XML 22 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (5) Commitments and Contingencies Professional and General Liability, Workers’ Compensation Liability Effective January, 2017, the vast majority of our subsidiaries are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $5 million and $3 million per occurrence, respectively, subject to certain aggregate limitations. Prior to January, 2017, the vast majority of our subsidiaries were self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to $10 million and $3 million per occurrence, respectively. These subsidiaries are provided with several excess policies through commercial insurance carriers which provide for coverage in excess of the applicable per occurrence self-insured retention or underlying policy limits up to $250 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims incurred after 2013 and up to $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims incurred from 2011 through 2013. We remain liable for 10%, up to an annual aggregate limitation of $5 million, of the claims paid pursuant to the commercially insured excess coverage. In addition, from time to time based upon marketplace conditions, we may elect to purchase additional commercial coverage for certain of our facilities or businesses. Our behavioral health care facilities located in the U.K. have policies through a commercial insurance carrier located in the U.K. that provides for £10 million of professional liability coverage and £25 million of general liability coverage. As of September 30, 2018, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $243 million, of which $48 million was included in current liabilities. As of December 31, 2017, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $229 million, of which $54 million was included in current liabilities. Our consolidated results of operations for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2018 were not materially impacted by adjustments to our prior year reserves for professional and general liability claims. Included in our financial results during the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017, pursuant to a reserve analysis which indicated unfavorable changes in our estimated future claims payments relating to prior years, we recorded a $15 million increase to our professional and general liability self-insurance reserves. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the total accrual for our workers’ compensation liability claims was $71 million and $70 million, respectively, of which $37 million and $35 million is included in current liabilities as of each respective date. Our estimated liability for self-insured professional and general liability claims is based on a number of factors including, among other things, the number of asserted claims and reported incidents, estimates of losses for these claims based on recent and historical settlement amounts, estimates of incurred but not reported claims based on historical experience, and estimates of amounts recoverable under our commercial insurance policies. While we continuously monitor these factors, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates due to inherent uncertainties involved in making this estimate. Given our significant self-insured exposure for professional and general liability claims, there can be no assurance that a sharp increase in the number and/or severity of claims asserted against us will not have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations. Although we are unable to predict whether or not our future financial statements will include adjustments to our prior year reserves for self-insured general and professional and workers’ compensation claims, given the relatively unpredictable nature of the these potential liabilities and the factors impacting these reserves, as discussed above, it is reasonably likely that our future financial results may include material adjustments to prior period reserves. Property Insurance: We have commercial property insurance policies for our properties covering catastrophic losses, including windstorm damage, up to a $1 billion policy limit, subject to a deductible ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 per occurrence. Losses resulting from named windstorms are subject to deductibles between 3% and 5% of the 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). Commercially insured earthquake coverage for our facilities is subject to various deductibles and limitations including: (i) $500 million limitation for our facilities located in Nevada; (ii) $130 million limitation for our facilities located in California; (iii) $100 million limitation for our facilities located in fault zones within the United States; (iv) $40 million limitation for our facility located in Puerto Rico, and; (v) $250 million limitation for many of our facilities located in other states. Deductibles for flood losses vary in amount, up to a maximum of $500,000, based upon location of the facility. Since certain of our facilities have been designated by our insurer as flood prone, we have elected to purchase policies from The National Flood Insurance Program. Property insurance for our behavioral health facilities located in the U.K. are provided on an all risk basis up to a £1.29 billion policy limit, with coverage caps per location, that includes coverage for real and personal property as well as business interruption losses. Other Our accounts receivable as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 include amounts due from Illinois of approximately $24 million and $25 million, respectively. Collection of the outstanding receivables continues to be delayed due to state budgetary and funding pressures. Approximately $10 million as of September 30, 2018 and $8 million as of December 31, 2017, of the receivables due from Illinois were outstanding in excess of 60 days, as of each respective date. Although the accounts receivable due from Illinois could remain outstanding for the foreseeable future, since we expect to eventually collect all amounts due to us, no related reserves have been established in our consolidated financial statements. However, we can provide no assurance that we will eventually collect all amounts due to us from Illinois. Failure to ultimately collect all outstanding amounts due to us from Illinois would have an adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations and cash flows. As of September 30, 2018 we were party to certain off balance sheet arrangements consisting of standby letters of credit and surety bonds which totaled $116 million consisting of: (i) $107 million related to our self-insurance programs, and; (ii) $9 million of other debt and public utility guarantees. Legal Proceedings We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry which subjects us to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business as well as regulatory proceedings and government investigations. These claims or suits include claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, commercial/contractual disputes, wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges, and employment related claims. In addition, health care companies are subject to investigations and/or actions by various state and federal governmental agencies or those bringing claims on their behalf. Government action has increased with respect to investigations and/or allegations against healthcare providers concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse and false claims statutes as well as compliance with clinical and operational regulations. Currently, and from time to time, we and some of our facilities are subjected to inquiries in the form of subpoenas, Civil Investigative Demands, audits and other document requests from various federal and state agencies. These inquiries can lead to notices and/or actions including repayment obligations from state and federal government agencies associated with potential non-compliance with laws and regulations. Further, the federal False Claim Act allows private individuals to bring lawsuits (qui tam actions) against healthcare providers that submit claims for payments to the government. Various states have also adopted similar statutes. When such a claim is filed, the government will investigate the matter and decide if they are going to intervene in the pending case. These qui tam lawsuits are placed under seal by the court to comply with the False Claims Act’s requirements. If the government chooses not to intervene, the private individual(s) can proceed independently on behalf of the government. Health care providers that are found to violate the False Claims Act may be subject to substantial monetary fines/penalties as well as face potential exclusion from participating in government health care programs or be required to comply with Corporate Integrity Agreements as a condition of a settlement of a False Claim Act matter. In September 2014, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that all qui tam cases will be shared with their Division to determine if a parallel criminal investigation should be opened. The DOJ has also announced an intention to pursue civil and criminal actions against individuals within a company as well as the corporate entity or entities. In addition, health care facilities are subject to monitoring by state and federal surveyors to ensure compliance with program Conditions of Participation. In the event a facility is found to be out of compliance with a Condition of Participation and unable to remedy the alleged deficiency(s), the facility faces termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs or compliance with a System Improvement Agreement to remedy deficiencies and ensure compliance. The laws and regulations governing the healthcare industry are complex covering, among other things, government healthcare participation requirements, licensure, certification and accreditation, privacy of patient information, reimbursement for patient services as well as fraud and abuse compliance. These laws and regulations are constantly evolving and expanding. Further, the Affordable Care Act has added additional obligations on healthcare providers to report and refund overpayments by government healthcare programs and authorizes the suspension of Medicare and Medicaid payments “pending an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud.” We monitor our business and have developed an ethics and compliance program with respect to these complex laws, rules and regulations. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with government regulations, there is no assurance that we will not be faced with the sanctions referenced above which include fines, penalties and/or substantial damages, repayment obligations, payment suspensions, licensure revocation, and expulsion from government healthcare programs. Even if we were to ultimately prevail in any action brought against us or our facilities or in responding to any inquiry, such action or inquiry could have a material adverse effect on us. Certain legal matters are described below: Government Investigations: UHS Behavioral Health In February, 2013, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) served a subpoena requesting various documents from January, 2008 to the date of the subpoena directed at Universal Health Services, Inc. (“UHS”) concerning it and UHS of Delaware, Inc., and certain UHS owned behavioral health facilities including: Keys of Carolina, Old Vineyard Behavioral Health, The Meadows Psychiatric Center, Streamwood Behavioral Health, Hartgrove Hospital, Rock River Academy and Residential Treatment Center, Roxbury Treatment Center, Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center, f/k/a The Pines Residential Treatment Center, including the Crawford, Brighton and Kempsville campuses, Wekiva Springs Center and River Point Behavioral Health. Prior to receipt of this subpoena, some of these facilities had received independent subpoenas from state or federal agencies. Subsequent to the February 2013 subpoenas, some of the facilities above have received additional, specific subpoenas or other document and information requests. In addition to the OIG, the DOJ and various U.S. Attorneys’ and state Attorneys’ General Offices are also involved in this matter. Since February 2013, additional facilities have also received subpoenas and/or document and information requests or we have been notified are included in the omnibus investigation. Those facilities include: National Deaf Academy, Arbour-HRI Hospital, Behavioral Hospital of Bellaire, St. Simons By the Sea, Turning Point Care Center, Salt Lake Behavioral Health, Central Florida Behavioral Hospital, University Behavioral Center, Arbour Hospital, Arbour-Fuller Hospital, Pembroke Hospital, Westwood Lodge, Coastal Harbor Health System, Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health, Cedar Hills Hospital, Mayhill Hospital, Southern Crescent Behavioral Health (Anchor Hospital and Crescent Pines campuses), Valley Hospital (AZ), Peachford Behavioral Health System of Atlanta, University Behavioral Health of Denton, and El Paso Behavioral Health System. In October, 2013, we were advised that the DOJ’s Criminal Frauds Section had opened an investigation of River Point Behavioral Health and Wekiva Springs Center. Since that time, we have been notified that the Criminal Frauds section has opened investigations of National Deaf Academy, Hartgrove Hospital and UHS as a corporate entity. In April 2017, the DOJ’s Criminal Division issued a subpoena requesting documentation from Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health. In August 2017, Kempsville Center of Behavioral Health (a part of Harbor Point Behavioral Health previously identified above) received a subpoena requesting documentation. In April, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) instituted a Medicare payment suspension at River Point Behavioral Health in accordance with federal regulations regarding suspension of payments during certain investigations. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) subsequently issued a Medicaid payment suspension for the facility. River Point Behavioral Health submitted a rebuttal statement disputing the basis of the suspension and requesting revocation of the suspension. Notwithstanding, CMS continued the payment suspension. River Point Behavioral Health provided additional information to CMS in an effort to obtain relief from the payment suspension but the Medicare suspension remains in effect. In June 2017, AHCA advised that while they were maintaining the suspension for dual eligible and cross-over Medicare beneficiaries, the Medicaid payment suspension was lifted effective June 27, 2017. We cannot predict if and/or when the facility’s remaining suspended payments will resume in total. From inception through September 30, 2018, the aggregate funds withheld from us in connection with the River Point Behavioral Health payment suspension amounted to approximately $9 million. Although the operating results of River Point Behavioral Health did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations during the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2018, or the year ended December 31, 2017, the payment suspension has had a material adverse effect on the facility’s results of operations and financial condition. The DOJ has advised us that the civil aspect of the coordinated investigation referenced above is a False Claims Act investigation focused on billings submitted to government payors in relation to services provided at those facilities. While there have been various matters raised by DOJ during the pendency of this investigation, DOJ Civil has advised that the focus of their investigation is on medical necessity issues and billing for services not eligible for payment due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, admission eligibility, discharge decisions, length of stay and patient care issues. It is our understanding that the DOJ Criminal Fraud Section is investigating issues similar to those focused on by DOJ Civil and the other related agencies involved in this matter. UHS denies any fraudulent billings were submitted to government payors; however, we are involved in settlement discussions with the DOJ Civil Division in an attempt to resolve this matter. We recorded pre-tax increases to the reserve established in connection with the civil aspects of these matters amounting to $48 million during the third quarter of 2018, and $70 million during the first nine months of 2018, increasing the aggregate pre-tax reserve to $90 million as of September 30, 2018. Changes in the reserve may be required in future periods as discussions with the DOJ continue and additional information becomes available. We cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these matters and therefore can provide no assurance that final amounts paid in settlement or otherwise, if any, or associated costs, as well as the income tax deductibility of payments, will not differ materially from our established reserve and assumptions related to income tax deductibility. Litigation: U.S. ex rel Escobar v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et.al. This is a False Claims Act case filed against Universal Health Services, Inc., UHS of Delaware, Inc. and HRI Clinics, Inc. d/b/a Arbour Counseling Services in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This qui tam action primarily alleges that Arbour Counseling Services failed to appropriately supervise certain clinical providers in contravention of regulatory requirements and the submission of claims to Medicaid were subsequently improper. Relators make other claims of improper billing to Medicaid associated with alleged failures of Arbour Counseling to comply with state regulations. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office initially declined to intervene. UHS filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court originally granted the motion dismissing the case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (“First Circuit”) reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The United States Supreme Court subsequently vacated the First Circuit’s opinion and remanded the case for further consideration under the new legal standards established by the Supreme Court for False Claims Act cases. During the 4th quarter of 2016, the First Circuit issued a revised opinion upholding their reversal of the trial court’s dismissal. The case was then remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In January 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office advised of the potential for intervention in the case. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office subsequently filed its motion to intervene which was granted and, in April 2017, filed their Complaint in Intervention. We are defending this case vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. Shareholder Class Action In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against UHS and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at our behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. Shareholder Derivative Cases In March 2017, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by plaintiff David Heed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. A notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was filed (Case No. 2:17-cv-01476-LS). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. In December 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and has retained the case in federal court. In May, June and July 2017, additional shareholder derivative suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in those cases are: Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (Case No. 17-cv-02187-LS); Firemen’s Retirement System of St. Louis (Case No. 17—cv-02317-LS); Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System (Case No. 17-cv-02595-LS); and Amalgamated Bank Longview Funds (Case No. 17-cv-03404-LS). The Fireman’s Retirement System case has since been voluntarily dismissed. The federal court has consolidated all of the cases pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has appointed Amalgamated Bank Longview Funds as the lead plaintiff and their counsel as lead counsel. We are awaiting the filing of a consolidated complaint from designated lead counsel. In addition, a shareholder derivative case was filed in Chancery Court in Delaware by the Delaware County Employees’ Retirement Fund (Case No. 2017-0475-JTL). In December 2017, the Chancery Court stayed this case pending resolution of other contemporaneous matters. Each of these cases have named certain current and former members of the Board of Directors individually and certain officers of Universal Health Services, Inc. as defendants. UHS has also been named as a nominal defendant in these cases. The derivative cases make substantially similar allegations and claims as the shareholder class action relating to practices at our behavioral health facilities and board and corporate oversight of these facilities as well as claims relating to the stock trading by the individual defendants and company repurchase of shares during the relevant time period. The cases make claims of breaches of fiduciary duties by the named board members and officers; alleged violations of federal securities laws; and common law causes of action against the individual defendants including unjust enrichment, corporate waste, abuse of control, constructive fraud and gross mismanagement. The cases seek monetary damages allegedly incurred by the company; restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation from the individual defendants and various forms of equitable relief relating to corporate governance matters. The defendants deny liability and intend to defend these cases vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with these matters. Chowdary v. Universal Health Services, Inc., et. al. This is a lawsuit filed in 1999 in state court in Hidalgo County, Texas by a physician and his professional associations alleging tortious interference with contractual relationships and retaliation against McAllen Medical Center in McAllen, Texas as well as Universal Health Services, Inc. The state court has entered a summary judgment order awarding plaintiff $3.85 million in damages. With prejudgment interest, the total amount of the order amounts to approximately $9 million, for which a reserve is included in our financial statements as of both June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017. A trial on punitive damages, emotional distress and attorneys’ fees remains to be conducted if the summary judgment order is not vacated. The case has been removed to federal court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. In February 2018, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand and retained the case in federal court. Plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the federal court’s decision denying remand. The 5th Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ writ of mandamus. We have filed a motion for reconsideration of state court’s summary judgment order in the federal court proceeding. Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Matter: In late September, 2015, many hospitals in Pennsylvania, including seven of our behavioral health care hospitals located in the state, received letters from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (the “Department”) demanding repayment of allegedly excess Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital payments (“DSH”) for the federal fiscal year (“FFY”) 2011 amounting to approximately $4 million in the aggregate. Since that time, we have received similar requests for repayment for alleged DSH overpayments for FFYs 2012, 2013 and 2014. For FFY 2012, the claimed overpayment amounts to approximately $4 million. For FFY 2013, the claimed overpayments were initially approximately $7 million but have since been reduced to approximately $2 million due to a change in the Department’s calculations of the hospital specific DSH upper payment limit. For FFY 2014, the claimed overpayments were approximately $7 million. We filed administrative appeals for all of our facilities contesting the recoupment efforts for FFYs 2011 through 2014 as we believe the Department’s calculation methodology is inaccurate and conflicts with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The Department has agreed to postpone the recoupment of the state’s share of the DSH payments until all hospital appeals are resolved but started recoupment of the federal share. Due to a change in the Pennsylvania Medicaid State Plan and implementation of a CMS-approved Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver, we do not believe the methodology applied by the Department to FFYs 2011 through 2013 is applicable to reimbursements received for Medicaid services provided after January 1, 2015 by our behavioral health care facilities located in Pennsylvania. We can provide no assurance that we will ultimately be successful in our legal and administrative appeals related to the Department’s repayment demands. If our legal and administrative appeals are unsuccessful, our future consolidated results of operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted by these repayments. Matters Relating to Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (“PSI”): The following matters pertain to PSI or former PSI facilities (owned by subsidiaries of PSI) which were in existence prior to the acquisition of PSI and for which we have assumed the defense as a result of our acquisition which was completed in November, 2010: 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. All documents requested and produced pertained to the operations of the facility while under PSI’s ownership prior to our acquisition. 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 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 were collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July, 2011 requesting additional documents, which have also been delivered to the DOJ. All documents requested and produced pertained to the operations of the facility while under PSI’s ownership prior to our acquisition. 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. Other Matters: Various other suits, claims and investigations, including government subpoenas, arising against, or issued to, us are pending and additional such matters may arise in the future. Management will consider additional disclosure from time to time to the extent it believes such matters may be or become material. The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities. We record accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters described above or that are otherwise pending because the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors, including, but not limited to: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the matter is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties, or; (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. It is possible that the outcome of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our future results of operations, financial position, cash flows and, potentially, our reputation.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration