Universal Health (UHS) Risk Analysis

Typically, physicians are responsible for making hospital admissions decisions and for directing the course of patient treatment. As a result, the success and competitive advantage of our hospitals depends, in part, on the number and quality of the physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals, the admitting practices of those physicians and our maintenance of good relations with those physicians. Physicians generally are not employees of our hospitals, and, in a number of our markets, physicians have admitting privileges at other hospitals in addition to our hospitals. They may terminate their affiliation with us at any time. If we are unable to maintain high ethical and professional standards, adequate support personnel and technologically advanced equipment and facilities that meet the needs of those physicians, they may be discouraged from referring patients to our facilities and our results of operations may decline. It may become difficult for us to attract and retain an adequate number of physicians to practice in certain communities in which our hospitals are located. Our failure to recruit physicians to these communities or the loss of physicians in these communities could make it more difficult to attract patients to our hospitals and thereby may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The loss of one or more of these physicians, even if temporary, could cause a material reduction in our revenues, which could take significant time to replace given the difficulty and cost associated with recruiting and retaining physicians.

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

Our Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that, with respect to the election of directors, holders of Class A Common Stock vote as a class with the holders of Class C Common Stock, and holders of Class B Common Stock vote as a class with holders of Class D Common Stock, with holders of all classes of our Common Stock entitled to one vote per share. As of March 22, 2023, the shares of Class A and Class C Common Stock constituted 10.3% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect five members of the Board of Directors and constituted 90.4% of our general voting power as of that date. And as of that date, the shares of Class B and Class D Common Stock (excluding shares issuable upon exercise of options) constituted 89.7% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock, had the right to elect two members of the Board of Directors and constituted 9.6% of our general voting power as of that date. As to matters other than the election of directors, our Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that holders of Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D Common Stock all vote together as a single class, except as otherwise provided by law. Each share of Class A Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to one vote; each share of Class B Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to one-tenth of a vote; each share of Class C Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to 100 votes (provided the holder of Class C Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class A Common Stock equal to ten times the number of shares of Class C Common Stock that holder holds); and each share of Class D Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to ten votes (provided the holder of Class D Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class B Common Stock equal to ten times the number of shares of Class D Common Stock that holder holds). In the event a holder of Class C or Class D Common Stock holds a number of shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock, respectively, less than ten times the number of shares of Class C or Class D Common Stock that holder holds, then that holder will be entitled to only one vote for every share of Class C Common Stock, or one-tenth of a vote for every share of Class D Common Stock, which that holder holds in excess of one-tenth the number of shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock, respectively, held by that holder. The Board of Directors, in its discretion, may require beneficial owners to provide satisfactory evidence that such owner holds ten times as many shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock as Class C or Class D Common Stock, respectively, if such facts are not apparent from our stock records. Since a substantial majority of the Class A shares and Class C shares are controlled by Mr. Alan B. Miller and members of his family, one of whom is Marc D. Miller, our Chief Executive Officer, President and a director, and they can elect a majority of our company's directors and effect or reject most actions requiring approval by stockholders without the vote of any other stockholders, there are potential conflicts of interest in overseeing the management of our company. In addition, because this concentrated control could discourage others from initiating any potential merger, takeover or other change of control transaction that may otherwise be beneficial to our businesses, our business and prospects and the trading price of our securities could be adversely affected.

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

In recent years, the number of quality measures that hospitals are required to report publicly has increased. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") publishes performance data related to quality measures and data on patient satisfaction surveys that hospitals submit in connection with the Medicare program. Federal law provides for the future expansion of the number of quality measures that must be reported. Additionally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Legislation") requires all hospitals to annually establish, update and make public a list of their standard charges for products and services. Also, the No Surprises Act, adopted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 ("CAA"), creates additional price transparency requirements beginning January 1, 2022, including requiring providers to send health plans of insured patients and uninsured patients a good faith estimate of the expected charges and diagnostic codes prior to the scheduled date of the service or item. If any of our hospitals achieve poor results on the quality measures or patient satisfaction surveys (or results that are lower than our competitors) or if our standard charges are higher than our competitors, our patient volume could decline because patients may elect to use competing hospitals or other health care providers that have better metrics and pricing. This circumstance could harm our business and results of operations.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Legislation. Two primary goals of the Legislation are to provide for increased access to coverage for healthcare and to reduce healthcare-related expenses. Although it was expected that as a result of the Legislation there would be a reduction in uninsured patients, which would reduce our expense from uncollectible accounts receivable, the Legislation makes a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid which we believe may have an adverse impact on us. The Legislation revises reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to emphasize the efficient delivery of high quality care and contains a number of incentives and penalties under these programs to achieve these goals. The Legislation implements a value-based purchasing program, which will reward the delivery of efficient care. Conversely, certain facilities will receive reduced reimbursement for failing to meet quality parameters; such hospitals will include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates. It remains unclear what portions of that legislation may remain, or what any replacement or alternative programs may be created by future legislation. A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the federal government's ability to expand health insurance coverage by holding unconstitutional sections of the Legislation that sought to withdraw federal funding for state noncompliance with certain Medicaid coverage requirements. Pursuant to that decision, the federal government may not penalize states that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program by reducing their existing Medicaid funding. Therefore, states can choose to accept or not to participate without risking the loss of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, many states, including Texas, have not expanded their Medicaid programs without the threat of loss of federal funding. CMS had granted section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals. However, most recently, the Biden Administration has expressed disfavor with Medicaid program work requirements, with the understanding that such requirements pose a substantial risk that many potential demonstration beneficiaries would be prevented from initially enrolling in coverage or that the requirements would lead to a sizable number of eligibility suspensions and eventual disenrollments among beneficiaries who are initially able to enroll. Accordingly, CMS has recently revoked certain State Medicaid program approvals including work requirements. The various provisions in the Legislation that directly or indirectly affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years. The impact of the Legislation on healthcare providers will be subject to implementing regulations, interpretive guidance and possible future legislation or legal challenges. Certain Legislation provisions, such as that creating the Medicare Shared Savings Program, create uncertainty in how healthcare may be reimbursed by federal programs in the future. Thus, we cannot predict the impact of the Legislation on our future reimbursement at this time and we can provide no assurance that the Legislation will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations. The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amended several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to "have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of" the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act, although certain final regulations implementing this statutory requirement remain pending. The Legislation also expands the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations. We have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of certain of our facilities. These investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law. The Legislation permits existing physician investments in a hospital to continue under a "grandfather" clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians are prohibited from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Legislation also imposes certain compliance and disclosure requirements upon existing physician-owned hospitals and restricts the ability of physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. As discussed below, should the Legislation be repealed in its entirety, this aspect of the Legislation would also be repealed restoring physician ownership of hospitals and expansion right to its position and practice as it existed prior to the Legislation. The impact of the Legislation on each of our hospitals may vary. Initiatives to repeal the Legislation, in whole or in part, to delay elements of implementation or funding, and to offer amendments or supplements to modify its provisions have been persistent. The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown. Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain health coverage that was part of the original Legislation. In addition, Congress has considered legislation that would, if enacted, in material part: (i) eliminate the large employer mandate to obtain or provide health insurance coverage, respectively; (ii) permit insurers to impose a surcharge up to 30 percent on individuals who go uninsured for more than two months and then purchase coverage; (iii) provide tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance, with a phase-out of tax credits accordingly to income level; (iv) expand health savings accounts; (v) impose a per capita cap on federal funding of state Medicaid programs, or, if elected by a state, transition federal funding to block grants, and; (vi) permit states to seek a waiver of certain federal requirements that would allow such state to define essential health benefits differently from federal standards and that would allow certain commercial health plans to take health status, including pre-existing conditions, into account in setting premiums. It remains unclear what portions of the Legislation may remain, or whether any replacement or alternative programs may be created by any future legislation. Any such future repeal or replacement may have significant impact on the reimbursement for healthcare services generally, and may create reimbursement for services competing with the services offered by our hospitals. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the adoption of any future federal or state healthcare reform legislation will not have a negative financial impact on our hospitals, including their ability to compete with alternative healthcare services funded by such potential legislation, or for our hospitals to receive payment for services. While attempts to repeal the entirety of the Legislation have not been successful to date, a key provision of the Legislation was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and on December 14, 2018, a Texas Federal District Court Judge declared the Legislation unconstitutional, reasoning that the individual mandate tax penalty was essential to and not severable from the remainder of the Legislation. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately held in California v. Texas that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Legislation's requirement to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or the individual mandate. The Court dismissed the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Legislation. On September 7, 2022, the same Texas Federal District Court judge, in the case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra, ruled that the requirement that certain health plans cover services with an "A" or "B" recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the coverage of certain HIV prevention medication violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government has appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact at this time. While the results of the 2020 elections potentially reduce the risk of the Legislation being eliminated in whole or in part, the continued uncertainties regarding implementation of the Legislation create unpredictability for the strategic and business planning efforts of health care providers, which in itself constitutes a risk. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan ("ARP") into law. The ARP extends eligibility for Legislation health insurance subsidies to people buying their own health coverage on the Marketplace who have household incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level. ARP also increased the amount of financial assistance for people at lower incomes who were already eligible under the Legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ("IRA") was passed on August 16, 2022, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The IRA also continued the expanded subsidies for individuals to obtain private health insurance under the Legislation through 2025. The effect of IRA on hospitals and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known. Under the Legislation, hospitals are required to make public a list of their standard charges, and effective January 1, 2019, CMS has required that this disclosure be in machine-readable format and include charges for all hospital items and services and average charges for diagnosis-related groups. On November 27, 2019, CMS published a final rule on "Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public." This rule took effect on January 1, 2021 and requires all hospitals to also make public their payer-specific negotiated rates, minimum negotiated rates, maximum negotiated rates and cash for all items and services, including individual items and services and service packages, that could be provided by a hospital to a patient. On April 26, 2023, CMS announced updated enforcement processes that requires a shortened timeline for coming into compliance when a violation has been identified and the automatic imposition of a civil monetary penalties in certain circumstances of noncompliance. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in daily monetary penalties. As part of the CAA, Congress passed legislation aimed at preventing or limiting patient balance billing in certain circumstances. The CAA addresses surprise medical bills stemming from emergency services, out-of-network ancillary providers at in-network facilities, and air ambulance carriers. The legislation prohibits surprise billing when out-of-network emergency services or out-of-network services at an in-network facility are provided, unless informed consent is received. In these circumstances providers are prohibited from billing the patient for any amounts that exceed in-network cost-sharing requirements. HHS, the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury have issued interim final rules that begin to implement the legislation. The rules have limited the ability of our hospital-based physicians to receive payments for services at usually higher out-of-network rates in certain circumstances, and, as a result, have caused us to increase subsidies to these physicians or to replace their services at a higher cost level. On February 28, 2022, a district judge in the Eastern District of Texas invalidated portions of the rule governing aspects of the Independent Dispute Resolution ("IDR") process. In light of this decision, the government issued a final rule on August 19, 2022 eliminating the rebuttable presumption in favor of the qualifying payment amount ("QPA") by the IDR entity and providing additional factors the IDR entity should consider when choosing between two competing offers. On September 22, 2022, the Texas Medical Association filed a lawsuit challenging the IDR process provided in the updated final rule and alleging that the final rule unlawfully elevates the QPA above other factors the IDR entity must consider. On February 6, 2023, a federal judge vacated parts of the rule, including provisions related to considerations of the QPA. The government's appeal of the district court's order is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.