Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	(5) Commitments and Contingencies *Professional and General Liability Claims and Property Insurance* Professional and General Liability Effective January 1, 2008, most of our subsidiaries became self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million per occurrence (as compared to $20 million per occurrence prior to 2008). Prior to our acquisition of PSI in November, 2010, our subsidiaries purchased several excess policies through commercial insurance carriers which provide for coverage in excess of $10 million up to $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. However, we are liable for 10% of the claims paid pursuant to the commercially insured coverage in excess of $10 million up to $60 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. Prior to our acquisition in November, 2010, the PSI subsidiaries were commercially insured for professional and general liability insurance claims in excess of a $3 million self-insured retention to a limit of $75 million. PSI utilized its captive insurance company and that captive insurance company remains in place after our acquisition of PSI to manage the self-insured retention for all former PSI subsidiaries for claims incurred prior to January 1, 2011. The captive insurance company also continues to manage the applicable self-insured retention for all professional and general liability claims, regardless of date incurred, for the former PSI subsidiaries located in Florida and Puerto Rico. Since our acquisition of PSI on November 15, 2010, the former PSI subsidiaries are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $3 million per occurrence and our legacy subsidiaries (which are not former PSI subsidiaries) are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million per occurrence. Effective November, 2010, our subsidiaries (including the former PSI subsidiaries) were provided with several excess policies through commercial insurance carriers which provide for coverage in excess of the applicable per occurrence self-insured retention (either $3 million or $10 million) up to $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. We remain liable for 10% of the claims paid pursuant to the commercially insured coverage in excess of $10 million up to $60 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. Our estimated liability for self-insured professional and general liability claims is based on a number of factors including, among other things, the number of asserted claims and reported incidents, estimates of losses for these claims based on recent and historical settlement amounts, estimate of incurred but not reported claims based on historical experience, and estimates of amounts recoverable under our commercial insurance policies. While we continuously monitor these factors, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates due to inherent uncertainties involved in making this estimate. Given our significant self-insured exposure for professional and general liability claims, there can be no assurance that a sharp increase in the number and/or severity of claims asserted against us will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims, including the estimated claims related to the facilities acquired from PSI, was $300 million and $289 million, respectively, of which $60 million is included in current liabilities as of each date. During the second quarters of 2010, based upon reserve analyses, we recorded a $16 million reduction to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves relating to prior years. This favorable change in our estimated future claims payments, was partially due to the favorable impact of medical malpractice tort reform experienced in several states in which we operate as well as a decrease in claims related to certain higher risk specialties (such as obstetrical) due to a company-wide patient safety initiative undertaken during the last few years. Property Insurance Acute care facilities and legacy behavioral health care facilities We have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses, including windstorm damage, up to a $1 billion policy limit per occurrence, subject to a $250,000 deductible. Losses resulting from named windstorms are subject to deductibles between 3% and 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. In addition, we have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses resulting from earthquake and flood damage, each subject to aggregated loss limits (as opposed to per occurrence losses). Our earthquake limit is $250 million, subject to a deductible of $250,000, except for facilities located within documented fault zones. Earthquake losses that affect facilities located in fault zones within the United States are subject to a $100 million limit and will have applied deductibles ranging from 1% to 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. The earthquake limit in Puerto Rico is $25 million. Flood losses have either a $250,000 or $500,000 deductible, based upon the location of the facility. Behavioral health care facilities acquired in November, 2010 The newly acquired facilities formerly owned by PSI have all risk property coverage with a loss limit of $100 million with a $25,000 deductible. Earth movement losses, except California, are subject to an annual aggregate loss limit of $100 million with a $50,000 per occurrence deductible. Earthquake coverage in California is further sub-limited to an annual aggregate loss limit of $50 million with a deductible of 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. Named windstorms are insured to $100 million per occurrence but are potentially subject to applied deductibles ranging from 1% to 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. Flood losses are subject to an annual aggregate loss limit of $100 million with deductibles ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Flood losses that occur in designated high hazard areas are sub-limited to $25 million with a $500,000 deductible. Due to an increase in property losses experienced nationwide in recent years, the cost of commercial property insurance has increased. As a result, catastrophic coverage for earthquake and flood has been limited to annual aggregate losses (as opposed to per occurrence losses). Given these insurance market conditions, there can be no assurance that a continuation of these unfavorable trends, or a sharp increase in uninsured property losses sustained by us, will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations. *Other* As of June 30, 2011 we were party to certain off-balance sheet arrangements consisting of standby letters of credit and surety bonds. Our outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds as of June 30, 2011 totaled $76 million consisting of: (i) $62 million related to our self-insurance programs; (ii) $7 million related primarily to pending appeals of legal judgments (including judgments related to professional and general liability claims), and; (iii) $7 million of other debt guarantees related to public utilities and entities in which we own a minority interest. *Legal Proceedings* We are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business, including those arising from care and treatment afforded by our hospitals and are party to litigation, as outlined below. U.S. v. Marion and UHS: In late 2007, July, 2008 and January, 2009, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services ("OIG") issued a series of subpoenas seeking documents related to the treatment of Medicaid beneficiaries at two of our facilities, Marion Youth Center and Mountain Youth Academy. It was our understanding at that time that the OIG was investigating whether claims for reimbursement submitted by those facilities to the Virginia Medicaid program were supported by adequate documentation of the services provided which could be considered to be a basis for a false claims act violation. In August, 2008, the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia issued a subpoena to Keystone Newport News, another of our facilities. It was our understanding at that time that the Office of Attorney General was investigating whether Keystone Newport News complied with various Virginia laws and regulations, including documentation requirements. In response to these subpoenas, we produced the requested documents and cooperated with the investigations in all respects. We also met with representatives of the OIG, the Virginia Attorney General, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, and the United States Department of Justice Civil Division on several occasions to discuss a possible resolution of this matter. However, the parties were not able to reach a resolution. Consequently, in November, 2009, the United States Department of Justice and the Virginia Attorney General intervened in a qui tam case that had been filed by former employees of Marion Youth Center under seal in 2007 against Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS"), and Keystone Marion, LLC and Keystone Education and Youth Services, LLC ("Keystone"). The Department of Justice and the Commonwealth of Virginia filed and served their complaint which relates solely to the Marion Youth Center. The amended complaint alleges causes of action pursuant to the federal and state false claims acts and the Virginia fraud statute. The former employees filed a separate amended complaint, alleging employment and retaliation claims as well as false claim act violations. The case is in the discovery phase. A separate lawsuit has also been filed in federal court by another former employee of Keystone Marion in the Western District of Virginia making similar allegations in the context of employment and retaliation claims. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our results of operations for any of the periods presented herein. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously against the government's and the former employees' allegations. There can be no assurance that we will prevail in the litigation. Martin v. UHS of Delaware: UHS of Delaware, Inc., a subsidiary, and one of our non-public schools in California operated by one of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a state False Claim Act case in Sacramento County Superior Court. Plaintiffs are a former student and employees of the Elmira School who claim that the UHS schools in California unlawfully retained public education funding from the state of California for the operation of these schools but failed to meet state requirements to qualify as a non-public school. Plaintiffs have also claimed that we committed unfair business practices associated with these allegations. We deny liability and intend to defend this case vigorously. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Wage and Hour Class Actions: We and/or our subsidiaries are presently involved in three wage and hour class action cases in California and Tennessee. All three matters have been settled but are awaiting court approval. The settlements in these cases, if approved by the court, will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Department of Justice ICD Investigation: In September, 2010, we, along with many other companies in the healthcare industry, received a letter from the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") advising of a False Claim Act investigation being conducted in connection with the implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators ("ICDs") from 2003 to the present at several of our acute care facilities. The DOJ alleges that ICDs were implanted and billed by our facilities in contravention of a National Claims Determination regarding these devices. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Southwest Healthcare System: During the third quarter of 2009, Southwest Healthcare System ("SWHCS"), which operates Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Riverside County, California, entered into an agreement with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). The agreement required SWHCS to engage an independent quality monitor to assist SWHCS in meeting all CMS' conditions of participation. Further, the agreement provided that, during the last 60 days of the agreement, CMS would conduct a full Medicare certification survey. That survey took place the week of January 11, 2010. In April, 2010, SWHCS received notification from CMS that it intended to effectuate the termination of SWHCS's Medicare provider agreement effective June 1, 2010. In May, 2010, SWHCS entered into an agreement with CMS which abated the termination action scheduled for June 1, 2010. The agreement is one year in duration and required SWHCS to engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for SWHCS to meet the Medicare conditions of participation. Pursuant to the agreement, CMS would conduct a full certification survey to determine if SWHCS has achieved substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation. During the term of the agreement, SWHCS remains eligible to receive reimbursements from Medicare for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. The certification survey commenced during the last week of July, 2011. We have not yet been notified as to the results of the survey and we are not aware of when notification will be made to us. Also in April, 2010, SWHCS received notification from the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") indicating that it planned to initiate a process to revoke SWHCS's hospital license. In May, 2010, SWHCS received the formal document related to the revocation action. In September, 2010, SWHCS entered into an agreement with CDPH relating to the license revocation. The terms of the CDPH agreement are substantially similar to those contained in the agreement with CMS. As a result of the agreement, SWHCS's hospital license remains in effect pending the outcome of the CMS full certification survey which occurred during the last week of July, 2011. Pursuant to the results of the CMS full certification survey, should SWHCS be deemed to have achieved substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation, CDPH shall deem SWHCS's license to be in good standing. Failure of SWHCS to achieve substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation, pursuant to CMS's full certification survey, will likely have a material adverse impact on SWHCS's ability to continue to operate the facilities. As a result of the matters discussed above, we were not previously permitted to open newly constructed capacity at Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center. However, in February, 2011, we received permission from CDPH to begin accessing the new capacity which has occurred. Unrelated to these developments, a competitor has recently opened a newly constructed acute care hospital. We are unable to predict the net impact of these developments on SWHCS's results of operations during the remainder of 2011 and beyond. Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center remain fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the communities they serve. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with both CMS and CDPH in an effort to resolve these matters, although there can be no assurance we will be able to do so. Failure to resolve these matters could have a material adverse effect on us. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, SWHCS had a pre-tax (deficit)/income of approximately (0.9%) and 1.1%, respectively, of our income from operations after income attributable to noncontrolling interest. Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital: On April 11, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued notice of its decision terminating Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital ("Two Rivers") in Kansas City, Missouri from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid program. The termination notice was issued as a result of surveys conducted which allegedly found Two Rivers to be out of compliance with the conditions of participation required for participation in the Medicare program and for Two Rivers' alleged failure to alleviate an "immediate jeopardy" situation. Two Rivers filed an administrative appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeal Board, Civil Remedies Division, seeking review and reversal of that decision. In addition, Two Rivers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CMS rescinding the termination action. On April 22, 2011, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order abating the termination action pending a preliminary injunction hearing or an agreement with CMS. On May 17, 2011, Two Rivers and CMS entered into a settlement agreement which resulted in the rescission of the termination notice and actions by CMS. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Two Rivers was required to submit an acceptable plan of correction relative to the immediate jeopardy citation and engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for Two Rivers to meet the applicable Medicare conditions of participation. Both of these actions have occurred. CMS will conduct an initial survey of Two Rivers, expected to occur in early 2012, to determine if the Medicare conditions of participation have been met. During the term of this agreement, Two Rivers remains eligible to receive reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Two Rivers remains fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the community it serves. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with CMS in an effort to resolve these matters. We can provide no assurance that Two Rivers will not ultimately lose its Medicare certification. The operating results of Two Rivers did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the six-month period ended June 30, 2011 or the year ended December 31, 2010. Matters Relating to PSI: The following matters pertain to PSI or former PSI facilities (owned by subsidiaries of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.) for which we have assumed the defense as a result of our acquisition of PSI which was completed in November, 2010: Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI: This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws. We are uncertain at this time as to potential liability and damages but intend to defend the case vigorously. Department of Justice Investigation of Sierra Vista: In 2009, Sierra Vista Hospital in Sacramento, California learned of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") relating to Medicare services provided by the facility. The DOJ ultimately notified the facility that with respect to partial hospitalization and outpatient services, the DOJ believed that the medical record documentation did not adequately support the claims submitted for reimbursement by Medicare. We recently reached a tentative financial settlement with the DOJ. The reserve established in connection with this matter did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. As part of that agreement, the facility will be subject to a corporate integrity agreement, the terms of which have not yet been finalized. Department of Justice Investigation of Friends Hospital: In October, 2010, Friends Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain documents from the facility. The requested documents have been collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July 2011 requesting additional documents. Those documents are being collected and will be provided to the DOJ. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter. Department of Justice Investigation of Riveredge Hospital: In 2008, Riveredge Hospital in Chicago, Illinois received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain information from the facility. Additional requests for documents were also received from the DOJ in 2009 and 2010. The requested documents have been provided to the DOJ and we continue to cooperate with the DOJ with respect to this investigation. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter. Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services Recoupment Claims: The Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services ("DMAS") has conducted audits at seven former PSI Residential Treatment Centers operated in the Commonwealth of Virginia to confirm compliance with provider rules under the state's Medicaid Provider Services Manual ("Manual"). As a result of those audits, DMAS claims the facilities failed to comply with the requirements of the Manual and has requested repayment of Medicaid payments to those facilities. PSI had previously filed appeals to repayment demands at each facility which are currently pending. The aggregate refund of Medicaid payments made to those facilities, as requested by DMAS, and the corresponding reserve established on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, was not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations. General: Currently, and from time to time, some of our other facilities are subjected to inquiries and/or actions and receive notices of potential non-compliance of laws and regulations from various federal and state agencies. If one of our facilities is found to have violated these laws and regulations, the facility may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. We do not believe that, other than as described above, any such existing action would materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Other Matters The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations which include, among other things, matters such as government healthcare participation requirements, various licensure, certifications, and accreditations, reimbursement for patient services, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government action has increased with respect to investigations and/or allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse and false claims statutes and/or regulations by healthcare providers. Providers that are found to have violated these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure, certification, and/or accreditation revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. We monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigation or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with industry practices, including ours. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, there is no assurance that we will not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties in connection with such inquiries or actions, including with respect to the investigations and other matters discussed herein. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, such inquiries and/or actions could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, various suits and claims arising against us in the ordinary course of business are pending. In the opinion of management, the outcome of such claims and litigation will not materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

(5) Commitments and Contingencies

Professional and General Liability Claims and Property Insurance

Professional and General Liability

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

Prior to our acquisition in November, 2010, the PSI subsidiaries were commercially insured for professional and general liability insurance claims in excess of a $3 million self-insured retention to a limit of $75 million. PSI utilized its captive insurance company and that captive insurance company remains in place after our acquisition of PSI to manage the self-insured retention for all former PSI subsidiaries for claims incurred prior to January 1, 2011. The captive insurance company also continues to manage the applicable self-insured retention for all professional and general liability claims, regardless of date incurred, for the former PSI subsidiaries located in Florida and Puerto Rico.

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

Our estimated liability for self-insured professional and general liability claims is based on a number of factors including, among other things, the number of asserted claims and reported incidents, estimates of losses for these claims based on recent and historical settlement amounts, estimate of incurred but not reported claims based on historical experience, and estimates of amounts recoverable under our commercial insurance policies. While we continuously monitor these factors, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates due to inherent uncertainties involved in making this estimate. Given our significant self-insured exposure for professional and general liability claims, there can be no assurance that a sharp increase in the number and/or severity of claims asserted against us will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations.

As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims, including the estimated claims related to the facilities acquired from PSI, was $300 million and $289 million, respectively, of which $60 million is included in current liabilities as of each date.

During the second quarters of 2010, based upon reserve analyses, we recorded a $16 million reduction to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves relating to prior years. This favorable change in our estimated future claims payments, was partially due to the favorable impact of medical malpractice tort reform experienced in several states in which we operate as well as a decrease in claims related to certain higher risk specialties (such as obstetrical) due to a company-wide patient safety initiative undertaken during the last few years.

Property Insurance

Acute care facilities and legacy behavioral health care facilities

We have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses, including windstorm damage, up to a $1 billion policy limit per occurrence, subject to a $250,000 deductible. Losses resulting from named windstorms are subject to deductibles between 3% and 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. In addition, we have commercial property insurance policies covering catastrophic losses resulting from earthquake and flood damage, each subject to aggregated loss limits (as opposed to per occurrence losses). Our earthquake limit is $250 million, subject to a deductible of $250,000, except for facilities located within documented fault zones. Earthquake losses that affect facilities located in fault zones within the United States are subject to a $100 million limit and will have applied deductibles ranging from 1% to 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. The earthquake limit in Puerto Rico is $25 million. Flood losses have either a $250,000 or $500,000 deductible, based upon the location of the facility.

Behavioral health care facilities acquired in November, 2010

The newly acquired facilities formerly owned by PSI have all risk property coverage with a loss limit of $100 million with a $25,000 deductible. Earth movement losses, except California, are subject to an annual aggregate loss limit of $100 million with a $50,000 per occurrence deductible. Earthquake coverage in California is further sub-limited to an annual aggregate loss limit of $50 million with a deductible of 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. Named windstorms are insured to $100 million per occurrence but are potentially subject to applied deductibles ranging from 1% to 5% of the declared total insurable value of the property. Flood losses are subject to an annual aggregate loss limit of $100 million with deductibles ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Flood losses that occur in designated high hazard areas are sub-limited to $25 million with a $500,000 deductible.

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

Other

As of June 30, 2011 we were party to certain off-balance sheet arrangements consisting of standby letters of credit and surety bonds. Our outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds as of June 30, 2011 totaled $76 million consisting of: (i) $62 million related to our self-insurance programs; (ii) $7 million related primarily to pending appeals of legal judgments (including judgments related to professional and general liability claims), and; (iii) $7 million of other debt guarantees related to public utilities and entities in which we own a minority interest.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business, including those arising from care and treatment afforded by our hospitals and are party to litigation, as outlined below.

U.S. v. Marion and UHS:

In late 2007, July, 2008 and January, 2009, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services ("OIG") issued a series of subpoenas seeking documents related to the treatment of Medicaid beneficiaries at two of our facilities, Marion Youth Center and Mountain Youth Academy. It was our understanding at that time that the OIG was investigating whether claims for reimbursement submitted by those facilities to the Virginia Medicaid program were supported by adequate documentation of the services provided which could be considered to be a basis for a false claims act violation. In August, 2008, the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia issued a subpoena to Keystone Newport News, another of our facilities. It was our understanding at that time that the Office of Attorney General was investigating whether Keystone Newport News complied with various Virginia laws and regulations, including documentation requirements.

In response to these subpoenas, we produced the requested documents and cooperated with the investigations in all respects. We also met with representatives of the OIG, the Virginia Attorney General, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, and the United States Department of Justice Civil Division on several occasions to discuss a possible resolution of this matter. However, the parties were not able to reach a resolution.

Consequently, in November, 2009, the United States Department of Justice and the Virginia Attorney General intervened in a qui tam case that had been filed by former employees of Marion Youth Center under seal in 2007 against Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS"), and Keystone Marion, LLC and Keystone Education and Youth Services, LLC ("Keystone"). The Department of Justice and the Commonwealth of Virginia filed and served their complaint which relates solely to the Marion Youth Center. The amended complaint alleges causes of action pursuant to the federal and state false claims acts and the Virginia fraud statute. The former employees filed a separate amended complaint, alleging employment and retaliation claims as well as false claim act violations. The case is in the discovery phase. A separate lawsuit has also been filed in federal court by another former employee of Keystone Marion in the Western District of Virginia making similar allegations in the context of employment and retaliation claims. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our results of operations for any of the periods presented herein. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously against the government's and the former employees' allegations. There can be no assurance that we will prevail in the litigation.

Martin v. UHS of Delaware:

UHS of Delaware, Inc., a subsidiary, and one of our non-public schools in California operated by one of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a state False Claim Act case in Sacramento County Superior Court. Plaintiffs are a former student and employees of the Elmira School who claim that the UHS schools in California unlawfully retained public education funding from the state of California for the operation of these schools but failed to meet state requirements to qualify as a non-public school. Plaintiffs have also claimed that we committed unfair business practices associated with these allegations. We deny liability and intend to defend this case vigorously. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Wage and Hour Class Actions:

We and/or our subsidiaries are presently involved in three wage and hour class action cases in California and Tennessee. All three matters have been settled but are awaiting court approval. The settlements in these cases, if approved by the court, will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Department of Justice ICD Investigation:

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

Southwest Healthcare System:

During the third quarter of 2009, Southwest Healthcare System ("SWHCS"), which operates Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Riverside County, California, entered into an agreement with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). The agreement required SWHCS to engage an independent quality monitor to assist SWHCS in meeting all CMS' conditions of participation. Further, the agreement provided that, during the last 60 days of the agreement, CMS would conduct a full Medicare certification survey. That survey took place the week of January 11, 2010.

In April, 2010, SWHCS received notification from CMS that it intended to effectuate the termination of SWHCS's Medicare provider agreement effective June 1, 2010. In May, 2010, SWHCS entered into an agreement with CMS which abated the termination action scheduled for June 1, 2010. The agreement is one year in duration and required SWHCS to engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for SWHCS to meet the Medicare conditions of participation. Pursuant to the agreement, CMS would conduct a full certification survey to determine if SWHCS has achieved substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation. During the term of the agreement, SWHCS remains eligible to receive reimbursements from Medicare for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. The certification survey commenced during the last week of July, 2011. We have not yet been notified as to the results of the survey and we are not aware of when notification will be made to us.

Also in April, 2010, SWHCS received notification from the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") indicating that it planned to initiate a process to revoke SWHCS's hospital license. In May, 2010, SWHCS received the formal document related to the revocation action. In September, 2010, SWHCS entered into an agreement with CDPH relating to the license revocation. The terms of the CDPH agreement are substantially similar to those contained in the agreement with CMS. As a result of the agreement, SWHCS's hospital license remains in effect pending the outcome of the CMS full certification survey which occurred during the last week of July, 2011. Pursuant to the results of the CMS full certification survey, should SWHCS be deemed to have achieved substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation, CDPH shall deem SWHCS's license to be in good standing. Failure of SWHCS to achieve substantial compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation, pursuant to CMS's full certification survey, will likely have a material adverse impact on SWHCS's ability to continue to operate the facilities.

As a result of the matters discussed above, we were not previously permitted to open newly constructed capacity at Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center. However, in February, 2011, we received permission from CDPH to begin accessing the new capacity which has occurred. Unrelated to these developments, a competitor has recently opened a newly constructed acute care hospital. We are unable to predict the net impact of these developments on SWHCS's results of operations during the remainder of 2011 and beyond.

Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center remain fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the communities they serve. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with both CMS and CDPH in an effort to resolve these matters, although there can be no assurance we will be able to do so. Failure to resolve these matters could have a material adverse effect on us. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2011 and the year ended December 31, 2010, after deducting an allocation for corporate overhead expense, SWHCS had a pre-tax (deficit)/income of approximately (0.9%) and 1.1%, respectively, of our income from operations after income attributable to noncontrolling interest.

Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital:

On April 11, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued notice of its decision terminating Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital ("Two Rivers") in Kansas City, Missouri from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid program. The termination notice was issued as a result of surveys conducted which allegedly found Two Rivers to be out of compliance with the conditions of participation required for participation in the Medicare program and for Two Rivers' alleged failure to alleviate an "immediate jeopardy" situation. Two Rivers filed an administrative appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeal Board, Civil Remedies Division, seeking review and reversal of that decision. In addition, Two Rivers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CMS rescinding the termination action. On April 22, 2011, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order abating the termination action pending a preliminary injunction hearing or an agreement with CMS. On May 17, 2011, Two Rivers and CMS entered into a settlement agreement which resulted in the rescission of the termination notice and actions by CMS. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Two Rivers was required to submit an acceptable plan of correction relative to the immediate jeopardy citation and engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for Two Rivers to meet the applicable Medicare conditions of participation. Both of these actions have occurred. CMS will conduct an initial survey of Two Rivers, expected to occur in early 2012, to determine if the Medicare conditions of participation have been met. During the term of this agreement, Two Rivers remains eligible to receive reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Two Rivers remains fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the community it serves. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with CMS in an effort to resolve these matters. We can provide no assurance that Two Rivers will not ultimately lose its Medicare certification. The operating results of Two Rivers did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the six-month period ended June 30, 2011 or the year ended December 31, 2010.

Matters Relating to PSI:

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

Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI:

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws. We are uncertain at this time as to potential liability and damages but intend to defend the case vigorously.

Department of Justice Investigation of Sierra Vista:

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

Department of Justice Investigation of Friends Hospital:

In October, 2010, Friends Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain documents from the facility. The requested documents have been collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July 2011 requesting additional documents. Those documents are being collected and will be provided to the DOJ. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter.

Department of Justice Investigation of Riveredge Hospital:

In 2008, Riveredge Hospital in Chicago, Illinois received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain information from the facility. Additional requests for documents were also received from the DOJ in 2009 and 2010. The requested documents have been provided to the DOJ and we continue to cooperate with the DOJ with respect to this investigation. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter.

Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services Recoupment Claims:

The Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services ("DMAS") has conducted audits at seven former PSI Residential Treatment Centers operated in the Commonwealth of Virginia to confirm compliance with provider rules under the state's Medicaid Provider Services Manual ("Manual"). As a result of those audits, DMAS claims the facilities failed to comply with the requirements of the Manual and has requested repayment of Medicaid payments to those facilities. PSI had previously filed appeals to repayment demands at each facility which are currently pending. The aggregate refund of Medicaid payments made to those facilities, as requested by DMAS, and the corresponding reserve established on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, was not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

General:

Currently, and from time to time, some of our other facilities are subjected to inquiries and/or actions and receive notices of potential non-compliance of laws and regulations from various federal and state agencies. If one of our facilities is found to have violated these laws and regulations, the facility may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. We do not believe that, other than as described above, any such existing action would materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Other Matters

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

In addition, various suits and claims arising against us in the ordinary course of business are pending. In the opinion of management, the outcome of such claims and litigation will not materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.