1, 2013. Sequestration has been extended by subsequent legislation, most recently by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which was

18

signed into law on August 2, 2019. Under current law each year through fiscal year 2029, the reimbursement we receive from Medicare, after first taking into account all annual payment adjustments including the market basket update, will be reduced by sequestration unless it is repealed or modified before then. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the “2018 Budget Act”), signed into law by President Trump on February 9, 2018, includes several provisions affecting Medicare reimbursement. Among those changes, the 2018 Budget Act mandates the adoption of a new Medicare payment model for home health providers effective in 2020 and eliminates the payment adjustments mandated by the 2010 Health Care Reform Laws in favor of fixing a market basket update of 1.5% in 2020.

Additionally, concerns held by federal policymakers about the federal deficit, national debt levels, or healthcare spending specifically could result in enactment of further federal spending reductions, further entitlement reform legislation affecting the Medicare program, and/or further reductions to provider payments. In October 2014, President Obama signed into law the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (the “IMPACT Act”). The IMPACT Act directs the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), in consultation with healthcare stakeholders, to implement standardized data collection processes for post-acute quality and outcome measures. Although the IMPACT Act does not specifically call for the implementation of a new post-acute payment system, we believe this act lays the foundation for possible future post-acute payment policies that would be based on patients’ medical conditions and other clinical factors rather than the setting where the care is provided, also referred to as “site neutral” reimbursement. CMS has begun changing current post-acute payment systems to improve comparability of patient assessment data and clinical characteristics across settings, which will make it easier to create a unified payment system in the future. For example, CMS recently established new case-mix classification models for both home health, discussed further below, and skilled nursing facilities which rely on patient characteristics rather than the amount of therapy received to determine payments. Another example is CMS’s implementation of the new patient assessment measures for IRFs discussed below. The IMPACT Act also creates additional data reporting requirements for our hospitals and home health agencies. The precise details of these new reporting requirements, including timing and content, are being developed and implemented by CMS through the regulatory process that we expect will continue to take place over the next several years. We cannot quantify the potential effects of the IMPACT Act on us.

Each year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”), an independent agency, advises Congress on issues affecting Medicare and makes payment policy recommendations to Congress for a variety of Medicare payment systems including, among others, the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (the “IRF-PPS”), the home health prospective payment system (“HH-PPS”) and the hospice payment system (“Hospice-PS”). MedPAC also provides comments to CMS on proposed rules, including the prospective payment system rules. Congress is not obligated to adopt MedPAC recommendations, and, based on outcomes in previous years, there can be no assurance Congress will adopt MedPAC’s recommendations in a given year. However, MedPAC’s recommendations have, and could in the future, become the basis for legislative or regulatory action.

In connection with CMS’s final rulemaking for the IRF-PPS and the HH-PPS in each year since 2008, MedPAC has recommended either no updates to payments or reductions to payments. In a March 2019 report to Congress, MedPAC recommended, among other things, legislative changes to reduce by 2% the 2020 update for hospice agencies and reduce by 5% the base payments under the HH-PPS and IRF-PPS. In the March 2019 report, MedPAC also reiterated a previous recommendation for Congress to increase the outlier payment pool, to be funded by reductions to base Medicare payments rates under the IRF-PPS. This proposal would adversely affect us as we have a relatively low percentage of outlier patients compared to other inpatient rehabilitation providers.

In a June 2018 report mandated by the IMPACT Act, MedPAC reiterated its recommendation that Congress adopt a unified payment system for all post-acute care (“PAC-PPS”) in lieu of separate systems for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (“IRFs”), skilled nursing facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, and home health agencies. A PAC-PPS would rely on “site neutral” reimbursement based on patients’ medical conditions and other clinical factors rather than the care settings. MedPAC found a PAC-PPS to be feasible and desirable but also suggested many existing regulatory requirements, including the 60% rule discussed below and the requirement for a minimum of three hours of therapy per day, should be waived or modified as part of implementing a PAC-PPS. MedPAC previously estimated, although we cannot verify the methodology or the accuracy of that estimate, a PAC-PPS would result in 15% and 1% decreases to IRF and home health reimbursements, respectively. As a precursor to a unified PAC-PPS, MedPAC discussed in November 2017 a potential recommendation to change the case-mix weights in each post-acute setting for 2019 and 2020 to a blend of the current setting specific weight and the proposed unified PAC-PPS weight, which MedPAC suggested would shift money from for-profit and freestanding IRFs to non-profit and hospital-based IRFs. MedPAC has also called for aligning Medicare regulatory requirements across post-acute providers, although the agency has acknowledged it could take years to complete this effort. Additionally, MedPAC previously has suggested that Medicare should ultimately move from fee-for-service reimbursement to more integrated delivery payment models.

19

MedPAC also recommended significant changes to the HH-PPS, some of which CMS incorporated into the new payment system mandated by the 2018 Budget Act, referred to as the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (“PDGM”), and set out in the final rule for the 2019 HH-PPS. Beginning in 2020, PDGM replaces the current 60-day episode of payment methodology with a 30-day payment period and eliminates therapy usage as a factor in setting payments (that is, more therapy visits lead to higher reimbursement). CMS adopted a 4.4% reduction in the base payment rate for 2020 intended to offset the provider behavioral changes that CMS assumes PDGM will drive. The reimbursement and other changes associated with PDGM could have a significant impact on our home health agencies.

With respect to significant changes to the IRF-PPS, CMS finalized pursuant to a requirement of the IMPACT Act a change, effective October 1, 2019, that replaces the FIM™ assessment instrument with new patient assessment measures, which we refer to as “Section GG functional measures” or “Section GG” based on the designation CMS assigned to them. This change in how patients are assessed and reported to CMS affects patients’ classification into case-mix groupings, relative weights, and length-of-stay values under the IRF-PPS, which in turn will likely negatively impact our reimbursement amounts.

We cannot predict what alternative or additional deficit reduction initiatives, Medicare payment reductions, or post-acute care reforms, if any, will ultimately be adopted or enacted into law, or the timing or effect of any initiatives or reductions. Those initiatives or reductions would be in addition to many ordinary course reimbursement rate changes that CMS adopts each year as part of the market basket update rulemaking process for various provider categories. While we do not expect the drive toward integrated delivery payment models, value-based purchasing, and post-acute site neutrality in Medicare reimbursement to subside, there are well publicized efforts to repeal, or alter implementation of, various provisions of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws and substitute yet to be determined healthcare reforms. We cannot predict the nature or timing of any changes to the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws or other laws or regulations that either currently affect, or may in the future affect, our business.

There can be no assurance future governmental action will not result in substantial changes to, or material reductions in, our reimbursements. Similarly, we may experience material increases in our operating costs. For example, in 2020, we expect our wage and benefit costs to increase at a rate in excess of our aggregate Medicare reimbursement rate increase. In any given year, the net effect of statutory and regulatory changes may result in a decrease in our reimbursement rate, and that decrease may occur at a time when our expenses are increasing. As a result, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional discussion of how we are reimbursed by Medicare, see Item 1, Business, “Regulatory and Reimbursement Challenges” and “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement.”

In addition, there are increasing pressures, including as a result of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws, from many third-party payors to control healthcare costs and to reduce or limit increases in reimbursement rates for medical services. Our relationships with managed care and nongovernmental third-party payors, such as health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations, are generally governed by negotiated agreements. These agreements set forth the amounts we are entitled to receive for our services. Our Net operating revenues and our ability to grow our business with these payors could be adversely affected if we are unable to negotiate and maintain favorable agreements with third-party payors.

The ongoing evolution of the healthcare delivery system, including alternative payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives, in the United States may significantly affect our business and results of operations.

The healthcare industry in general is facing uncertainty associated with the efforts to identify and implement workable coordinated care and integrated delivery payment models. In an integrated delivery payment model, hospitals, physicians, and other care providers are reimbursed in a fashion meant to encourage coordinated healthcare on a more efficient, patient-centered basis. These providers are then paid based on the overall value and quality (as determined by outcomes) of the services they provide to a patient rather than the number of services they provide. While this is consistent with our goal and proven track record of being a high-quality, cost-effective provider, broad-based implementation of a new delivery payment model would represent a significant evolution or transformation of the healthcare industry, which may have a significant impact on our business and results of operations.

In recent years, HHS has been studying the feasibility of bundling, including conducting a voluntary, multi-year bundling pilot program to test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies. CMS’ voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (“BPCI Advanced”) initiative began October 1, 2018, runs through December 31, 2023, and covers 29 types of inpatient and three types of outpatient clinical episodes, including stroke and hip fracture. Providers participating in BPCI Advanced are subject to a semi-annual reconciliation process where CMS compares the aggregate Medicare expenditures for all items and services included in a clinical episode against the target price for that type of episode to determine whether the participant is eligible to receive a portion of the savings, or is required to repay a portion of the payment above target.

20

Accordingly, reimbursement may be increased or decreased, compared to what would otherwise be due, based on whether the total Medicare expenditures and patient outcomes meet, exceed or fall short of the targets.

Similarly, CMS has established per the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws several separate ACO programs, the largest of which is the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”), a voluntary ACO program in which hospitals, physicians, and other care providers pursue the delivery of coordinated healthcare on a more efficient, patient-centered basis. Conceptually, ACOs receive a portion of any savings generated above a certain threshold from care coordination as long as benchmarks for the quality of care are maintained. Under the MSSP, there are two ACO tracks from which participants can choose. Each track offers a different degree to which participants share any savings realized or any obligation to repay losses suffered. The ACO rules adopted by CMS are extremely complex and remain subject to further refinement by CMS. According to CMS, 517 MSSP ACOs served 11.2 million patients as of January 1, 2020.

We continue to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, appropriate BPCI Advanced and ACO participation opportunities for our hospitals and home health agencies. More than 20 of our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals have signed participation or preferred provider agreements with these alternative payment models. Given the timing of our involvement, those hospitals have treated only a limited number of patients under these alternative payment models to date. We have also partnered as the preferred home health provider with two ACOs serving approximately 26,000 total Medicare patients in Texas and Oklahoma, one of which met the minimum savings rate required to participate in Medicare shared savings for 2018.

On November 16, 2015, CMS published its final rule establishing the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (“CJR”) payment model, which holds acute care hospitals accountable for the quality of care they deliver to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for lower extremity joint replacements (i.e., knees and hips) from surgery through recovery. The CJR originally was mandatory for the acute care hospitals in the 67 geographic areas covered. On November 30, 2017, CMS issued a final rule making the CJR voluntary in 33 of those areas. During the CJR model’s five-year term that ends in December 2020, healthcare providers in the 34 geographic areas with mandatory participation will continue to be paid under existing Medicare payment systems. However, the acute-care hospital where the joint replacement takes place will be held accountable for the quality and costs of care for the entire episode of care — from the time of the original admission through 90 days after discharge. Depending on the quality and cost performance during the entire episode, the acute-care hospital may receive an additional payment or be required to repay Medicare a portion of the episode costs. As a result, CMS believes acute care hospitals will be incented to work with physicians and post-acute care providers to ensure beneficiaries receive the coordinated care they need in an efficient manner. Acute care hospitals participating in the CJR model may enter into risk-sharing financial arrangements with post-acute providers, including IRFs and home health agencies. We operate 25 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the 34 areas with mandatory participation.

The bundling and ACO initiatives have served as motivating factors for regulators and healthcare industry participants to identify and implement workable coordinated care and integrated delivery payment models. Broad-based implementation of a new delivery payment model would represent a significant transformation for us and the healthcare industry generally. The nature and timing of the evolution or transformation of the current healthcare system to coordinated care delivery and integrated delivery payment models and value-based purchasing are uncertain. The development of new delivery and payment systems will almost certainly take significant time and expense. Many of the alternative approaches, including those discussed above and the new home health value-based purchasing model discussed below, being explored may not work or could change substantially prior to a nationwide implementation. While only a small percentage of our business currently is or is anticipated to be subject to the alternative payment models discussed above, we cannot be certain these models will not be expanded or made standard or new models will not be implemented broadly.

Additionally, as the number and types of bundling and ACO models increase, the number of Medicare beneficiaries who are treated in one of the models increases. Our willingness or inability to participate in integrated delivery payment and other alternative payment models and the referral patterns of other providers participating in those models may limit our access to Medicare patients who would benefit from treatment in inpatient rehabilitation hospitals or by home care services. In an attempt to reduce costs, ACOs may seek to discourage referrals to post-acute care all together. To the extent that acute care hospitals participating in those models do not perceive our quality of care or cost efficiency favorably compared to alternative post-acute providers, we may experience a decrease in volumes and Net operating revenues, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For further discussion of new coordinated care and integrated delivery payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives, the associated challenges, and our efforts to respond to them, see the “Executive Overview—Key Challenges—Changes to Our Operating Environment Resulting from Healthcare Reform” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

21

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives and changes affecting the industry could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

In addition to the legislative and regulatory actions that directly affect our reimbursement rates or further the evolution of the current healthcare delivery system, other legislative and regulatory changes, including as a result of ongoing healthcare reform, affect healthcare providers like us from time to time. For example, the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws provide for the expansion of the federal Anti-Kickback Law and the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) that, when combined with other recent federal initiatives, are likely to increase investigation and enforcement efforts in the healthcare industry generally. Changes include increased resources for enforcement, lowered burden of proof for the government in healthcare fraud matters, expanded definition of claims under the FCA, enhanced penalties, and increased rewards for relators in successful prosecutions. CMS may also suspend payment for claims prospectively if, in its opinion, credible allegations of fraud exist. The initial suspension period may be up to 180 days. However, the payment suspension period can be extended almost indefinitely if the matter is under investigation by the HHS Office of Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”) or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Any such suspension would adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Some states in which we operate have also undertaken, or are considering, healthcare reform initiatives that address similar issues. While many of the stated goals of other federal and state reform initiatives are consistent with our own goal to provide care that is high-quality and cost-effective, legislation and regulatory proposals may lower reimbursements, increase the cost of compliance, decrease patient volumes, promote frivolous or baseless litigation, and otherwise adversely affect our business. We cannot predict what healthcare initiatives, if any, will be enacted, implemented or amended, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us.

On September 30, 2019, CMS adopted a new rule as called for by the IMPACT Act that revises the discharge planning requirements applicable to our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and home health agencies. Effective November 29, 2019, CMS now requires every hospital (including IRFs) to have a discharge planning process that focuses on patients’ goals and preferences and on preparing them and, as appropriate, their caregivers, to be active partners in their post-discharge care. For our hospitals, this rule requires instituting standardized procedures to identify those patients who are likely to suffer adverse health consequences upon discharge in the absence of adequate discharge planning and to provide a discharge planning evaluation for such patients to ensure that appropriate arrangements for post-hospital care will be made before discharge. At the time of discharge, a hospital must transfer or refer the patient, along with all necessary medical information pertaining to the patient’s current course of illness and treatment, post-discharge goals of care, and treatment preferences, to the appropriate post-acute care service providers and suppliers, facilities, agencies, and other outpatient service providers and practitioners responsible for the patient’s follow-up or ancillary care. Patients must also be informed of all post-acute providers in the area and, for patients enrolled in managed care organizations, in network providers must be identified if the hospital has that information. Additional information must be provided to patients who are discharged home and referred for home health agency services or who are referred to other post-acute care services.

For home health agencies, the final rule includes several new requirements, including that home health agencies develop and implement an effective discharge planning process. Home health agencies must also send certain medical and other information to the post-discharge facility or health care practitioner, and comply with requests for additional information as may be necessary for treatment of the patient made by the receiving facility or health care practitioner. The rule will likely require implementation of new processes and modification of existing discharge forms and reports, and patient visits may need to be extended in order to accommodate patient education. We expect to incur additional one-time and recurring expenses in both our segments to comply with the new requirements, but at this time we cannot predict what the final impact will be. In areas where we are not part of a managed care network with significant enrollment, this discharge planning rule may negatively affect the number of patients choosing us.

In accordance with requirements adopted pursuant to the IMPACT Act, CMS implemented requirements to publish certain Medicare spending per beneficiary measures for each inpatient rehabilitation hospital in October 2016 and each home health agency in January 2017. The intent of tracking and publishing this data is to evaluate a given provider’s payment efficiency relative to the efficiency of the national median provider in that provider’s post-acute segment. CMS believes this measure will encourage improved efficiency and coordination of care in the post-acute setting by holding providers accountable for Medicare resource use during an episode of care. However, the measures may be misleading as they do not incorporate patient outcomes associated with those resources used. CMS has not proposed to compare payment efficiency across provider segments.

In June 2019, CMS commenced the Home Health Review Choice Demonstration (“RCD”) in Illinois. RCD is intended to test whether pre-claim review improves methods for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of Medicare fraud and whether the pre-claim review helps reduce expenditures while maintaining or improving quality of care. Under RCD, providers may choose pre-claim review or post-payment review of all Medicare claims submitted or elect not to participate, in which case

22

they will incur a 25% payment reduction on all claims. If a home health agency elects to participate in the review and 90% or more of its claims are found to be valid during the six month pre-claim review period, that agency may then opt out of the RCD review, except for spot reviews of samples consisting of 5% of total claims. CMS implemented RCD in Ohio in September 2019. RCD is scheduled to expand to Texas in March 2020 and to North Carolina and Florida in May 2020. We operate agencies (representing approximately 44% of our home health Medicare claims) in these five states. We expect this demonstration project will require us to incur additional administrative and staffing costs and may impact the timeliness of claims payment given that Medicare administrative contractors in Illinois in a prior version of the project had difficulty processing pre-claim reviews on a timely basis. Accordingly, we may experience temporary decreases in Net operating revenues and in cash flow, or we may incur costs associated with patient care for which the Medicare claim is subsequently denied, which could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

As discussed above, MedPAC makes healthcare policy recommendations to Congress and provides comments to CMS on Medicare payment related issues. Congress is not obligated to adopt MedPAC’s recommendations, and, based on outcomes in previous years, there can be no assurance Congress will adopt any given MedPAC recommendation. For example, in March and June 2019, MedPAC issued reports to Congress again recommending several possible changes, which MedPAC has advocated previously, to various post-acute payment systems. One possible change discussed was an increase to outlier payments to be funded by reductions to non-outlier payments rates under the IRF-PPS. This change would adversely impact us compared to other IRF providers because our hospitals have also historically averaged significantly less Medicare reimbursement for high cost outlier patients than other providers have averaged.

We cannot predict what legislative or regulatory reforms or changes, if any, will ultimately be enacted, or the timing or effect any of those changes or reforms will have on us. If enacted, they may be challenging for all providers and have the effect of limiting Medicare beneficiaries’ access to healthcare services and could have a material adverse impact on our Net operating revenues, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional discussion of healthcare reform and other factors affecting reimbursement for our services, see Item 1, Business, “Regulatory and Reimbursement Challenges” and “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement.”

Quality reporting requirements may negatively affect the Medicare reimbursement we receive.

The focus on alternative payment models and value-based purchasing of healthcare services has, in turn, led to more extensive quality of care reporting requirements. In many cases, the new reporting requirements are linked to reimbursement incentives. For example, under the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws, CMS established new quality data reporting, effective October 1, 2012, for all IRFs. A facility’s failure to submit the required quality data results in a two percentage point reduction to that facility’s annual market basket increase factor for payments made for discharges in the subsequent Medicare fiscal year. Hospitals began submitting quality data to CMS in October 2012. All of our hospitals have met the reporting deadlines to date resulting in no corresponding reimbursement reductions. Similarly, home health and hospice agencies are required to submit quality data to CMS each year, and the failure to do so in accordance with the rules will result in a two percentage point reduction in their market basket updates. For 2020, we expect no more than seven of our home health and hospice agencies will incur a reduction in their reimbursement rates.

As noted above, the IMPACT Act mandated that CMS adopt several new quality reporting measures for the various post-acute provider types. The adoption of additional quality reporting measures to track and report will require additional time and expense and could affect reimbursement in the future. In healthcare generally, the burdens associated with collecting, recording, and reporting quality data are increasing. Currently, CMS requires IRF and home health providers to track and submit patient assessment data to support the calculation of 15 and 19 quality reporting measures, respectively.

23

In 2015, CMS established a five-year home health value-based purchasing model in nine states to test whether incentives for better care can improve outcomes in the delivery of home health services. The model, which began in 2016, applies a reduction or increase to current Medicare-certified home health agency payments, depending on quality performance, made to agencies in Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, and Tennessee. As of December 31, 2019, we have 44 home health locations in those states, which account for 23% of our home health Medicare revenue. Performance will be assessed based on several process, outcome, and care satisfaction measures, and the payment adjustments to be applied on an annual basis are set forth in the table below:

Performance Year	Calendar Year for Payment Adjustment	Maximum Payment Adjustment (+/-)
2017	2019	5%
2018	2020	6%
2019	2021	7%
2020	2022	8%

To date, we have not experienced a decrease in Net operating revenues in excess of $0.5 million in any year. Based on 2018 performance data, we anticipate almost no impact to our 2020 reimbursements. There can be no assurance all of our hospitals and agencies will meet quality reporting requirements or quality performance in the future which may result in one or more of our hospitals or agencies seeing a reduction in its Medicare reimbursements. Regardless, we, like other healthcare providers, are likely to incur additional expenses in an effort to comply with additional and changing quality reporting requirements.

Compliance with the extensive laws and government regulations applicable to healthcare providers requires substantial time, effort and expense, and if we fail to comply with them, we could suffer penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

Healthcare providers are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state, and local government levels. These laws and regulations relate to, among other things:

• licensure, certification, enrollments, and accreditation;

• policies, either at the national or local level, delineating what conditions must be met to qualify for reimbursement under Medicare (also referred to as coverage requirements);

• coding and billing for services;

• requirements of the 60% compliance threshold under the 2007 Medicare Act;

• relationships with physicians and other referral sources, including physician self-referral and anti-kickback laws;

• quality of medical care;

• use and maintenance of medical supplies and equipment;

• maintenance and security of patient information and medical records;

• minimum staffing;

• acquisition and dispensing of pharmaceuticals and controlled substances; and

• disposal of medical and hazardous waste.

In the future, changes in these laws or regulations or the manner in which they are enforced could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our hospitals, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs, operating procedures, and contractual arrangements, as well as the way in which we deliver home health and hospice services. Those changes could also affect reimbursements as well as future training and staffing costs.

In addition to specific compliance-related laws and regulations, examples of regulatory changes that can affect our business, beyond direct changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, can be found from time to time in CMS’s annual rulemaking.

24

For example, the final rule for the fiscal year 2010 IRF-PPS implemented new coverage requirements which provided in part that a patient medical record must document a reasonable expectation that, at the time of admission to an IRF, the patient generally required and was able to participate in the intensive rehabilitation therapy services uniquely provided at IRFs. CMS has also taken the position that a patient’s medical file must appropriately document the rationale for the use of group therapies, as opposed to one-on-one therapy. Beginning on October 1, 2015, CMS instituted a new data collection requirement pursuant to which IRFs must capture the minutes and mode (individual, group, concurrent, or co-treatment) of therapy by specialty. CMS plans to use this data to potentially support future rulemaking in this area. Additionally, from time to time CMS has adopted changes in the medical conditions that will presumptively count toward the 60% compliance threshold to qualify for reimbursement as an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.

Of note, the HHS-OIG periodically updates a work plan that identifies areas of compliance focus. In recent years, HHS-OIG work plans for IRFs have focused on, among other items, the appropriate utilization of concurrent and group therapy and adverse and temporary harm events occurring in IRFs. The HHS-OIG website indicates active work plans will focus on incentives under the IRF-PPS to discharge patients prematurely to home health agencies and appropriate documentation to support claims by home health and hospice agencies. Another active work plan provides HHS-OIG will determine if hospice patients are receiving the required visits by registered nurses. In September 2016, the HHS-OIG released a report purporting to identify a high error rate (approximately 80% of claims) among inpatient rehabilitation hospital admissions in a small sample of 220 claims. Based on its findings, the HHS-OIG extrapolated the error rate to the universe of inpatient rehabilitation claims and, among other things, recommended reevaluation of the IRF-PPS. However, that HHS-OIG report involved an extremely small sample size, was not a random sample of cases, included some citations to coverage requirements that did not match actual regulations, appeared to conflate technical documentation requirements with medical necessity determinations, and was at odds with actual Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) reviews of claims during that same timeframe which found substantially lower error rates. The HHS-OIG work plan, audit or similar future efforts could result in proposed changes to the payment systems for providers or increased denials of Medicare claims for patients notwithstanding the referring physicians’ judgment that treatment is appropriate.

As the recent HHS-OIG work plans demonstrate, the clarity and completeness of each patient medical file, some of which is the work product of a physician not employed by us, are essential to demonstrating our compliance with various regulatory and reimbursement requirements. For example, to support the determination that a patient’s IRF treatment was reasonable and necessary, the file must contain, among other things, an admitting physician’s assessment of the patient as well as a post-admission assessment by the treating physician and other information from clinicians relating to the plan of care and the therapies being provided. These physicians are not employees. They exercise independent medical judgment. We and our hospital medical directors, who are independent contractors, provide training on a regular basis to the physicians who treat patients at our hospitals regarding appropriate documentation. However, we ultimately do not and cannot control the physicians’ medical judgment. In connection with subsequent payment audits and investigations, there can be no assurance as to what opinion a third party may take regarding the status of patient files or the physicians’ medical judgment evidenced in those files.

On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the HHS-OIG addressed to four of our hospitals. On April 24, 2014, we received document subpoenas relating to an additional seven of our hospitals. Those subpoenas requested documents, including copies of patient medical records, related to reimbursement claims submitted during periods ranging from January 2008 through December 2013. The associated investigation led by DOJ was based on whistleblower claims of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requested documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% Rule,” 60% or more of the patients of an IRF must have at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the IRF-PPS payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates.

We settled the DOJ investigation, together with the related qui tam or whistleblower lawsuits, in 2019 for a total payment of $48 million. In return for the settlement payment, the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice their pending qui tam claims, and DOJ provided Encompass Health and all its subsidiaries with a release from civil liability. See Note 18, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of this matter.

Although we have invested, and will continue to invest, substantial time, effort, and expense in implementing and maintaining training programs as well as internal controls and procedures designed to ensure regulatory compliance, we have in the past been, and could in the future be, required to return portions of reimbursements for discharges alleged after the fact to

25

have not been appropriate under the applicable reimbursement rules and change our patient admissions practices going forward. We could also be subjected to other liabilities, including (1) criminal penalties, (2) civil penalties, including monetary penalties and the loss of our licenses to operate one or more of our hospitals, and (3) exclusion or suspension of one or more of our hospitals from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal and state healthcare programs, which, if lengthy in duration and material to us, could potentially trigger a default under our credit agreement or debt instruments.

Because Medicare comprises a significant portion of our Net operating revenues, failure to comply with the laws and regulations governing the Medicare program and related matters, including anti-kickback and anti-fraud requirements, could materially and adversely affect us. As discussed above in connection with the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws, the federal government has in the last couple of years made compliance enforcement and fighting healthcare fraud top priorities. In the past few years, DOJ and HHS as well as federal lawmakers have significantly increased efforts to ensure strict compliance with various reimbursement related regulations as well as combat healthcare fraud. DOJ has pursued and recovered record amounts based on alleged healthcare fraud. The increased enforcement efforts have frequently included aggressive arguments and interpretations of laws and regulations that pose risks for all providers. For example, the federal government has increasingly asserted that incidents of erroneous billing or record keeping may represent violations of the FCA. Human error and oversight in record keeping and documentation, particularly where those activities are the responsibility of non-employees, are always a risk in business, and healthcare providers and independent physicians are no different. Additionally, the federal government has been willing to challenge the medical judgment of independent physicians in determining issues such as the medical necessity of a given treatment plan.

Settlements of alleged violations or imposed reductions in reimbursements, substantial damages and other remedies assessed against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation, depending on its nature, could have a material adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation and could cost us significant time and expense to defend.

Reimbursement claims are subject to various audits from time to time and such audits may negatively affect our operations and our cash flows from operations.

We receive a substantial portion of our revenues from the Medicare program. Medicare reimbursement claims made by healthcare providers, including inpatient rehabilitation hospitals as well as home health and hospice agencies, are subject to audit from time to time by governmental payors and their agents, such as MACs that act as fiscal intermediaries for all Medicare billings, auditors contracted by CMS, and insurance carriers, as well as HHS-OIG, CMS and state Medicaid programs. As noted above, the clarity and completeness of each patient medical file, some of which is the work product of a physician not employed by us, is essential to successfully challenging any payment denials. If the physicians working with our patients do not adequately document, among other things, their diagnoses and plans of care, our risks related to audits and payment denials in general are greater. Depending on the nature of the conduct found in such audits and whether the underlying conduct could be considered systemic, the resolution of these audits could have a material adverse effect in the aggregate on our financial position, results of operation and liquidity.

In the context of our inpatient rehabilitation business, one of the prevalent grounds for denying a claim or challenging a previously paid Medicare claim in an audit is that the patient’s treatment in a hospital was not medically necessary. The medical record must support that both the documentation and coverage criteria requirements are met for the hospital stay to be considered medically reasonable and necessary. Medical necessity is an assessment by an independent physician of a patient’s ability to tolerate and benefit from intensive multi-disciplinary therapy provided in an IRF setting. A Medicare claim may be denied or challenged based on an opinion of the auditor that the record did not evidence medical necessity for treatment in an IRF or lacked sufficient documentation to support the conclusion. In the past, we had a MAC that made determinations regarding medical necessity using its own uniquely restrictive interpretations of the CMS coverage rules or imposing otherwise arbitrary conditions not set out in the related rules, which resulted in a significant number of payment denials.

In some cases, we believe the reviewing party is not merely challenging the sufficiency of the medical record but is substituting its judgment of medical necessity for that of the attending physician or imposing documentation or other requirements that are not set out in the regulations. We argue that doing so is inappropriate and has no basis in law. When the government or its contractors reject the medical judgment of physicians or impose documentation and other requirements beyond the language of the statutes and regulations, patient access to inpatient rehabilitation as well as our Medicare reimbursement from the related claims may be adversely affected.

In August 2017, CMS announced the Targeted Probe and Educate (“TPE”) initiative. Under the TPE initiative, MACs use data analysis to identify healthcare providers with high claim error rates and items and services that have high national error rates. Once a MAC selects a provider for claims review, the initial volume of claims review is limited to 20 to 40 claims. The TPE initiative includes up to three rounds of claims review with corresponding provider education and a subsequent period to

26

allow for improvement. If results do not improve sufficiently after three rounds, the MAC may refer the provider to CMS for further action, which may include extrapolation of error rates to a broader universe of claims or referral to a UPIC or RAC (defined below). As of December 31, 2019, none of our hospitals or agencies have progressed beyond the third round of reviews, so it is unclear how the review process after TPE would proceed. We cannot predict whether the TPE initiative or similar probes or reviews will affect our ability to collect a material amount of Medicare claims on a timely basis in the future.

CMS has developed and instituted various audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. These audits are in addition to those conducted by existing MACs. Some contractors are paid a percentage of the overpayments recovered. One type of audit contractor, the Recovery Audit Contractors (“RACs”), receive claims data directly from MACs on a monthly or quarterly basis and are authorized to review previously paid claims. The recovery auditor look back period is limited to six months from the date of service in cases where the hospital submits the claim within three months of the date of service. CMS has previously operated a demonstration project that expanded the RAC program to include prepayment review of Medicare fee-for-service claims from primarily acute care hospitals. It is unclear whether CMS intends to conduct RAC prepayment reviews in the future and if so, what providers and claims would be the focus of those reviews.

RAC audits of IRFs initially focused on coding errors but subsequently expanded to include medical necessity and billing accuracy reviews. To date, the Medicare payments subject to RAC audit requests represent less than 1% of our Medicare patient discharges from 2010 to 2019. We have appealed substantially all RAC denials arising from these audits using the same process we follow for appealing pre-payment denials by MACs. CMS has authorized RACs to conduct complex reviews of the medical records associated with both IRF and home health reimbursement claims.

CMS has also established contractors known as the Uniform Program Integrity Contractors (“UPICs,” formerly known as “ZPICs”). These contractors are successors to the Program Safeguard Contractors and conduct audits with a focus on potential fraud and abuse issues. Like the RACs, the UPICs conduct audits and have the ability to refer matters to the HHS-OIG or DOJ. Unlike RACs, however, UPICs do not receive a specific financial incentive based on the amount of the error. We have, from time to time, received UPIC record requests which have resulted in claim denials on paid claims. In some cases, the UPICs have extrapolated error rates to larger pools of our claims. In the most significant example to date, a UPIC denied less than $2 million in claims but recouped an extrapolated amount of approximately $30 million. We have appealed substantially all UPIC denials, including the recoupment noted above, arising from these audits using the same process we follow for appealing other denials by contractors and will continue to contest the use of extrapolation in any context.

Audits may lead to assertions that we have been underpaid or overpaid by Medicare or have submitted improper claims in some instances. Such assertions may require us to incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and defend the validity of payments and claims and may ultimately require us to refund any amounts determined to have been overpaid. In some circumstances auditors have the authority to extrapolate denial rationales to large pools of claims not actually audited, which could greatly increase the impact of the audit. As a result, we may suffer reduced profitability, and we may have to elect not to accept patients and conditions physicians believe can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. We cannot predict when or how these audit programs will affect us.

Our third-party payors may also, from time to time, request audits of the amounts paid, or to be paid, to us. We could be adversely affected in some of the markets where we operate if the auditing payor alleges substantial overpayments were made to us due to coding errors or lack of documentation to support medical necessity determinations. Similarly, there can be no assurance that our current or future MACs will not take restrictive interpretations of Medicare coverage rules. Because one MAC has jurisdiction over a significant number of our hospitals and our hospitals derive a substantial portion of their revenue from Medicare, the adoption of restrictive interpretations of coverage rules by that MAC could result in a large number of payment denials and materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

The use of sub-regulatory guidance, statistical sampling, and extrapolation by CMS, Medicare contractors, HHS-OIG, and DOJ to deny claims, expand enforcement claims, and advocate for changes in reimbursement policy increases the risk that we could experience reduced revenue, suffer penalties, or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

Because Medicare comprises a significant portion of our Net operating revenues, failure to comply with the laws and regulations governing the Medicare program and related matters, including anti-kickback and anti-fraud requirements, could materially and adversely affect us. Our ability to operate in a compliant manner impacts the claims denials, compliance enforcement, and regulatory processes discussed in other risks above. The federal government’s reliance on sub-regulatory guidance, such as handbooks, FAQs, internal memoranda, and press releases, presents a unique challenge to compliance efforts. Such sub-regulatory guidance purports to explain validly promulgated regulations but often expands or supplements existing regulations without constitutionally and statutorily required notice and comment and other procedural protections. Without procedural protections, sub-regulatory guidance poses a risk above and beyond reasonable efforts to follow validly promulgated

27

regulations, particularly when the agency or MAC seeking to enforce such sub-regulatory guidance is not the agency or MAC issuing the guidance and therefore not as familiar with the substance and nature of the underlying regulations or even clinical issues involved.

Additionally, the federal government is increasingly turning to statistical sampling and extrapolation to expand claims denials and enforcement efforts and advocate for changes in reimbursement policy. Through sampling and extrapolation, the government takes a review of a small number of reimbursement claims and generalizes the results of that review to a much broader universe of claims, which can result in significant increases in the aggregate number and value of claims at issue. Increasing use of extrapolation can be found in payment review audits, such as those conducted by RACs and UPICs. In addition to payment reviews, government agencies may allege compliance violations, including submission of false claims, based on sampling and extrapolation and seek to change reimbursement policy. For example, the HHS-OIG issued a report in September 2018 purporting to identify a high error rate (approximately 80% of claims) among inpatient rehabilitation hospital admissions in a small sample of 220 claims. Based on its findings, the HHS-OIG extrapolated the error rate to the universe of inpatient rehabilitation claims and, among other things, recommended reevaluation of the IRF-PPS. However, the HHS-OIG report involves an extremely small sample size, is not a random sample of cases, includes incorrect references to coverage requirement regulations, appears to conflate technical documentation requirements with medical necessity determinations, and is at odds with actual MAC reviews of claims during that same timeframe which found substantially lower error rates. Notwithstanding the technical statistical flaws that can arise in sampling small groups of claims and the extremely problematic nature of extrapolation in the context of individualized decisions of medical judgment as some courts are beginning to note, sampling and extrapolation pose a growing risk to healthcare providers in the form of more significant claims of overpayments and increased legal costs to defend against these problematic regulatory practices. Any associated loss of revenue or increased legal costs could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Delays in the administrative appeals process associated with denied Medicare reimbursement claims may delay or reduce receipt of the related reimbursement amounts for services previously provided.

Ordinary course Medicare pre-payment denials by MACs, as well as denials resulting from widespread probes and audits, are subject to appeal by providers. We have historically appealed a majority of our denials. For claims we choose to appeal to an administrative law judge, we have historically experienced a success rate of approximately 70%. Due to the sheer number of appeals and various administrative inefficiencies, including a shortage of judges, appeals that are due to be resolved in a matter of months commonly take years to complete. For example, most of our appeals heard in 2019 related to denials received in 2013 and 2014. We believe the process for resolving individual Medicare payment claims that are denied will continue to take several years. Additionally, the number of new denials far exceeds the number of appeals resolved in recent years (except 2018) as shown in the following summary of our inpatient rehabilitation segment activity:

	New Denials	Collections of Previously Denied Claims	Revenue Reserve for New Denials
	(In Millions)
2019	$20.2	$14.9	$6.1
2018	10.2	14.1	3.0
2017	43.6	27.6	13.0
2016	74.9	26.2	20.6
2015	79.0	15.0	20.6

We currently record our estimates for pre-payment denials and for post-payment audit denials that will ultimately not be collected as a component of Net operating revenues. See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, “Net Operating Revenues,” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Given the continuing or increasing delays along with the increasing number of denials in the backlog, we may experience decreases in Net operating revenues and/or decreases in cash flow as a result of increasing accounts receivable, which may in turn lead to a change in the patients and conditions we treat. Any of these impacts could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Although Congress has considered legislation to reform and improve the Medicare audit and appeals process, we cannot predict what, if any, legislation will be adopted or what, if any, effect that legislation might have on the audit and appeals process.

In May 2014, the American Hospital Association (the “AHA”) and others filed a lawsuit seeking to compel HHS to meet the statutory deadlines for adjudication of denied Medicare claims. In December 2016, the presiding federal district court judge in the lawsuit ordered HHS to eliminate the backlog of appeals by the end of 2020. HHS appealed the federal district

28

court decision, and an appeals court remanded the order for further consideration of how HHS can eliminate the backlog. On November 1, 2018, the district court again ordered HHS to achieve the following reductions: 19% by the end of fiscal year 2019; 49% by the end of fiscal year 2020; 75% by the end of fiscal year 2021; and 100% by the end of fiscal year 2022. We cannot predict what, if any, further action CMS will take to reduce the backlog or how long it will take to resolve our pending appeals of payment denials that are part of the backlog.

The Hospital Pricing Transparency Rule could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

On November 15, 2019, CMS released a final rule on hospital price transparency requirements that become effective on January 1, 2021. This rule requires hospitals to publish on the internet in a consumer-friendly format their standard charges based on negotiated rates for all items and services and up to 300 common shoppable services. Shoppable services are those routinely provided in non-urgent situations and include those ancillary services that customarily accompany the primary service being provided. The charges for an individual item or service to be published include:

• gross charge (charge as reflected on a hospital’s chargemaster, absent any discounts),

• payer-specific negotiated charge (charge negotiated with a third party payer for an item or service),

• de-identified minimum negotiated charge (lowest charge negotiated with all third-party payers),

• de-identified maximum negotiated charge (highest charge negotiated with all third-party payers), and

• discounted cash price (charge that applies to an individual who pays cash).

This rule imposes significant initial and ongoing burdens on hospitals to track and publish various billing information. CMS estimates the total burden for hospitals to review and post their standard charges for the first year to be 150 man-hours and $11,898.60 per hospital. In the event a hospital fails to comply with the new requirements and does not complete the prescribed corrective action, CMS may impose a civil monetary penalty of up to $300 per day.

In December 2019, several hospital organizations, including the AHA, filed suit in federal court challenging this rule. The plaintiffs seek to invalidate the rule, but pending final adjudication, they asked the court to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing HHS from enforcing the rule’s requirements beginning in 2021. We cannot predict the outcome of any legal challenges to this rule.

Many states have also passed or are debating legislation establishing price transparency websites or mandating that health plans or hospitals make price information available to consumers. The associated reporting obligations vary from state to state. We cannot predict what the adverse effects of this new CMS rule or any state law or regulation, such as the effect on relations with managed care payors and referral sources, may be for us. The burden of compliance with the associated requirements will have an adverse impact on our operations, results of operations, and cash flows.

Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Proposed Rule, if adopted as proposed by CMS, may adversely affect our business and results of operations.

On November 12, 2019, CMS released a proposed rule intended to increase oversight and transparency in Medicaid supplemental payment programs, including Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, and how states finance these programs. This proposed rule includes new policies to ensure that states are complying with the statutory restriction on using impermissible provider taxes or donations to fund their share of Medicaid reimbursements. Specifically, CMS expands the definition of impermissible tax to include provider assessments which have the effect of sorting providers by levels of Medicaid activity. Currently, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals are exempted based upon the hospital licensure category or services provided in 15 states within which we operate. If CMS ultimately finds that those exemptions are based upon low Medicaid utilization in comparison to other hospitals, generally acute care hospitals, subject to the taxes, our hospitals in those states could be subjected to new provider taxes. The proposed rule also seeks to eliminate mitigation agreements between healthcare providers and state or local governments which CMS believes result in a “net effect” of holding those providers harmless from a provider tax. In 2019, our hospitals received approximately $10 million under mitigation agreements.

Because it is difficult to predict how any particular state might respond to the new requirements in this proposed rule should it be finalized as proposed, the impact on our Medicaid revenues cannot be determined. Some states may decide to limit federal matching dollars that could result in Medicaid reimbursement rate reductions, while other states may chose to maximize their Medicaid funding by increasing provider tax payments. Various changes in this proposal rule may adversely affect our Net operating revenues, results of operations, and cash flows.

29

We face intense competition for patients from other healthcare providers.

We operate in highly competitive, fragmented inpatient rehabilitation and home health and hospice industries. Although we are the nation’s largest owner and operator of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in terms of patients treated and discharged, revenues, and number of hospitals, in any particular market we may encounter competition from local or national entities with longer operating histories or other competitive advantages. For example, acute care hospitals, including those owned and operated by large public companies, may choose to expand or begin offering post-acute rehabilitation services. Given that approximately 90% of our hospitals’ referrals come from acute care hospitals, that increase in competition could materially and adversely affect our admission referrals in the related markets. There are also large acute care systems that may have more resources available to compete than we have. Other providers of post-acute care services may attempt to become competitors in the future. For example, some nursing homes, including at least one public company operator, have been marketing themselves as offering certain rehabilitation services, even though nursing homes are not required to offer the same level of care, and are not licensed, as hospitals.

In the home health and hospice services industries, our primary competition comes from the home health division of a large insurance company, three other large public home health companies, locally owned private home health companies or acute care hospitals with adjunct home health services and typically varies from market to market. We also compete with a variety of other companies in providing home health and hospice services, some of which, including several large public companies, may have greater financial and other resources and may be more established in their respective communities. One public home health company has a strategy that emphasizes joint ventures with acute care hospitals, including a number of joint ventures with large systems, which frequently serve as the referral sources for home health patients in specific markets. Similarly, there is a large insurance company that offers Medicare Advantage coverage and owns a home health business. That insurance company is one of the largest providers of Medicare-certified skilled home health services. Additionally, nursing homes compete for referrals in some instances when the patients may be suitable for home-based care.

Competing companies may offer newer or different services from those we offer or have better relationships with referring physicians and may thereby attract patients who are presently, or would be candidates for, receiving our inpatient rehabilitation, home health, or hospice services. The other public companies and the insurance companies have or may obtain significantly greater marketing and financial resources or other advantages of scale than we have or may obtain. Relatively few barriers to entry exist in most of our local markets. Accordingly, other companies, including hospitals and other healthcare organizations that are not currently providing competing services, may expand their services to include inpatient rehabilitation, home health, hospice care, community care, or similar services.

There can be no assurance this competition, or other competition which we may encounter in the future, will not adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, from time to time, there are efforts in states with certificate of need (“CON”) laws to weaken those laws, which could potentially increase competition in those states. For example, in 2019, Florida enacted legislation to repeal CON regulations for several provider types, including IRFs, in two stages. Effective July 1, 2019, existing IRFs became eligible to expand without first obtaining a CON. Effective July 1, 2021, new IRFs can be built without first obtaining a CON. Conversely, competition and statutory procedural requirements in some CON states may inhibit our ability to expand our operations in those states. For a breakdown of the CON status of the states and territories in which we have operations, see Item 2, Properties.

If we are unable to maintain or develop relationships with patient referral sources, our growth and profitability could be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on referrals from physicians, hospitals, case managers and other patient referral sources in the communities we serve. By law, referral sources cannot be contractually obligated to refer patients to any specific provider. However, there can be no assurance that individuals will not attempt to steer patients to competing post-acute providers or otherwise limit our access to potential referrals. The establishment of joint ventures or networks between referral sources, such as acute care hospitals, and other post-acute providers may hinder patient referrals to us. The growing emphasis on integrated care delivery across the healthcare continuum increases that risk.

Our growth and profitability depend on our ability to establish and maintain close working relationships with patient referral sources and to increase awareness and acceptance of the benefits of inpatient rehabilitation, home health, and hospice care by our referral sources and their patients. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to maintain our existing referral source relationships or that we will be able to develop and maintain new relationships in existing or new markets. Our loss of, or failure to maintain, existing relationships or our failure to develop new relationships could adversely affect our ability to grow our business and operate profitably.

30

Efforts to reduce payments to healthcare providers undertaken by third-party payors, conveners, and referral sources may adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

Health insurers and managed care companies, including Medicare Advantage plans, may utilize certain third parties, known as conveners, to attempt to control costs. Conveners offer patient placement and care transition services to those payors as well as bundled payment participants, ACOs, and other healthcare providers with the intent of managing post-acute utilization and associated costs. Conveners may influence referral source decisions on which post-acute setting to recommend, as well as how long to remain in a particular setting. Given their focus on perceived financial savings, conveners customarily suggest that patients avoid higher acuity post-acute settings altogether or move as soon as practicable to lower acuity settings. Conveners are not healthcare providers and may suggest a post-acute setting or duration of care that may not be appropriate from a clinical perspective potentially resulting in a costly acute care hospital readmission.

We also depend on referrals from physicians, acute care hospitals, and other healthcare providers in the communities we serve. As a result of various alternative payment models, many referral sources are becoming increasingly focused on reducing post-acute costs by eliminating post-acute care referrals or referring patients to post-acute settings other than perceived high-cost rehabilitation hospitals, sometimes without understanding the potential impact on patient outcomes over an entire episode of care. Our ability to attract patients could be adversely affected if any of our hospitals or agencies fail to provide or maintain a reputation for providing high-quality care on a cost-effective basis as compared to other providers.

We may have difficulty completing investments and transactions that increase our capacity consistent with our growth strategy.

We are selectively pursuing strategic acquisitions of, and in some instances joint ventures with, other healthcare providers. We may face limitations on our ability to identify sufficient acquisition or other development targets and to complete those transactions to meet goals. In the home health industry, there is significant competition among acquirors attempting to secure the acquisition of companies that have a large number of locations. In the inpatient rehabilitation industry, the costs of constructing new hospitals may be increasing faster than the general inflation rate. In many states, the need to obtain governmental approvals, such as a CON or an approval of a change in ownership, may represent a significant obstacle to completing transactions. Additionally, in states with CON laws, it is not unusual for third-party providers to challenge the initial awards of CONs, the increase in the number of approved beds in an existing CON, or the expansion of the area served, and the adjudication of those challenges and related appeals may take many years. These factors may increase the cost to us associated with any acquisition or de novo development or prevent us from completing one or more acquisitions or de novo developments.

We may make investments or complete transactions that could expose us to unforeseen risks and liabilities.

Investments, acquisitions, joint ventures or other development opportunities identified and completed may involve material cash expenditures, debt incurrence, operating losses, amortization of certain intangible assets of acquired companies, issuances of equity securities, liabilities, and expenses, some of which are unforeseen, that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations and liquidity. Acquisitions, investments, and joint ventures involve numerous risks, including:

• limitations, including state CONs as well as anti-trust, Medicare, and other regulatory approval requirements, on our ability to complete such acquisitions, particularly those involving not-for-profit providers, on terms, timetables, and valuations reasonable to us;

• limitations in obtaining financing for acquisitions at a cost reasonable to us;

• difficulties integrating acquired operations, personnel, and information systems, and in realizing projected revenues, efficiencies and cost savings, or returns on invested capital;

• entry into markets, businesses or services in which we may have little or no experience;

• diversion of business resources or management’s attention from ongoing business operations; and

• exposure to undisclosed or unforeseen liabilities of acquired operations, including liabilities for failure to comply with healthcare laws and anti-trust considerations in specific markets as well as risks and liabilities related to previously compromised information systems.

As part of our development activities, we intend to build new, or de novo, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. The construction of new hospitals involves numerous risks, including the receipt of all zoning and other regulatory approvals, such as a CON where necessary, construction delays and cost over-runs and unforeseen environmental liability exposure. Once built,

31

new hospitals must undergo the state and Medicare certification process, the duration of which may be beyond our control. We may be unable to operate newly constructed hospitals as profitably as expected, and those hospitals may involve significant additional cash expenditures and operating expenses that could, in the aggregate, have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

We may not be able to successfully integrate acquisitions or realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisitions.

We may undertake strategic acquisitions from time to time. For example, we completed the acquisitions of the home health and hospice business of Camellia Heathcare and Alacare Home Health and Hospice in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Prior to consummation of any acquisition, the acquired business will have operated independently of us, with its own procedures, corporate culture, locations, employees and systems. We expect to integrate acquired businesses into our existing business utilizing certain common information systems, operating procedures, administrative functions, financial and internal controls and human resources practices to the extent practicable. There may be substantial difficulties, costs and delays involved in the integration of an acquired business with our business. Additionally, an acquisition could cause disruption to our business and operations and our relationships with customers, employees and other parties. In some cases, the acquired business has itself grown through acquisitions, and there may be legacy systems, operating policies and procedures, financial and administrative practices yet to be fully integrated. To the extent we are attempting to integrate multiple businesses at the same time, we may not be able to do so as efficiently or effectively as we initially anticipate. The failure to successfully integrate on a timely basis any acquired business with our existing business could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

We anticipate our acquisitions will result in benefits including, among other things, increased revenues and an enhanced ability to provide a continuum of facility-based and home-based post-acute healthcare services. However, acquired businesses may not contribute to our revenues or earnings to the extent anticipated, and any synergies we expect may not be realized after the acquisitions have been completed. If the acquired businesses underperform and any underperformance is other than temporary, we may be required to take an impairment charge. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits could result in the diversion of management’s time and energy and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Competition for staffing, shortages of qualified personnel, union activity or other factors may increase our labor costs and reduce profitability.

Our operations are dependent on the efforts, abilities, and experience of our medical personnel, such as physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. We compete with other healthcare providers in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel responsible for the daily operations of each of our locations. In some markets, the lack of availability of medical personnel is a significant operating issue facing all healthcare providers. This issue may be exacerbated if immigration is more limited in the future. A shortage may require us to continue to enhance wages and benefits to recruit and retain qualified personnel or to contract for more expensive temporary personnel. We also depend on the available labor pool of semi-skilled and unskilled employees in each of the markets in which we operate.

If our labor costs increase, we may not experience reimbursement rate or pricing increases to offset these additional costs. Because a significant percentage of our revenues consists of fixed, prospective payments, our ability to pass along increased labor costs is limited. In particular, if labor costs rise at an annual rate greater than our net annual market basket update from Medicare, as is expected to happen in 2020, or we experience a significant shift in our payor mix to lower rate payors such as Medicaid, our results of operations and cash flows will be adversely affected. Conversely, decreases in reimbursement revenues, such as with sequestration and the PDGM reimbursement rate reductions, may limit our ability to increase compensation or benefits to the extent necessary to retain key employees, in turn increasing our turnover and associated costs. Union activity is another factor that may contribute to increased labor costs. We currently have a minimal number of union employees, so an increase in labor union activity could have a significant impact on our labor costs. Our failure to recruit and retain qualified medical personnel, or to control our labor costs, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

We are a defendant in various lawsuits, and may be subject to liability under qui tam cases, the outcome of which could have a material adverse effect on us.

We operate in a highly regulated industry in which healthcare providers are routinely subject to litigation. As a result, various lawsuits, claims, and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits, most of which are general and professional liability matters inherent in treating patients with medical conditions. Our more significant lawsuits and investigations, including the recently settled DOJ

32

investigation, are discussed in Note 18, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Substantial damages, fines, or other remedies assessed against us or agreed to in settlements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows, including indirectly as a result of the covenant defaults under our credit agreement or debt instruments or other claims such as those in securities actions. Additionally, the costs of defending litigation and investigations, even if frivolous or nonmeritorious, could be significant.

The FCA allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings on behalf of the United States alleging violations of the FCA. These lawsuits, also known as “whistleblower” or “qui tam” actions, can involve significant monetary damages, fines, attorneys’ fees and the award of bounties to the relators who successfully prosecute or bring these suits to the government. Qui tam cases are sealed at the time of filing, which means knowledge of the information contained in the complaint typically is limited to the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. The defendant in a qui tam action may remain unaware of the existence of a sealed complaint for years. While the complaint is under seal, the government reviews the merits of the case and may conduct a broad investigation and seek discovery from the defendant and other parties before deciding whether to intervene in the case and take the lead on litigating the claims. The court lifts the seal when the government makes its decision on whether to intervene. If the government decides not to intervene, the relator may elect to continue to pursue the lawsuit individually on behalf of the government.

The settled DOJ investigation originated in 2013 based on the allegations made by relators. The seven-year investigation produced no evidence of falsity or fraudulent conduct. Eventually, the court overseeing the qui tam actions refused to give DOJ more time to decide whether to intervene and unsealed the cases. DOJ chose not to intervene and prosecute the matter. Even when a matter is without merit, as we believe was the case with this investigation, we may still incur significant costs of defense or settlement costs or both.

It is possible that other qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us, which suits remain under seal, or that we are unaware of such filings or precluded by existing law or court order from discussing or disclosing the filing of such suits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the FCA.

The healthcare services we provide involve substantial risk of general and professional liability. Inpatient rehabilitative care involves three hours of daily intensive therapy for patients who are usually elderly and come to our hospitals with debilitating medical conditions. Our clinicians must frequently assist patients who have difficulty with mobility. Home care services, by their very nature, are provided in an environment that is not in the substantial control of the healthcare provider. On any given day, we have thousands of care providers driving to and from the homes of patients. We cannot predict the impact any claims arising out of the travel, the home visits or the care being provided (regardless of their ultimate outcomes) could have on our business or reputation or on our ability to attract and retain patients and employees. We also cannot predict the adequacy of any reserves for such losses or recoveries from any insurance or re-insurance policies.

We insure a substantial portion of our professional, general, and workers’ compensation liability risks, which may not include risks related to regulatory fines and penalties, through our captive insurance subsidiary, as discussed further in Note 11, Self-Insured Risks, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Changes in the number of these liability claims and the cost to resolve them impact the reserves for these risks. A variance between our estimated and actual number of claims or average cost per claim could have a material impact, either favorable or unfavorable, on the adequacy of the reserves for these liability risks, which could have an effect on our financial position and results of operations.

The proper function, availability, and security of our information systems are critical to our business.

We are and will remain dependent on the proper function, availability and security of our and third-party information systems, including our electronic clinical information system, referred to as ACE-IT, which plays a substantial role in the operations of the hospitals, and the information systems currently in use by our home health and hospice business. We undertake measures to protect the safety and security of our information systems and the data maintained within those systems, and we periodically test the adequacy of our security and disaster recovery measures. We have implemented administrative, technical and physical controls on our systems and devices in an attempt to prevent unauthorized access to that data, which includes patient information subject to the protections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and other sensitive information. For additional discussion of these laws, see Item 1, Business, “Regulation.”

We expend significant capital to protect against the threat of security breaches, including cyber attacks, email phishing schemes, malware and ransomware. Substantial additional expenditures may be required to respond to and remediate any problems caused by breaches, including the unauthorized access to or theft of patient data and protected health information

33

stored in our information systems and the introduction of computer malware or ransomware to our systems. We also provide our employees annual training and regular reminders on important measures they can take to prevent breaches and other cyber threats, including phishing schemes. We routinely identify attempts to gain unauthorized access to our systems. However, given the rapidly evolving nature and proliferation of cyber threats, there can be no assurance our training and network security measures or other controls will detect, prevent or remediate security or data breaches in a timely manner or otherwise prevent unauthorized access to, damage to, or interruption of our systems and operations. For example, it has been widely reported that many well-organized international interests, in certain cases with the backing of sovereign governments, are targeting the theft of patient information through the use of advance persistent threats. Similarly, in recent years, several hospitals have reported being victims of ransomware attacks in which they lost access to their systems, including clinical systems, during the course of the attacks. We are likely to face attempted attacks in the future. Accordingly, we may be vulnerable to losses associated with the improper functioning, breach or unavailability of our and our vendors’ information systems, including systems used in acquired operations, and third-party systems we use. In January 2018, news reports widely circulated the discovery of two vulnerabilities, named Meltdown and Spectre, found in the most commonly used microchip processors. These vulnerabilities which affect nearly all computers could allow unauthorized parties to circumvent system protections exposing nearly any data device processes, such as passwords, proprietary information, or encrypted communications.

To date, we are not aware of having experienced a material cyber breach or attack. However, given the increasing cyber security threats in the healthcare industry, there can be no assurance we will not experience business interruptions; data loss, ransom, misappropriation or corruption; theft or misuse of proprietary, patient or other personally identifiable information; or litigation, investigation, or regulatory action related to any of those, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our patient care, financial position, and results of operations and harm our business reputation.

A compromise of our network security measures or other controls, or of those businesses or vendors with whom we interact, which results in confidential information being accessed, obtained, damaged or used by unauthorized persons or unavailability of systems necessary to the operation of our business, could impact patient care, harm our reputation, and expose us to significant remedial costs as well as regulatory actions (fines and penalties) and claims from patients, financial institutions, regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and other persons, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows. The nature of our business requires the sharing of protected health information and other sensitive information among employees and healthcare partners, many of whom carry and access portable devices outside of our physical locations, which in turn increases the risk of loss, theft or inadvertent disclosure of that information. Moreover, a security breach, or threat thereof, could require that we expend significant resources to repair or improve our information systems and infrastructure and could distract management and other key personnel from performing their primary operational duties. In the case of a material breach or cyber attack, the associated expenses and losses may exceed our current insurance coverage for such events. Some adverse consequences are not insurable, such as reputational harm and third-party business interruption. Failure to maintain proper function, security, or availability of our information systems or protect our data against unauthorized access could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

ACE-IT is subject to a licensing, implementation, technology hosting, and support agreement with Cerner Corporation. Similarly, we have an agreement to license, host, and support a comprehensive home care management and clinical information system, Homecare Homebase^SM. In addition, we have a number of partners and non-software vendors with whom we share data in order to provide patient care and otherwise operate our business. In fact, federal laws and regulations require interoperability among healthcare entities in many circumstances. Our inability, or the inability of our partners or vendors, to continue to maintain and upgrade information systems, software, and hardware could disrupt or reduce the efficiency of our operations, including affecting patient care. A security breach or other system failure involving Cerner, Homecare Homebase or another third-party with whom we share data or system connectivity could compromise our patient data or proprietary information or disrupt our ability to operate. In addition, costs, unexpected problems, and interruptions associated with the implementation or transition to new systems or technology or with adequate support of those systems or technology across numerous hospitals and agencies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Efforts to comply with regulatory mandates to increase the use of electronic health data and health system interoperability may lead to negative publicity which could adversely affect our business.

For many years, a primary focus of the healthcare industry has been to increase the use of electronic health records, or “EHR,” and the sharing of the health data among providers, payors and other members of the industry. The federal government has been a significant driver of that initiative through rules and regulations. In 2009, as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, the federal government set aside $27 billion of incentives for hospitals and providers to adopt EHR systems. In 2019, CMS proposed policy changes supporting its MyHealthEData initiative to improve patient access and advance electronic data exchange and care coordination throughout the healthcare system. The

34

Interoperability and Patient Access Proposed Rule seeks to make patient data more useful and transferable through open, secure, standardized, and machine-readable formats while reducing restrictive burdens on healthcare providers. In addition to this proposed rule, CMS released a request for information to obtain feedback on interoperability and health information technology adoption in post-acute care settings. As noted in connection with the release of the proposed rule, CMS seeks to break down existing barriers to important data exchange in all aspects of healthcare from patients to providers to payers and researchers. 

The goals of increased use of electronic health data and interoperability are improved quality of care and lower healthcare costs generally. However, increased use of electronic health data and interoperability inherently magnifies the risk of security breaches involving that data and information systems, which risk is discussed above. Additionally, the sharing of health information, that is interoperability, has received increasingly negative publicity. There is at least one well publicized instance where organizations received significant negative publicity for sharing health data despite having appeared to comply in all respects with privacy law. There can be no assurance that our efforts to improve the care we deliver and to comply with the law through increasing use of electronic data and system interoperability will not receive negative publicity that may materially and adversely affect our ability to get patient referrals or enter into joint ventures with other providers or may lead to greater regulatory scrutiny. Negative publicity may also lead to federal or state regulation that conflicts with current federal policy and interferes with the healthcare industry’s efforts to improve care and reduce costs through use of electronic data and interoperability.

Successful execution of our current business plan depends on our key personnel.

The success of our current business plan depends in large part upon the leadership and performance of our executive management team and other key employees and our ability to retain and motivate these individuals. We rely upon their ability, expertise, experience, judgment, discretion, integrity and good faith. However, there is no guarantee we will be able to retain our key personnel. Our only employment agreements are with members of the home health and hospice senior management team. We entered into those agreements in connection with the acquisition of that business at the end of 2014. They expired at the end of 2019, but in the fourth quarter of 2019, we executed updated forms of the agreements with terms of three years. If we are unable to retain one or more key members of management, we may be unable to replace them with personnel of comparable experience in, or knowledge of, the healthcare provider industry or our specific post-acute segments. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could prevent us from successfully executing our business plan and could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

A pandemic, epidemic or other widespread outbreak of an infectious disease could adversely affect our operations.

If a pandemic, epidemic, or other widespread outbreak of an infectious disease or other public health crisis were to occur in areas in which we operate, our operations could be materially and adversely affected. State or local health departments may require us or a significant referral source for us to close one or more hospitals or limit patient admissions as a precautionary measure in a crisis to avoid the spread of a disease. Patients may choose to avoid elective procedures and hospital stays during a health crisis. Further, a pandemic, epidemic or other widespread outbreak might adversely affect our operations by causing staffing and supply shortages. We have infectious disease protocols, but the exact nature of a crisis stemming from a pandemic, epidemic or other widespread outbreak and how it would affect us is difficult to predict and could adversely affect our operations.

Changes in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients could adversely affect our Net operating revenues or our profitability.

Many factors affect pricing of our services and, in turn, our revenues. For example, in the inpatient rehabilitation segment, these factors include the treating facility’s urban or rural status, the length of stay, the payor and its applicable rate of reimbursement, and the patient’s medical condition and impairment status (acuity). In recent years, our inpatient rehabilitation segment has experienced a shift in payor mix to a slightly larger percentage of Medicaid patients. We could also experience a shift to a lower average patient acuity. Both of these shifts adversely affect pricing growth. See the “Segment Results of Operations—Inpatient Rehabilitation—Net Operating Revenues” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. The expansion and growth of Medicaid resulting from provisions of the 2010 Healthcare Reform Laws have increased the number of those patients coming to us. Medicaid reimbursement rates are almost always the lowest among those of our payors, and frequently Medicaid patients come to us with other complicating conditions that make treatment more difficult and costly. We do not anticipate that Medicaid will continue to grow at the rate it has in recent years. However, we cannot predict what, if any, Medicaid changes will be adopted. We cannot predict whether our payor mix will to shift to lower reimbursement rate payors. In the future, we may experience shifts in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients that could adversely affect our pricing, Net operating revenues, and profitability.

35

We may incur additional indebtedness in the future, and that debt or the associated increased leverage may have negative consequences for our business.

As of December 31, 2019, we have approximately $2.7 billion of long-term debt outstanding (including that portion of long-term debt classified as current and excluding $384.1 million in finance leases). See Note 10, Long-term Debt, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Subject to specified limitations, our credit agreement and the indentures governing our debt securities permit us and our subsidiaries to incur material additional debt. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the risks described here could intensify.

Our indebtedness could have important consequences, including:

• limiting our ability to borrow additional amounts to fund working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, debt service requirements, execution of our business strategy and other general corporate purposes;

• making us more vulnerable to adverse changes in general economic, industry and competitive conditions, in government regulation and in our business by limiting our flexibility in planning for, and making it more difficult for us to react quickly to, changing conditions;

• placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared with competing providers that have less debt; and

• exposing us to risks inherent in interest rate fluctuations for outstanding amounts under our credit facility, which could result in higher interest expense in the event of increases in interest rates, as discussed in Item 7A, Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

We are subject to contingent liabilities, prevailing economic conditions, and financial, business, and other factors beyond our control. Although we expect to make scheduled interest payments and principal reductions, we cannot provide assurance that changes in our business or other factors will not occur that may have the effect of preventing us from satisfying obligations under our credit agreement or debt instruments. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future to service our debt and meet our other needs or have an unanticipated cash payment obligation, we may have to refinance all or a portion of our debt, obtain additional financing or reduce expenditures or sell assets we deem necessary to our business. We cannot provide assurance these measures would be possible or any additional financing could be obtained.

The restrictive covenants in our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes could affect our ability to execute aspects of our business plan successfully.

The terms of our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes do, and our future debt instruments may, contain various provisions that limit our ability and the ability of certain of our subsidiaries to, among other things:

• incur or guarantee indebtedness;

• pay dividends on, or redeem or repurchase, our capital stock; or repay, redeem or repurchase our subordinated obligations;

• issue or sell certain types of preferred stock;

• make investments;

• incur obligations that restrict the ability of our subsidiaries to make dividends or other payments to us;

• sell assets;

• engage in transactions with affiliates;

• create certain liens;

• enter into sale/leaseback transactions; and

• merge, consolidate, or transfer all or substantially all of our assets.

These covenants could adversely affect our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs and pursue available business opportunities. For additional discussion of our material debt covenants, see the “Liquidity and Capital

36

Resources” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Note 10, Long-term Debt, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

In addition, our credit agreement requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy certain financial condition tests. See the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Note 10, Long-term Debt, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Although we remained in compliance with the financial ratios and financial condition tests as of December 31, 2019, we cannot provide assurance we will continue to do so. Events beyond our control, including changes in general economic and business conditions, may affect our ability to meet those financial ratios and financial condition tests. A severe downturn in earnings, failure to realize anticipated earnings from acquisitions, or, if we have outstanding borrowings under our credit facility at the time, a rapid increase in interest rates could impair our ability to comply with those financial ratios and financial condition tests and we may need to obtain waivers from the required proportion of the lenders to avoid being in default. If we try to obtain a waiver or other relief from the required lenders, we may not be able to obtain it or such relief might have a material cost to us or be on terms less favorable than those in our existing debt. If a default occurs, the lenders could exercise their rights, including declaring all the funds borrowed (together with accrued and unpaid interest) to be immediately due and payable, terminating their commitments or instituting foreclosure proceedings against our assets, which, in turn, could cause the default and acceleration of the maturity of our other indebtedness. A breach of any other restrictive covenants contained in our credit agreement or the indentures governing our senior notes would also (after giving effect to applicable grace periods, if any) result in an event of default with the same outcome.

As of December 31, 2019, approximately 70% of our consolidated Property and equipment, net was held by our company and its guarantor subsidiaries under its credit agreement. See Note 10, Long-term Debt, and Note 21, Condensed Consolidating Financial Information, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements, and Item 2, Properties.

Uncertainty in the capital markets could adversely affect our ability to carry out our development objectives.

In recent years, the global and sovereign credit markets have experienced significant disruptions, and the debt ceiling and federal budget disputes in the United States as well as international trade disputes affected capital markets. Future market shocks could negatively affect the availability or terms of certain types of debt and equity financing, including access to revolving lines of credit. Future business needs combined with market conditions at the time may cause us to seek alternative sources of potentially less attractive financing and may require us to adjust our business plan accordingly. For example, tight credit markets, such as might result from further turmoil in the sovereign debt markets, would likely make additional financing more expensive and difficult to obtain. The inability to obtain additional financing at attractive rates or prices could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance or our growth opportunities.

As a result of credit market uncertainty, we could face potential exposure to counterparties who may be unable to adequately service our needs, including the ability of the lenders under our credit agreement to provide liquidity when needed. We monitor the financial strength of our depositories, creditors, and insurance carriers using publicly available information, as well as qualitative inputs.

If any of our hospitals or home health or hospice agencies fail to comply with the Medicare enrollment requirements or conditions of participation, that hospital or agency could be terminated from the Medicare program.

Each of our hospitals and home health and hospice agencies must comply with extensive enrollment requirements and conditions of participation for the Medicare program. If any fail to meet any of the Medicare enrollment requirements or conditions of participation, we may receive a notice of deficiency from the applicable survey agency or contractor, as applicable. If that hospital or agency then fails to institute an acceptable plan of correction and correct the deficiency within the applicable correction period, it could lose the ability to bill Medicare. A hospital or agency could be terminated from the Medicare program if it fails to address the deficiency within the applicable correction period. If CMS terminates one hospital or agency, it may increase its scrutiny of others under common control.

On September 5, 2019, CMS released a final rule that will implement over a period time additional provider enrollment provisions and create several new revocation and denial authorities in an attempt to bolster CMS’ efforts to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. A few provisions of this new rule could significantly increase the complexity of filing enrollment applications for all of our provider entities, including increased burden related to tracking and identifying required reporting data from our joint venture partners. This rule requires Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers to disclose any current or previous (in the last five years), direct or indirect affiliation with a provider or supplier that has ever had a disclosable event. A disclosable event is any uncollected debt to Medicare or Medicaid, payment suspension under a federal health care program, denial, revocation or termination of enrollment (even if it is under appeal), or exclusion by the OIG from participation in a federal health care program. The rule also broadens the definition of an affiliation, including many indirect ownership or control

37

situations such as ownership interests in a publicly traded company. If CMS determines an affiliation with a disclosable event poses an undue risk of fraud, waste or abuse, then the provider reporting that affiliation may be subject to exclusion from Medicare. Currently, information regarding uncollected debt, payment suspensions and enrollment actions are not generally available, so obtaining such information on affiliates could prove difficult or impossible in some situations. CMS intends to issue further guidance on the level of effort it expects providers to undertake to uncover information on their affiliates.

Under this new rule, CMS may revoke a provider’s Medicare enrollment, including all of the provider’s locations, if the provider bills for services performed at or items furnished from one location that it knew or should have known did not comply with Medicare enrollment requirements, including making the disclosures discussed above. CMS has the ability to prevent applicants from enrolling in the program for up to three years if a provider is found to have submitted false or misleading information in its initial enrollment application. Additionally, CMS can now block providers and suppliers who are revoked from re-entering the Medicare program for up to 10 years. CMS may also revoke a provider’s enrollment if it fails to report on a timely basis any change in ownership or control, revocation or suspension of a federal or state license or certification, or any other change in its enrollment data.

Any termination of one or more of our hospitals or agencies from the Medicare program for failure to satisfy the enrollment requirements or conditions of participation could materially adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

38

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

We currently maintain our principal executive office at 9001 Liberty Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama, the lease for which expires in 2033 and has multiple renewal options for additional five-year terms.

In addition to our principal executive office, as of December 31, 2019, we leased or owned through various consolidated entities 453 physical locations to operate or support our business. All but three of our hospital leases, which represent the largest portion of our rent expense, have at least five years remaining on their terms after taking into consideration one or more renewal options. Our consolidated entities associated with our leased hospitals are generally responsible for property taxes, property and casualty insurance, and routine maintenance expenses. Our home health and hospice business is based in Dallas, Texas where it leases office space for corporate and administrative functions. The remaining home health and hospice locations are in the localities served by that business and are subject to relatively small space leases, primarily 5,000 square feet or less. Those space leases are typically five years or less in term. We do not believe any one of our individual properties is material to our consolidated operations.

39

The following table sets forth information regarding our hospitals and our home health and hospice locations (excluding two of the home health locations that operate as joint ventures which we account for using the equity method of accounting) as of December 31, 2019:

		Number of Hospitals
State	Licensed Beds	Building and Land Owned		Building Owned and Land Leased	Building and Land Leased	Total	Home Health and Hospice Locations
Alabama *+	427	2		3	2	7	59
Arizona	396	1		2	3	6	5
Arkansas +	360	3		1	1	5	5
California	184	2		—	1	3	—
Colorado	104	1		—	1	2	6
Connecticut*	—	—		—	—	—	1
Delaware *	37	—		1	—	1	—
Florida *	947	10		—	2	12	18
Georgia *+	160	2	(1)	1