XML 23 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (6) Commitments and Contingencies Professional and General Liability, Workers’ Compensation Liability The vast majority of our subsidiaries are self-insured for professional and general liability exposure up to: (i) $20 million for professional liability and $3 million for general liability per occurrence in 2021; (ii) $10 million and $3 million per occurrence in 2020 (professional liability claims are also subject to an additional annual aggregate self-insured retention of $2.5 million for claims in excess of $10 million for 2020); (iii) $5 million and $3 million per occurrence, respectively, during 2019, 2018 and 2017, and; (iv) $10 million and $3 million per occurrence, respectively, prior to 2017. 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 $155 million per occurrence and in the aggregate in 2021, $250 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims incurred from 2014-2020, $200 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims incurred from 2010-2013. 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 June 30, 2021, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $322 million, of which $74 million was included in current liabilities. As of December 31, 2020, the total accrual for our professional and general liability claims was $264 million, of which $74 million was included in current liabilities. As a result of unfavorable trends experienced during 2021 and 2020, included in our results of operations during the six-month periods ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 were the following increases, related to prior years, to our reserves for self-insured professional and general liability claims: (i) a $36 million increase recorded during the first six months of 2021, all of which was recorded during the second quarter of 2021, and; (ii) a $20 million increase recorded during the first six months of 2020, all of which was recorded during the first quarter of 2020. 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. As of June 30, 2021, the total accrual for our workers’ compensation liability claims was $109 million, $55 million of which was included in current liabilities. As of December 31, 2020, the total accrual for our workers’ compensation liability claims was $105 million, $55 million of which was included in current liabilities. Although we are unable to predict whether or not our future financial statements will require updates to estimates for our prior year reserves for self-insured general and professional and workers’ compensation claims, given the relatively unpredictable nature of 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 per occurrence/per location deductible of $2.5 million as of June 1, 2020. 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) $200 million limitation for our facilities located in Nevada; (ii) $150 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 facilities located in Puerto Rico, and; (v) $250 million limitation for many of our facilities located in other states. Our commercially insured flood coverage has a limit of $100 million annually. There is also a $10 million sublimit for one of our facilities located in Houston, Texas, and a $1 million sublimit for our facilities located in Puerto Rico. Property insurance for our behavioral health facilities located in the U.K. are provided on an all risk basis up to a £1.5 billion policy limit, with coverage caps per location, that includes coverage for real and personal property as well as business interruption losses. 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 Claims 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 Claims 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 Legislation 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: Litigation: 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. In August 2019, the court granted our motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. During the fourth quarter of 2020, and during the pendency of the appeal, we reached an agreement to settle this matter, pending final court approval. In July 2021, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The net settlement amount, after anticipated commercial insurance proceeds, did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020. The settlement is not an admission of liability. 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 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 consolidated all of the cases pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 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. In August 2019, the court granted our motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants deny liability and intend to defend these cases vigorously. The parties continued settlement negotiations during the pendency of the appeal and a preliminary settlement, which would not have a material impact on our financial statements, has been reached pending finalization of certain outstanding items, preparation of settlement documentation and court approval. We are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with these matters in the event the settlement is not finalized and approved. In July 2021, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by plaintiff, Robin Knight, in the Chancery Court in Delaware against the members of the Board of Directors of the Company as well as certain officers (C.A. No.: 2021-0581-SG). The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges that in March 2020 stock options were awarded with exercise prices that did not reflect the Company’s fundamentals and business prospects, and in anticipation of future market rebound resulting in excessive gains. The lawsuit makes claims of breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages allegedly incurred by the Company, disgorgement of the March 2020 stock awards as well as any proceeds derived therefrom and unspecified equitable relief. Defendants deny the allegations. We are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. The George Washington University v. Universal Health Services, Inc., et. al. In December 2019, The George Washington University (“University”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Universal Health Services, Inc. as well as certain subsidiaries and individuals associated with the ownership and management of The George Washington University Hospital (“GW Hospital”) in Washington, D.C. (case No. 2019 CA 008019 B). The lawsuit claims that UHS failed to provide sufficient financial compensation to the University under the terms of various agreements entered into in 1997 between the University and UHS for the joint venture ownership of GW Hospital. The lawsuit includes claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. We deny liability and intend to defend this matter vigorously. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In June 2020, the Court granted the motion in part dismissing the majority of the claims against UHS. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Matter: In late September, 2015, many hospitals in Pennsylvania, including certain 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”), primarily consisting of managed care payments characterized as DSH payments, for the federal fiscal year (“FFY”) 2011 amounting to approximately $4 million in the aggregate. Since that time, certain of our behavioral health care hospitals in Pennsylvania have received similar requests for repayment for alleged DSH overpayments for FFYs 2012 through 2015. For FFY 2012, the claimed overpayment amounts to approximately $4 million. For FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015 the initial claimed overpayments and attempted recoupment by the Department were approximately $7 million, $8 million and $7 million, respectively. The Department has agreed to a change in methodology which, upon confirmation of the underlying data being accepted by the Department, could reduce the initial claimed overpayments for FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015 to approximately $2 million, $2 million and $3 million, respectively. We filed administrative appeals for all of our facilities contesting the recoupment efforts for FFYs 2011 through 2015 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 for FY 2011 to 2013 until all hospital appeals are resolved but started recoupment of the federal share. For FY 2014 and FY 2015, the Department has initiated the recoupment of the alleged overpayments. Starting in FFY 2016, the first full fiscal year after the January 1, 2015 effective date of Medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania, the Department no longer characterized managed care payments received by the hospitals as DSH payments. 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. Boley, et al. v. UHS, et al. Former UHS subsidiary facility employees Mary K. Boley, Kandie Sutter, and Phyllis Johnson, individually and on behalf of a putative class of participants in the UHS Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against UHS, the Board of Directors of UHS, and the “Plan Committee” of UHS (Case No. 2:20-cv-02644). In subsequent amended complaints, Plaintiffs have dropped the Board of Directors and the “Plan Committee” as defendants and added the UHS Retirement Plans Investment Committee as a new defendant. Plaintiffs allege that UHS breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by offering to participants in the Plan overly expensive investment options when less expensive investment options were available in the marketplace; caused participants to pay excessive recordkeeping fees associated with the Plan; breached its duty to monitor appointed fiduciaries and: in the alternative, engaged in a “knowing breach of trust” separate from the alleged violations under ERISA. UHS disputes Plaintiffs’ allegations and is actively defending against Plaintiffs’ claims. UHS’ motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims was denied by the Court. In March 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal has agreed to hear an appeal of the trial court’s order granting class certification. The case will be stayed in the trial court pending conclusion of the appellate proceedings. We are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter. We maintain commercial insurance coverage for claims of this nature, subject to specified deductibles and limitations. 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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration