Universal Health (UHS) Risk Analysis

The construction and operation of healthcare facilities are subject to extensive federal, state and local regulation relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, fire prevention, rate-setting and compliance with building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, such facilities are subject to periodic inspection by government authorities to assure their continued compliance with these various standards. All of our hospitals are deemed certified, meaning that they are accredited, properly licensed under the relevant state laws and regulations and certified under the Medicare program. The effect of maintaining certified facilities is to allow such facilities to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We believe that all of our healthcare facilities are in material compliance with applicable federal, state, local and other relevant regulations and standards. However, should any of our healthcare facilities lose their deemed certified status and thereby lose certification under the Medicare or Medicaid programs, such facilities would be unable to receive reimbursement from either of those programs and our business could be materially adversely effected.

We derive a significant portion of our revenue from third-party payers, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for healthcare services. Payments from federal and state government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease program payments, as well as affect the cost of providing service to patients and the timing of payments to facilities. Legislation adopted on July 4, 2025 (the One Big Beautiful Budget Act), attaches work and community service requirements to eligibility for Medicaid benefits that will have the effect of limiting Medicaid enrollment and expenditure. That legislation also places limits on provider fees used to increase federal Medicaid funding to states. The legislation prohibits states not previously having expanded Medicaid eligibility, which includes 9 states where we have facilities, to 138% of federal poverty level from increasing the rate of current provider fees which fund certain state supplemental payments or increasing the base of the fee to a class or items of services that the fee did not previously cover. That current provider fee threshold will remain at 6%. For states having expanded Medicaid eligibility under the legislation, the provider fee threshold will be reduced by 0.5% annually between federal fiscal years 2028 and 2032 with the resulting threshold ultimately becoming 3.5%. Under current law, and based on our current expectations, we estimate that, commencing with the 2028 state fiscal years, our aggregate annual net benefit will be reduced, on an annually increasing and relatively pro rata basis, by approximately $432 million to $480 million by 2032. The legislation also eliminates certain insurance exchange premium tax credits beyond 2025 and exchange enrollment is expected to be adversely impacted. On January 8, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1834 to extend for three years the enhanced premium tax credits ("EPTCs") that expired on December 31, 2025, which is currently undergoing review in the Senate. Any significant reduction in federal Medicaid funding to states would likely result in states reducing Medicaid payments to us. We are unable to predict the effect of future policy changes on our operations. In addition, the uncertainty and fiscal pressures placed upon federal and state governments as a result of, among other things, deterioration in general economic conditions and the funding requirements from the federal healthcare reform legislation, may affect the availability of taxpayer funds for Medicare and Medicaid programs. All of these changes may be expected to reduce our revenue and likely increase the level of uncompensated care provided by our facilities which will have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the vast majority of the net revenues generated at our behavioral health facilities located in the United Kingdom are derived from governmental payers. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by governmental payers in the United States or United Kingdom are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations. As discussed in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Summary of Various State Medicaid Supplemental Payment Programs, we receive revenues from various state and county-based programs, including Medicaid in all states in which we operate. We receive annual Medicaid revenues of approximately $100 million, or greater, from each of Texas, California, Nevada, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Florida, Mississippi and Washington. Most of these programs are approved on a year-to-year basis and there is no assurance that these revenues will continue at their current rates or at all. We are therefore particularly sensitive to potential reductions in Medicaid and other state-based revenue programs as well as regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive changes in those states. In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, our ability to negotiate favorable contracts with private payers, including managed care organizations, significantly affects the revenues and operating results of our hospitals. Private payers, including managed care organizations, increasingly are demanding that we accept lower rates of payment. We expect that government pressure on managed care organizations through static or reduced funding received by these payers from government sources such as through Medicare Advantage plans will in turn increase the pressure on us to not increase or reduce the rates charged by us to patients covered by those plans. We also expect continued third-party efforts to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and cost controls. Reductions in reimbursement amounts received from third-party payers could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and our 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. As a result of the 2024 and upcoming 2026 federal elections 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. In the past, CMS has granted section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals. The previous Trump administration's section 1115 waiver policy emphasized work requirements, eligibility restrictions on Medicaid, and capped funding. The second Trump administration may, again, take a similar approach. The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amended several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to "have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of" the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation also expanded the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations. We have partnered with local physicians in the ownership of certain of our facilities. These investments have been permitted under an exception to the physician self-referral law. The Legislation permits existing physician investments in a hospital to continue under a "grandfather" clause if the arrangement satisfies certain requirements and restrictions, but physicians are prohibited from increasing the aggregate percentage of their ownership in the hospital. The Legislation also imposes certain compliance and disclosure requirements upon existing physician-owned hospitals and restricts the ability of physician-owned hospitals to expand the capacity of their facilities. A repeal of the Legislation, in whole or in relevant part, may result in physicians being able to expand ownership interest in hospitals. Initiatives to repeal or modify the Legislation, in whole or in part, have been persistent. While President Trump did not campaign on repeal of the Legislation, executive and legislative efforts to eliminate or reduce the effect of certain Legislation provisions may yet occur. The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown. Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain health coverage that was an integral part of the original Legislation. 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. The Legislation and its implementation have been, and remain, politically controversial. While attempts to repeal the entirety of the Legislation have not been successful to date, a key provision of the Legislation was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and on December 14, 2018, a Texas Federal District Court Judge declared the Legislation unconstitutional, reasoning that the individual mandate tax penalty was essential to and not severable from the remainder of the Legislation. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately held in California v. Texas that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Legislation's requirement to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or the individual mandate. The Court dismissed the case without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Legislation. On September 7, 2022, the same Texas Federal District Court judge, in the case of Braidwood Management v. Becerra, ruled that the requirement that certain health plans cover services with an "A" or "B" recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the coverage of certain HIV prevention medication violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The matter was ultimately appealed before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in its June 2025 Kennedy v. Braidwood Management decision, opined in favor of HIV preventive care coverage. The impact of this decision on us cannot be predicted. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ("IRA") was passed on August 16, 2022, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The IRA also continued certain subsidies for individuals to obtain private health insurance under the Legislation through 2025. These enhanced subsidies expired on December 31, 2025. The Trump administration has already taken steps to undo certain Biden-era executive orders, including those intended to lower drug costs for beneficiaries, and to freeze funding for federal programs. While the administration's initial freeze has since been rescinded, the administration is likely to make other attempts to reduce federal program expenditures and can generally be expected to oppose increases in ACA and Medicaid enrollment. 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. The law provides for a 30-day negotiation period for providers and payers to settle out-of-network claims. If no agreement is reached after this period, either party may opt for a binding independent dispute resolution ("IDR") process. CMS regulations and guidance implementing the IDR process has been subject to a significant amount of provider-initiated litigation. As a result, portions of those regulations and guidance materials have been vacated by a federal district court, causing CMS to, on several occasions, pause and resume IDR process operations, causing significant delay in the processing of claims. Additionally, arguments made by the plaintiffs in such litigation have included allegations that CMS's regulations and guidance materials are favorable to payers. For these reasons, there can be no assurances that we will receive timely payments in connection with this process.