ENSIGN GROUP, INC
10-Ks and 10-Qs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
|
R
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
|
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
|
|
OR
|
||
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
|
|
|
|
For the transition period from to
|
Commission file number: 001-33757
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
Delaware
|
|
33-0861263
|
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 450,
Mission Viejo, CA
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
92691
(Zip Code)
|
Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:
(949) 487-9500
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
|
||
|
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share
|
|
NASDAQ Global Select Market
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
o
Yes
R
No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
o
Yes
R
No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
R
Yes
o
No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
o
Yes
o
No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
Large accelerated filer
o
|
|
Accelerated filer
R
|
|
Non-accelerated filer
o
|
|
Smaller reporting company
o
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
||||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
o
Yes
R
No
The aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to the closing price as of the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2010, was approximately $232,700,000.
On February 15, 2011, The Ensign Group, Inc. had 20,846,353 shares of Common Stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates information by reference from the Registrant's definitive proxy statement for the Registrant's 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this annual report.
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
PART I.
|
|||
|
Item 1.
|
|||
|
Item 1A.
|
|||
|
Item 1B.
|
|||
|
Item 2.
|
|||
|
Item 3.
|
|||
|
Item 4.
|
(Removed and Reserved)
|
||
|
PART II.
|
|||
|
Item 5.
|
|||
|
Item 6.
|
|||
|
Item 7.
|
|||
|
Item 7A.
|
|||
|
Item 8.
|
|||
|
Item 9.
|
|||
|
Item 9A.
|
|||
|
Item 9B.
|
|||
|
PART III.
|
|||
|
Item 10.
|
|||
|
Item 11.
|
|||
|
Item 12.
|
|||
|
Item 13.
|
|||
|
Item 14.
|
|||
|
PART IV.
|
|||
|
Item 15.
|
|||
|
EX-10.54
|
|||
|
EX-10.55
|
|||
|
EX-23.1
|
|||
|
EX-31.1
|
|||
|
EX-31.2
|
|||
|
EX-32.1
|
|||
|
EX-32.2
|
|||
2
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which include, but are not limited to the Company's expected future financial position, results of operations, cash flows, financing plans, business strategy, budgets, capital expenditures, competitive positions, growth opportunities and plans and objectives of management. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “would,” “could,” “potential,” “continue,” “ongoing,” similar expressions, and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, some of which are listed under the section “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Accordingly, you should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Report, and are based on our current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry and business, management's beliefs, and certain assumptions made by us, all of which are subject to change. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statement for any reason, except as otherwise required by law. As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the words, “we,” “our” and “us” refer to The Ensign Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. All of our facilities, operations, the Service Center and our wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary (the Captive) are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries that have their own management, employees and assets. The use of “we”, “us”, “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that any of our facilities, business operations, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity.
The Ensign Group, Inc. is a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. All of our facilities are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries, each of which have their own management, employees and assets. In addition, one of our wholly-owned independent subsidiaries, referred to as the Service Center, provides centralized accounting, payroll, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management and other centralized services to the other operating subsidiaries through contractual relationships with such subsidiaries. In addition, we have the Captive that provides some claims-made coverage to our operating subsidiaries for general and professional liability, as well as for certain workers' compensation insurance liabilities.
Like our facilities, the Service Center and Captive are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries that have their own management, employees and assets. Reference herein to the consolidated “Company” and “its” assets and activities, as well as the use of the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that The Ensign Group, Inc. has direct operating assets, employees or revenue, or that any of the facilities, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity. We were incorporated in 1999 in Delaware. Our corporate address is 27101 Puerta Real, Suite 450, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, and our telephone number is (949) 487-9500. Our corporate website is located at
www.ensigngroup.net.
The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website does not constitute a part of this annual report.
Ensign
TM
is our United States trademark. All other trademarks and trade names appearing in this annual report are the property of their respective owners.
3
Item 1.
Business
Overview
We are a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of 85 facilities located in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. All of these facilities are skilled nursing facilities, other than four stand-alone assisted living facilities in Arizona, Texas and Colorado and seven campuses that offer both skilled nursing and assisted living, independent living, or hospice care services in California, Arizona, Utah and Texas. Our facilities provide a broad spectrum of skilled nursing and assisted living services, physical, occupational and speech therapies, and other rehabilitative and healthcare services, for both long-term residents and short-stay rehabilitation patients. We encourage and empower our facility leaders and staff to make their facility the “facility of choice” in the community it serves. This means that our facility leaders and staff are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then work to create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility. As of
December 31, 2010
, we operated
82
facilities, of which we owned
52
and operated an additional
30
facilities under long-term lease arrangements, and had options to purchase eight of those 30 facilities.
Our organizational structure is centered upon local leadership. We believe our organizational structure, which empowers leaders and staff at the facility level, is unique within the skilled nursing industry. Each of our facilities is led by highly dedicated individuals who are responsible for key operational decisions at their facilities. Facility leaders and staff are trained and motivated to pursue superior clinical outcomes, high patient and family satisfaction, operating efficiencies and financial performance at their facilities. In addition, our facility leaders are enabled and motivated to share real-time operating data and otherwise benchmark clinical and operational performance against their peers in other facilities in order to improve clinical care, maximize patient satisfaction and augment operational efficiencies, promoting the sharing of best practices.
We view skilled nursing primarily as a local business, influenced by personal relationships and community reputation. We believe our success is largely dependent upon our ability to build strong relationships with key stakeholders from the local healthcare community, based upon a solid foundation of reliably superior care. Accordingly, our brand strategy is focused on encouraging the leaders and staff of each facility to focus on clinical excellence, and promote their facility independently within their local community.
Much of our historical growth can be attributed to our expertise in acquiring under-performing facilities and transforming them into market leaders in clinical quality, staff competency, employee loyalty and financial performance. We plan to continue to grow our revenue and earnings by:
|
•
|
continuing to grow our talent base and develop future leaders;
|
|
•
|
increasing the overall percentage or “mix” of higher-acuity residents;
|
|
•
|
focusing on organic growth and internal operating efficiencies;
|
|
•
|
continuing to acquire additional facilities in existing and new markets; and
|
|
•
|
expanding and renovating our existing facilities, and potentially constructing new facilities.
|
Company History
Our company was formed in 1999 with the goal of establishing a new level of quality care within the skilled nursing industry. The name “Ensign” is synonymous with a “flag” or a “standard,” and refers to our goal of setting the standard by which all others are measured. We believe that through our efforts and leadership, we can foster a new level of patient care and professional competence at our facilities, and set a new industry standard for quality skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services.
We have an established track record of successful acquisitions. Many of our earliest acquisitions were completed at a time when the skilled nursing industry was undergoing a major restructuring. From 2001 to 2003, we acquired a number of underperforming facilities, as several long-term care providers disposed of troubled facilities from their portfolios. We then
4
applied our core operating expertise to turn these facilities around, both clinically and financially. In 2004 and 2005, we focused on the integration and improvement of our existing operations while limiting our acquisitions to strategically situated properties, acquiring five facilities over that period.
We organized our facilities into five portfolio companies in 2006 and introduced a sixth portfolio company in 2008, which we believe has enabled us to attract additional qualified leadership talent, and to identify, acquire, and improve facilities at a generally faster rate. With the introduction in early 2006 of the portfolio companies and our New Market CEO program, described below, our acquisition activity accelerated, allowing us to add 15 facilities between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2007. We then effectively suspended our acquisition program while we effected our initial public offering, which was completed in November 2007. From January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, we acquired seventeen facilities which added 1,976 operational beds to our operations. During 2010 we acquired four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility and one home health and hospice operation, which added 650 operational beds to our operations. The following table summarizes our growth from our formation in 1999 through
December 31, 2010
:
Cumulative Facility Growth
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1999
|
|
2000
|
|
2001
|
|
2002
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
2010
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cumulative number of facilities
|
5
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
77
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
Cumulative number of operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
|
665
|
|
|
1,571
|
|
|
2,155
|
|
|
2,751
|
|
|
4,959
|
|
|
5,213
|
|
|
5,585
|
|
|
6,667
|
|
|
7,105
|
|
|
7,324
|
|
|
8,948
|
|
9,539
|
|
|
Each of our portfolio companies has its own president. These presidents, who are experienced and proven leaders that are generally taken from the ranks of facility CEOs, serve as leadership resources within their own portfolio companies, and have the primary responsibility for recruiting qualified talent, finding potential acquisition targets, and identifying other internal and external growth opportunities. We believe this reorganization has improved the quality of our recruiting and will continue to facilitate successful acquisitions.
New Market CEO and New Ventures Programs.
In order to broaden our reach to new markets, and in an effort to provide existing leaders in our company with the entrepreneurial opportunity and challenge of entering a new market and starting a new business, we established our New Market CEO program in 2006. Supported by our Service Center and other resources, a New Market CEO evaluates a target market, develops a comprehensive business plan, and relocates to the target market to find talent and connect with other providers, regulators and the healthcare community in that market, with the goal of ultimately acquiring facilities and establishing an operating platform for future growth. In addition, this program was expanded to broaden our reach to other lines of business closely related to the skilled nursing industry through our New Ventures program. The New Ventures program encourages facility CEOs to evaluate new lines of business with the goal of establishing an operating platform in new markets. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we acquired a home health and hospice operation in Idaho through the New Ventures program as a platform to enter the industry.
We believe that this program will not only continue to drive growth, but will also provide a valuable training ground for our next generation of leaders, who will have experienced the challenges of growing and operating a new business.
Recent Developments
On November 1, 2010, we purchased an assisted living facility in Colorado for approximately $2.4 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 215 assisted living beds to our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction.
On December 31, 2010, four of our real estate holding subsidiaries executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35.0 million (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to certain prepayment fees. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018. As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had
$35.0
million outstanding on the RBS Loan.
5
On January 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 123 operational skilled nursing beds, 77 assisted living units, 72 independent living units and 20 independent living cottages to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
On February 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services, for approximately $16.6 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 221 operational skilled nursing beds, 48 operational assisted living units and 60 independent living apartments to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
Recent Acquisition History and Growth.
Since January 1, 2010, we added an aggregate of four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility and two skilled nursing facilities which also provide assisted living and independent living services located in each of Utah, Idaho, Colorado and Texas that we had not operated previously. These facilities contributed 1,271 operational beds, respectively, to our operations, increasing our total capacity by approximately 14%. In addition, we acquired one home health and hospice operation in Idaho which did not add operational beds, however, added approximately $5.5 million in revenue to our operations.
The following table sets forth the location and number of licensed and independent living beds located at our facilities as of
December 31, 2010
:
|
|
CA
|
|
AZ
|
|
TX
|
|
UT
|
|
CO
|
|
WA
|
|
ID
|
|
TOTAL
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Number of facilities
|
33
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
Operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
|
3,702
|
|
|
1,814
|
|
|
2,069
|
|
|
967
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
246
|
|
|
9,539
|
|
Industry Trends
The skilled nursing industry has evolved to meet the growing demand for post-acute and custodial healthcare services generated by an aging population, increasing life expectancies and the trend toward shifting of patient care to lower cost settings. The skilled nursing industry has evolved in recent years, which we believe has led to a number of favorable improvements in the industry, as described below:
|
•
|
Shift of Patient Care to Lower Cost Alternatives.
The growth of the senior population in the United States continues to increase healthcare costs, often faster than the available funding from government-sponsored healthcare programs. In response, federal and state governments have adopted cost-containment measures that encourage the treatment of patients in more cost-effective settings such as skilled nursing facilities, for which the staffing requirements and associated costs are often significantly lower than acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities and other post-acute care settings. As a result, skilled nursing facilities are serving a larger population of higher-acuity patients than in the past.
|
|
•
|
Significant Acquisition and Consolidation Opportunities.
The skilled nursing industry is large and highly fragmented, characterized predominantly by numerous local and regional providers. We believe this fragmentation provides significant acquisition and consolidation opportunities for us.
|
|
•
|
Improving Supply and Demand Balance.
The number of skilled nursing facilities has declined modestly over the past several years. We expect that the supply and demand balance in the skilled nursing industry will continue to improve due to the shift of patient care to lower cost settings, an aging population and increasing life expectancies.
|
|
•
|
Increased Demand Driven by Aging Populations and Increased Life Expectancy.
As life expectancy continues to increase in the United States and seniors account for a higher percentage of the total U.S. population, we believe the overall demand for skilled nursing services will increase. At present, the primary market demographic for skilled nursing services is individuals age 75 and older. According to U.S. Census Bureau Interim Projections, there will be approximately 46 million people in the United States in 2010 that are over 65 years old. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates this group is one of the fastest growing segments of the United States population and is expected to more than double between 2000 and 2030.
|
6
We believe the skilled nursing industry has been and will continue to be impacted by several other trends. The use of long-term care insurance is increasing among seniors as a means of planning for the costs of skilled nursing services. In addition, as a result of increased mobility in society, reduction of average family size, and the increased number of two-wage earner couples, more seniors are looking for alternatives outside the family for their care.
Effects of Changing Prices.
Medicare reimbursement rates and procedures are subject to change from time to time, which could materially impact our revenue. Medicare reimburses our skilled nursing facilities under a prospective payment system (PPS) for certain inpatient covered services. Under the PPS, facilities are paid a predetermined amount per patient, per day, based on the anticipated costs of treating patients. The amount to be paid is determined by classifying each patient into a resource utilization group (RUG) category that is based upon each patient's acuity level. As of October 1, 2010, the RUG categories were expanded from 53 to 66 with the introduction of MDS 3.0. Should future changes in skilled nursing facility payments reduce rates or increase the standards for reaching certain reimbursement levels, our Medicare revenues could be reduced, with a corresponding adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
The DRA directs Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a process to allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services provided on or after January 1, 2006 for patients with certain conditions or multiple complexities whose therapy services are reimbursed under Medicare Part B. A significant portion of the residents in our skilled nursing facilities and patients served by our rehabilitation therapy programs whose therapy is reimbursed under Medicare Part B have qualified for the exceptions to these reimbursement caps. DRA added Sec. 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act and directed them to develop a process that allows exceptions for Medicare beneficiaries to therapy caps when continued therapy is deemed medically necessary. The therapy cap exception was reauthorized in a number of subsequent laws, most recently as part of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, which extends the exceptions process through December 31, 2011.
On July 16, 2010, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed rule on the fiscal year 2011 PPS reimbursement rates for skilled nursing facilities, which would result in a net increase in payments to skilled nursing facilities of 1.7%. This net increase includes a 2.3% market basket increase, partially offset by a correction of a FY 2010 forecast error which would result in a 0.6% rate reduction.
On November 2, 2010, CMS issued the final rule for fiscal year 2011 Physician Fee Schedule, which included a moderation of the proposed cuts to Part B therapy reimbursement. CMS has adopted a 25% reduction in the practice expense component of Part B rehab payments for the second and subsequent therapies provided to a patient on the same day.
Historically, adjustments to reimbursement under Medicare have had a significant effect on our revenue. For a discussion of historic adjustments and recent changes to the Medicare program and related reimbursement rates see Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Business and Industry - “Our revenue could be impacted by federal and state changes to reimbursement and other aspects of Medicaid and Medicare,” “Our future revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be impacted by continued cost containment pressures on Medicaid spending,” “We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations” and “Reforms to the U.S. healthcare system will impose new requirements upon us and may lower our reimbursements." The federal government and state governments continue to focus on efforts to curb spending on healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. We are not able to predict the outcome of the legislative process. We also cannot predict the extent to which proposals will be adopted or, if adopted and implemented, what effect, if any, such proposals and existing new legislation will have on us. Efforts to impose reduced allowances, greater discounts and more stringent cost controls by government and other payors are expected to continue and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Competition
The skilled nursing industry is highly competitive, and we expect that the industry will become increasingly competitive in the future. The industry is highly fragmented and characterized by numerous local and regional providers, in addition to large national providers that have achieved geographic diversity and economies of scale. We also compete with inpatient rehabilitation facilities and long-term acute care hospitals. Competitiveness may vary significantly from location to location, depending upon factors such as the number of competing facilities, availability of services, expertise of staff, and the physical appearance and amenities of each location. We believe that the primary competitive factors in the skilled nursing industry are:
|
•
|
ability to attract and to retain qualified management and caregivers;
|
7
|
•
|
reputation and commitment to quality;
|
|
•
|
attractiveness and location of facilities;
|
|
•
|
the expertise and commitment of the facility management team and employees;
|
|
•
|
community value, including amenities and ancillary services; and
|
|
•
|
for private pay and HMO patients, price of services.
|
We seek to compete effectively in each market by establishing a reputation within the local community as the “facility of choice.” This means that the facility leaders are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market that is calculated to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility.
Increased competition could limit our ability to attract and retain patients, maintain or increase rates or to expand our business. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than we have, may have greater brand recognition and may be more established in their respective communities than we are. Competing companies may also offer newer facilities or different programs or services than we offer, and may therefore attract individuals who are currently residents of our facilities, potential residents of our facilities, or who are otherwise receiving our healthcare services. Other competitors may have lower expenses or other competitive advantages than us and, therefore, provide services at lower prices than we offer.
Our Competitive Strengths
We believe that we are well positioned to benefit from the ongoing changes within our industry. We believe that our ability to acquire, integrate and improve our facilities is a direct result of the following key competitive strengths:
Experienced and Dedicated Employees.
We believe that our employees are among the best in the skilled nursing industry. We believe each of our facilities is led by an experienced and caring leadership team, including dedicated front-line care staff, who participates daily in the clinical and operational improvement of their individual facilities. We have been successful in attracting, training, incentivizing and retaining a core group of outstanding business and clinical leaders to lead our facilities. These leaders operate their facilities as separate local businesses. With broad local control, these talented leaders and their care staffs are able to quickly meet the needs of their patients and residents, employees and local communities, without waiting for permission to act or being bound to a “one-size-fits-all” corporate strategy.
Unique Incentive Programs.
We believe that our employee compensation programs are unique within the skilled nursing industry. Employee stock options and performance bonuses, based on achieving target clinical quality and financial benchmarks, represent a significant component of total compensation for our facility leaders. We believe that these compensation programs assist us in encouraging our facility leaders and key employees to act with a shared ownership mentality. Furthermore, our facility leaders are motivated to help local facilities within a defined “cluster,” which is a group of geographically-proximate facilities that share clinical best practices, real-time financial data and other resources and information.
Staff and Leadership Development.
We have a company-wide commitment to ongoing education, training and professional development. Accordingly, our facility leaders participate in regular training. Most participate in training sessions at Ensign University, our in-house educational system, generally four or five times each year. Other training opportunities are generally offered on a monthly basis. Training and educational topics include leadership development, our values, updates on Medicaid and Medicare billing requirements, updates on new regulations or legislation, emerging healthcare service alternatives and other relevant clinical, business and industry specific coursework. Additionally, we encourage and provide ongoing education classes for our clinical staff to maintain licensing and increase the breadth of their knowledge and expertise.
We believe that our commitment to, and substantial investment in, ongoing education will further strengthen the quality of our facility leaders and staff, and the quality of the care they provide to our patients and residents.
Innovative Service Center Approach.
We do not maintain a corporate headquarters; rather, we operate a Service Center to support the efforts of each facility. Our Service Center is a dedicated service organization that acts as a resource and provides centralized infor
mation technology, human resources, accounting, payroll, legal, risk management, educational and other key
8
services, so that local facility leaders can focus on delivering top-quality care and efficient business operations. Our Service Center approach allows individual facilities to function with the strength, synergies and economies of scale found in larger organizations, but without what we believe are the disadvantages of a top-down management structure or corporate hierarchy. We believe our Service Center approach is unique within the industry, and allows us to preserve the “one-facility-at-a-time” focus and culture that has contributed to our success.
Proven Track Record of Successful Acquisitions.
We have established a disciplined acquisition strategy that is focused on selectively acquiring facilities within our target markets. Our acquisition strategy is highly operations driven. Prospective facility leaders are included in the decision making process and compensated as these acquired facilities reach pre-established clinical quality and financial benchmarks, helping to ensure that we only undertake acquisitions that key leaders believe can become clinically sound and contribute to our financial performance.
Since April 1999, we have acquired 85 facilities with approximately 10,200 operational beds, including 803 assisted living beds and 299 independent living units, through both long-term leases and purchases. We believe our experience in acquiring these facilities and our demonstrated success in significantly improving their operations enables us to consider a broad range of acquisition targets. In addition, we believe we have developed expertise in transitioning newly-acquired facilities to our unique organizational culture and operating systems, which enables us to acquire facilities with limited disruption to patients, residents and facility operating staff, while significantly improving quality of care. We also intend to consider the construction of new facilities as we determine that market conditions justify the cost of new construction in some of our markets.
Reputation for Quality Care.
We believe that we have achieved a reputation for high-quality and cost-effective care and services to our patients and residents within the communities we serve. We believe that our reputation for quality, coupled with the integrated skilled nursing and rehabilitation services that we offer, allows us to attract patients that require more intensive and medically complex care and generally result in higher reimbursement rates than lower acuity patients.
Community Focused Approach.
We view skilled nursing care primarily as a local, community-based business. Our local leadership-centered management culture enables each facility's nursing and support staff and leaders to meet the unique needs of their residents and local communities. We believe that our commitment to this “one-facility-at-a-time” philosophy helps to ensure that each facility, its residents, their family members and the community will receive the individualized attention they need. By serving our residents, their families, the community and our fellow healthcare professionals, we strive to make each individual facility the facility of choice in its local community.
We further believe that when choosing a healthcare provider, consumers usually choose a person or people they know and trust, rather than a corporation or business. Therefore, rather than pursuing a traditional organization-wide branding strategy, we actively seek to develop the facility brand at the local level, serving and marketing one-on-one to caregivers, our residents, their families, the community and our fellow healthcare professionals in the local market.
Attractive Asset Base.
We believe that our facilities are among the best-operated in their respective markets. As of
December 31, 2010
, we owned
52
of the
82
facilities that we operated, and had purchase agreements or options to purchase eight of the
30
facilities that we operated under long-term lease arrangements. We will consider exercising some or all of these purchase options as they become exercisable, and we expect that we will own a higher percentage of our facilities in the future than we currently own. Assuming we eventually exercise all purchase options we currently hold and we don't dispose of any of our current facilities, we would own approximately 74% of the facilities we currently operate. By owning our facilities, we believe we will have better control over our occupancy costs over time, as well as increased financial and operational flexibility. We plan to continue to invest in our facilities, both owned and leased, to keep them physically attractive and clinically sound.
Investment in Information Technology.
We have acquired information technology that enables our facility leaders to access, and to share with their peers, both clinical and financial performance data in real time. Armed with relevant and current information, our facility leaders and their management teams are able to share best practices and latest information, adjust to challenges and opportunities on a timely basis, improve quality of care, mitigate risk and improve both clinical outcomes and financial performance. We have also invested in specialized healthcare technology systems to assist our nursing and support staff. We have installed automated software and touch-screen interface systems in each facility to enable our clinical staff to more efficiently monitor and deliver patient care and record patient information. We believe these systems have improved the quality of our medical and billing records, while improving the productivity of our staff.
9
Our Growth Strategy
We believe that the following strategies are primarily responsible for our growth to date, and will continue to drive the growth of our business:
Grow Talent Base and Develop Future Leaders.
Our primary growth strategy is to expand our talent base and develop future leaders. A key component of our organizational culture is our belief that strong local leadership is a primary key to the success of each facility. While we believe that significant acquisition opportunities exist, we have generally followed a disciplined approach to growth that permits us to acquire a facility only when we believe, among other things, that we will have qualified leadership for that facility. To develop these leaders, we have a rigorous “CEO-in-Training Program” that attracts proven business leaders from various industries and backgrounds, and provides them the knowledge and hands-on training they need to successfully lead one of our facilities. We generally have between five and fifteen prospective administrators progressing through the various stages of this training program, which is generally much more rigorous, hands-on and intensive than the minimum 1,000 hours of training mandated by the licensing requirements of most states where we do business. Once administrators are licensed and assigned to a facility, they continue to learn and develop in our facility Chief Executive Officer Program, which facilitates the continued development of these talented business leaders into outstanding facility CEOs, through regular peer review, our Ensign University and on-the-job training.
In addition, our facility Chief Operating Officer Program recruits and trains highly-qualified Directors of Nursing to lead the clinical programs in our facilities. Working together with their facility CEO and/or administrator, other key facility leaders and front-line staff, these experienced nurses manage delivery of care and other clinical personnel and programs to optimize both clinical outcomes and employee and patient satisfaction.
Increase Mix of High Acuity Patients.
Many skilled nursing facilities are serving an increasingly larger population of patients who require a high level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, as a result of government and other payors seeking lower-cost alternatives to traditional acute-care hospitals. We generally receive higher reimbursement rates for providing care for these patients. In addition, many of these patients require therapy and other rehabilitative services, which we are able to provide as part of our integrated service offerings. Where therapy services are prescribed by a patient's physician or other healthcare professional, we generally receive additional revenue in connection with the provision of those services. By making these integrated services available to such patients, and maintaining established clinical standards in the delivery of those services, we are able to increase our overall revenues. We believe that we can continue to attract high acuity patients and therapy patients to our facilities by maintaining and enhancing our reputation for quality care, continuing our community focused approach, and strengthening our referral networks.
Focus on Organic Growth and Internal Operating Efficiencies.
We plan to continue to grow organically by focusing on increasing patient occupancy within our existing facilities. Although some of the facilities we have acquired were in good physical and operating condition, the majority have been clinically and financially troubled, with some facilities having had occupancy rates as low as 30% at the time of acquisition. Additionally, we believe that incremental operating margins on the last 20% of our beds are significantly higher than on the first 80%, offering real opportunities to improve financial performance within our existing facilities, as we seek to improve overall operational occupancy beyond our average occupancy rates for the years ended
December 31, 2010
and
2009
of
79.9%
and 79.4%, respectively.
We also believe we can generate organic growth by improving operating efficiencies and the quality of care at the patient level. By focusing on staff development, clinical systems and the efficient delivery of quality patient care, we believe we are able to deliver higher quality care at lower costs than many of our competitors.
We also have achieved incremental occupancy and revenue growth by creating or expanding outpatient therapy programs in existing facilities. Physical, occupational and speech therapy services account for a significant portion of revenue in most of our skilled nursing facilities. By expanding therapy programs to provide outpatient services in many markets, we are able to increase revenue while spreading the fixed costs of maintaining these programs over a larger patient base. Outpatient therapy has also proven to be an effective marketing tool, raising the visibility of our facilities in their local communities and enhancing the reputation of our facilities with short-stay rehabilitation patients.
Add New Facilities and Expand Existing Facilities.
A key element of our growth strategy includes the acquisition of new and existing facilities from third parties, the expansion and upgrade of current facilities, and the potential construction of new facilities. In the near term, we plan to take advantage of the fragmented skilled nursing industry by acquiring facilities within select geographic markets and may consider the construction of new facilities. In addition, historically we have targeted
10
facilities that we believed were underperforming, and where we believed we could improve service delivery, occupancy rates and cash flow. With experienced leaders in place at the community level, and demonstrated success in significantly improving operating conditions at acquired facilities, we believe that we are well positioned for continued growth. While the integration of underperforming facilities generally has a negative short-term effect on overall operating margins, these facilities are typically accretive to earnings within 12 to 18 months following their acquisition. For the
69
facilities that we acquired from 2001 through 2009, the aggregate EBITDAR (defined below) as a percentage of revenue improved from
10.4%
during the first full three months of operations to
13.8%
during the thirteenth through fifteenth months of operations.
Labor
The operation of our skilled nursing and assisted living facilities requires a large number of highly skilled healthcare professionals and support staff. At
December 31, 2010
, we had approximately
8,382
full-time equivalent employees, employed by our Service Center and our operating subsidiaries. For the year ended
December 31, 2010
, approximately
60%
of our total expenses were payroll related. Periodically, market forces, which vary by region, require that we increase wages in excess of general inflation or in excess of increases in reimbursement rates we receive. We believe that we staff appropriately, focusing primarily on the acuity level and day-to-day needs of our patients and residents. In most of the states where we operate, our skilled nursing facilities are subject to state mandated minimum staffing ratios, so our ability to reduce costs by decreasing staff, notwithstanding decreases in acuity or need, is limited. We seek to manage our labor costs by improving staff retention, improving operating efficiencies, maintaining competitive wage rates and benefits and reducing reliance on overtime compensation and temporary nursing agency services.
The healthcare industry as a whole has been experiencing shortages of qualified professional clinical staff. We believe that our ability to attract and retain qualified professional clinical staff stems from our ability to offer attractive wage and benefits packages, a high level of employee training, an empowered culture that provides incentives for individual efforts and a quality work environment.
Government Regulation
The regulatory environment within the skilled nursing industry continues to intensify in the amount and type of laws and regulations affecting it. In addition to this changing regulatory environment, federal, state and local officials are increasingly focusing their efforts on the enforcement of these laws. In order to operate our facilities we must comply with federal, state and local laws relating to licensure, delivery and adequacy of medical care, distribution of pharmaceuticals, equipment, personnel, operating policies, fire prevention, rate-setting, billing and reimbursement, building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, we must also adhere to anti-kickback laws, physician referral laws, and safety and health standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Changes in the law or new interpretations of existing laws may have an adverse impact on our methods and costs of doing business.
Skilled nursing facilities are also subject to various regulations and licensing requirements promulgated by state and local health and social service agencies and other regulatory authorities. Requirements vary from state to state and these requirements can affect, among other things, personnel education and training, patient and personnel records, facility services, staffing levels, monitoring of patient wellness, patient furnishings, housekeeping services, dietary requirements, emergency plans and procedures, certification and licensing of staff prior to beginning employment, and patient rights. These laws and regulations could limit our ability to expand into new markets and to expand our services and facilities in existing markets.
Regulations Regarding Our Facilities.
Governmental and other authorities periodically inspect our facilities to assess our compliance with various standards. The intensified regulatory and enforcement environment continues to impact healthcare providers, as these providers respond to periodic surveys and other inspections by governmental authorities and act on any noncompliance identified in the inspection process. Unannounced surveys or inspections generally occur at least annually, and also following a government agency's receipt of a complaint about a facility. We must pass these inspections to maintain our licensure under state law, to obtain or maintain certification under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to continue participation in the Veterans Administration (VA) program at some facilities, and to comply with our provider contracts with managed care clients at many facilities. From time to time, we, like others in the healthcare industry, may receive notices from federal and state regulatory agencies alleging that we failed to comply with applicable standards. These notices may require us to take corrective action, may impose civil monetary penalties for noncompliance, and may threaten or impose other operating restrictions on facilities such as admission holds, provisional skilled nursing license or increased staffing requirements. If our facilities fail to comply with these directives or otherwise fail to comply substantially with licensure and certification laws, rules and regulations, we could lose our certification as a Medicare or Medicaid provider, or lose our state licenses to operate the facilities.
11
Regulations Protecting Against Fraud.
Various complex federal and state laws exist which govern a wide array of referrals, relationships and arrangements, and prohibit fraud by healthcare providers. Governmental agencies are devoting increasing attention and resources to such anti-fraud efforts. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) expanded the penalties for healthcare fraud. Additionally, in connection with our involvement with federal healthcare reimbursement programs, the government or those acting on its behalf may bring an action under the False Claims Act, alleging that a healthcare provider has defrauded the government. These claimants may seek treble damages for false claims and payment of additional civil monetary penalties. The False Claims Act allows a private individual with knowledge of fraud to bring a claim on behalf of the federal government and earn a percentage of the federal government's recovery. Due to these “whistleblower” incentives, suits have become more frequent.
In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1.0 million in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”
Regulations Regarding Financial Arrangements.
We are also subject to federal and state laws that regulate financial arrangement by healthcare providers, such as the federal and state anti-kickback laws, the Stark laws, and various state referral laws.
The federal anti-kickback laws and similar state laws make it unlawful for any person to pay, receive, offer, or solicit any benefit, directly or indirectly, for the referral or recommendation for products or services which are eligible for payment under federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. For the purposes of the anti-kickback law, a “federal healthcare program” includes Medicare and Medicaid programs and any other plan or program that provides health benefits which are funded directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government.
The arrangements prohibited under these anti-kickback laws can involve nursing homes, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers, plans and suppliers. These laws have been interpreted very broadly to include a number of practices and relationships between healthcare providers and sources of patient referral. The scope of prohibited payments is very broad, including anything of value, whether offered directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind. Federal “safe harbor” regulations describe certain arrangements that will not be deemed to constitute violations of the anti-kickback law. Arrangements that do not comply with all of the strict requirements of a safe harbor are not necessarily illegal, but, due to the broad language of the statute, failure to comply with a safe harbor may increase the potential that a government agency or whistleblower will seek to investigate or challenge the arrangement. The safe harbors are narrow and do not cover a wide range of economic relationships.
Violations of the federal anti-kickback laws can result in criminal penalties of up to $25,000 and five years imprisonment. Violations of the anti-kickback laws can also result in civil monetary penalties of up to $50,000 and an assessment of up to three times the total amount of remuneration offered, paid, solicited, or received. Violation of the anti-kickback laws may also result in an individual's or organization's exclusion from future participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other state and federal healthcare programs. Exclusion of us or any of our key employees from the Medicare or Medicaid program could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition.
In addition to these regulations, we may face adverse consequences if we violate the federal Stark laws related to certain Medicare physician referrals. The Stark laws prohibit a physician from referring Medicare patients for certain designated health
12
services where the physician has an ownership interest in or compensation arrangement with the provider of the services, with limited exceptions. Also, any services furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral are not eligible for payment by the Medicare programs, and the provider is prohibited from billing any third party for such services. The Stark laws provide for the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of $15,000 per prohibited claim, and up to $100,000 for knowingly entering into certain prohibited cross-referral schemes, and potential exclusion from Medicare for any person who presents or causes to be presented a bill or claim the person knows or should know is submitted in violation of the Stark laws. Such designated health services include physical therapy services; occupational therapy services; radiology services, including CT, MRI and ultrasound; durable medical equipment and services; radiation therapy services and supplies; parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment and supplies; prosthetics, orthotics and prosthetic devices and supplies; home health services; outpatient prescription drugs; inpatient and outpatient hospital services; clinical laboratory services; and diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medical services.
Regulations Regarding Patient Record Confidentiality.
We are also subject to laws and regulations enacted to protect the confidentiality of patient health information. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued rules pursuant to HIPAA, which relate to the privacy of certain patient information. These rules govern our use and disclosure of protected health information. We have established policies and procedures to comply with HIPAA privacy requirements at these facilities. We believe that we are in compliance with all current HIPAA laws and regulations.
Antitrust Laws.
We are also subject to federal and state antitrust laws. Enforcement of the antitrust laws against healthcare providers is common, and antitrust liability may arise in a wide variety of circumstances, including third party contracting, physician relations, joint venture, merger, affiliation and acquisition activities. In some respects, the application of federal and state antitrust laws to healthcare is still evolving, and enforcement activity by federal and state agencies appears to be increasing. At various times, healthcare providers and insurance and managed care organizations may be subject to an investigation by a governmental agency charged with the enforcement of antitrust laws, or may be subject to administrative or judicial action by a federal or state agency or a private party. Violators of the antitrust laws could be subject to criminal and civil enforcement by federal and state agencies, as well as by private litigants.
Federal Health Care Reform.
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which contained several sweeping changes to America’s health insurance system. Among other reforms contained in PPACA, many Medicare providers received reductions in their market basket updates. Unlike for some other Medicare providers, PPACA makes no reduction to the market basket update for skilled nursing facilities in fiscal years 2010 or 2011. However, under PPACA, the skilled nursing facility market basket update will be subject to a full productivity adjustment beginning in fiscal year 2012. In addition, PPACA enacted several reforms with respect to skilled nursing facilities and hospice organizations, including payment measures to realize significant savings of federal and state funds by deterring and prosecuting fraud and abuse in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. While many of the provisions of PPACA will not take effect for several years or are subject to further refinement through the promulgation of regulations, some key provisions of PPACA are effective immediately or within six to twelve months of PPACA’s enactment date.
|
•
|
Enhanced CMPs and Escrow Provisions —
Effective March 23, 2010, PPACA includes expanded civil monetary penalty (CMP) provisions applicable to all Medicare and Medicaid providers. PPACA provides for the imposition of CMPs of up to $50,000 and, in some cases, treble damages, for actions relating to alleged false statements to the federal government.
|
|
•
|
Nursing Home Transparency Requirements —
In addition to expanded CMP provisions, PPACA imposes substantial new transparency requirements for Medicare-participating nursing facilities. Existing law requires Medicare providers to disclose to CMS: (1) any person or entity that owns directly or indirectly an ownership interest of five percent or more in a provider; (2) officers and directors (if a corporation) and partners (if a partnership); and (3) holders of a mortgage, deed of trust, note or other obligation secured by the entity or the property of the entity. PPACA expands the information required to be disclosed to include: (4) the facility’s organizational structure; (5) additional information on officers, directors, trustees, and “managing employees” of the facility (including their names, titles, and start dates of services); and (6) information on any “additional disclosable party” of the facility. Beginning March 23, 2010, facilities must have this information available for submission to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the state in which the facility is located, and the state long-term care ombudsman upon request.
|
|
•
|
Suspension of Payments During Pending Fraud Investigations —
PPACA also provides the federal government with expanded authority to suspend payment if a provider is investigated for allegations or issues of fraud. Section 6402 of the PPACA provides that, beginning March 23, 2010, Medicare and Medicaid payments may be suspended pending a “credible investigation of fraud,” unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that good cause
|
13
exists not to suspend payments. “Credible investigation of fraud” is undefined, although the Secretary must consult with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in determining whether a credible investigation of fraud exists. This suspension authority creates a new mechanism for the federal government to suspend both Medicare and Medicaid payments for allegations of fraud, independent of whether a state exercises its authority to suspend Medicaid payments pending a fraud investigation. To the extent the Secretary applies this suspension of payments provision to one of our facilities for allegations of fraud, such a suspension could adversely affect our results of operations.
|
•
|
Overpayment Reporting and Repayment; Expanded False Claims Act Liability —
PPACA also enacted several important changes that expand potential liability under the federal False Claims Act. Effective March 23, 2010, PPACA provides that overpayments related to services provided to both Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries must be reported and returned to the applicable payor within the later of sixty days of identification of the overpayment, or the date the corresponding cost report (if applicable) is due. Any overpayment retained after the deadline is considered an “obligation” for purposes of the federal False Claims Act.
|
|
•
|
Voluntary Pilot Program — Bundled Payments —
To support the policies of making all providers responsible during an episode of care and rewarding value
over volume, HHS will establish, test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies for Medicare services through a five-year, national, voluntary pilot program starting in 2013. This program will provide incentives for providers to coordinate patient care across the continuum and to be jointly accountable for an entire episode of care centered around a hospitalization. HHS will develop qualifying provider payment methods that may include bundled payments and bids from entities for episodes of care that begins three days prior to hospitalization and spans 30 days following discharge. The bundled payment will cover the costs of acute care inpatient services; physicians’ services delivered in and outside of an acute care hospital; outpatient hospital services including emergency department services; post-acute care services, including home health services, skilled nursing services; inpatient rehabilitation services; and inpatient hospital services. The payment methodology will include payment for services, such as care coordination, medication reconciliation, discharge planning and transitional care services, and other patient-centered activities. Payments for items and services cannot result in spending more than would otherwise be expended for such entities if the pilot program were not implemented. As with Medicare’s shared savings program discussed above, payment arrangements among providers on the backside of the bundled payment must take into account significant hurdles under the Anti-kickback Law, the Stark Law and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. This pilot program may expand in 2016 if expansion would reduce Medicare spending without also reducing quality of care.
|
The provisions of PPACA discussed above are examples of recently-enacted federal health reform provisions that we believe may have a material impact on the long-term care industry and on our business. However, the foregoing discussion is not intended to constitute, nor does it constitute, an exhaustive review and discussion of PPACA. It is possible that these and other provisions of PPACA may be interpreted, clarified, or applied to our facilities or operations in a way that could have a material adverse impact on the results of operations.
Environmental Matters
Our business is subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. As a healthcare provider, we face regulatory requirements in areas of air and water quality control, medical and low-level radioactive waste management and disposal, asbestos management, response to mold and lead-based paint in our facilities and employee safety.
As an owner or operator of our facilities, we also may be required to investigate and remediate hazardous substances that are located on and/or under the property, including any such substances that may have migrated off, or may have been discharged or transported from the property. Part of our operations involves the handling, use, storage, transportation, disposal and discharge of medical, biological, infectious, toxic, flammable and other hazardous materials, wastes, pollutants or contaminants. In addition, we are sometimes unable to determine with certainty whether prior uses of our facilities and properties or surrounding properties may have produced continuing environmental contamination or noncompliance, particularly where the timing or cost of making such determinations is not deemed cost-effective. These activities, as well as the possible presence of such materials in, on and under our properties, may result in damage to individuals, property or the environment; may interrupt operations or increase costs; may result in legal liability, damages, injunctions or fines; may result in investigations, administrative proceedings, penalties or other governmental agency actions; and may not be covered by insurance.
We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental and occupational health and safety requirements. However, we cannot assure you that we will not encounter environmental liabilities in the future, and such
14
liabilities may result in material adverse consequences to our operations or financial condition.
Payor Sources
Total Revenue by Payor Sources.
We derive revenue primarily from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, private pay patients and managed care payors. Medicaid typically covers patients that require standard room and board services, and provides reimbursement rates that are generally lower than rates earned from other sources. We monitor our quality mix, which is the percentage of non-Medicaid revenue from each of our facilities, to measure the level received from each payor across each of our business units. We intend to continue to focus on enhancing our care offerings to accommodate more high acuity patients.
Medicaid.
Medicaid is a state-administered program financed by state funds and matching federal funds. Medicaid programs are administered by the states and their political subdivisions, and often go by state-specific names, such as Medi-Cal in California and the Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System in Arizona. Medicaid programs generally provide health benefits for qualifying individuals, and may supplement Medicare benefits for financially needy persons aged 65 and older. Medicaid reimbursement formulas are established by each state with the approval of the federal government in accordance with federal guidelines. Seniors who enter skilled nursing facilities as private pay clients can become eligible for Medicaid once they have substantially depleted their assets. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for nursing home facilities.
Private and Other Payors.
Private and other payors consist primarily of individuals, family members or other third parties who directly pay for the services we provide.
Medicare.
Medicare is a federal program that provides healthcare benefits to individuals who are 65 years of age or older or are disabled. To achieve and maintain Medicare certification, a skilled nursing facility must meet the CMS, “Conditions of Participation”, on an ongoing basis, as determined in periodic facility inspections or “surveys” conducted primarily by the state licensing agency in the state where the facility is located. Medicare pays for inpatient skilled nursing facility services under the prospective payment system. The prospective payment for each beneficiary is based upon the medical condition of and care needed by the beneficiary. Medicare skilled nursing facility coverage is limited to 100 days per episode of illness for those beneficiaries who require daily care following discharge from an acute care hospital.
Managed Care and Private Insurance.
Managed care patients consist of individuals who are insured by a third-party entity, typically a senior HMO plan, or who are Medicare beneficiaries who have assigned their Medicare benefits to a senior HMO plan. Another type of insurance, long-term care insurance, is also becoming more widely available to consumers, but is not expected to contribute significantly to industry revenues in the near term.
Billing and Reimbursement.
Our revenue from government payors, including Medicare and state Medicaid agencies, is subject to retroactive adjustments in the form of claimed overpayments and underpayments based on rate adjustments and asserted billing and reimbursement errors. We believe billing and reimbursement errors, disagreements, overpayments and underpayments are common in our industry, and we are regularly engaged with government payors and their fiscal intermediaries in reviews, audits and appeals of our claims for reimbursement due to the subjectivity inherent in the processes related to patient diagnosis and care, recordkeeping, claims processing and other aspects of the patient service and reimbursement processes, and the errors and disagreements those subjectivities can produce.
We take seriously our responsibility to act appropriately under applicable laws and regulations, including Medicare and Medicaid billing and reimbursement laws and regulations. Accordingly, we employ accounting, reimbursement and compliance specialists who train, mentor and assist our clerical, clinical and rehabilitation staffs in the preparation of claims and supporting documentation, regularly monitor billing and reimbursement practices within our facilities, and assist with the appeal of overpayment and recoupment claims generated by governmental, fiscal intermediary and other auditors and reviewers. In addition, due to the potentially serious consequences that could arise from any impropriety in our billing and reimbursement processes, we investigate all allegations of impropriety or irregularity relative thereto, and sometimes do so with the aid of outside auditors, other than our independent registered public accounting firm, attorneys and other professionals.
Whether information about our billing and reimbursement processes is obtained from external sources or activities such as Medicare and Medicaid audits or probe reviews, internal investigations such as the one completed in early 2008 (discussed below in Risk Factors), or our regular day-to-day monitoring and training activities, we collect and utilize such information to improve our billing and reimbursement functions and the various processes related thereto. While, like other operators in our industry, we experience billing and reimbursement errors, disagreements and other effects of the inherent subjectivities in reimbursement processes on a regular basis, we believe that we are in substantial compliance with applicable Medicare and
15
Medicaid reimbursement requirements. We continually strive to improve the efficiency and accuracy of all of our operational and business functions, including our billing and reimbursement processes.
The following table sets forth the payor sources of our total revenue for the periods indicated:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Payor Sources for All Facilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Medicaid-custodial
|
$
|
259,711
|
|
$
|
219,188
|
|
|
$
|
187,499
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
219,217
|
|
174,769
|
|
|
154,852
|
|
||||
|
Medicaid-skilled
|
17,573
|
|
12,449
|
|
|
8,537
|
|
||||
|
Total
|
496,501
|
|
406,406
|
|
|
350,888
|
|
||||
|
Managed care
|
84,364
|
|
72,544
|
|
|
64,361
|
|
||||
|
Private and other payors(1)
|
68,667
|
|
63,052
|
|
|
54,123
|
|
||||
|
Total revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Includes revenue from our assisted living facilities.
|
Payor Sources as a Percentage of Skilled Nursing Services.
We use both our skilled mix and quality mix as measures of the quality of reimbursements we receive at our skilled nursing facilities over various periods. The following table sets forth our percentage of skilled nursing patient days by payor source:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||
|
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Days:
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Medicare
|
14.5
|
%
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
Managed care
|
9.2
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
Other skilled
|
1.3
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
Skilled mix
|
25.0
|
|
24.6
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
Private and other payors
|
11.7
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
Quality mix
|
36.7
|
|
37.3
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
63.3
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
62.2
|
|
|
|
Total skilled nursing
|
100.0
|
%
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
Reimbursement for Specific Services
Reimbursement for Skilled Nursing Services.
Skilled nursing facility revenue is primarily derived from Medicaid, private pay, managed care and Medicare payors. Our skilled nursing facilities provide Medicaid-covered services to eligible individuals consisting of nursing care, room and board and social services. In addition, states may, at their option, cover other services such as physical, occupational and speech therapies.
Reimbursement for Rehabilitation Therapy Services.
Rehabilitation therapy revenue is primarily received from private pay and Medicare for services provided at skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities. The payments are based on negotiated patient per diem rates or a negotiated fee schedule based on the type of service rendered.
Reimbursement for Assisted Living Services.
Assisted living facility revenue is primarily derived from private pay residents at rates we establish based upon the services we provide and market conditions in the area of operation. In addition, Medicaid or other state-specific programs in some states where we operate supplement payments for board and care services provided in assisted living facilities.
Reimbursement for Hospice Services.
Hospice revenues are primarily derived from Medicare. We receive one of four predetermined daily or hourly rates based on the level of care we furnish to the beneficiary. These rates are subject to annual adjustments based on inflation and geographic wage considerations.
16
We are subject to two limitations on Medicare payments for hospice services. First, if inpatient days of care provided to patients at a hospice exceed 20% of the total days of hospice care provided for an annual period beginning on November 1st, then payment for days in excess of this limit are paid for at the routine home care rate.
Second, overall payments made by Medicare to us on a per hospice program basis are also subject to a cap amount calculated by the Medicare fiscal intermediary at the end of the hospice cap period. The Medicare revenue paid to a hospice program from November 1 to October 31 may not exceed the annual aggregate cap amounts. This annual aggregate cap amount is calculated by multiplying the number of first time Medicare hospice beneficiaries during the year by the Medicare per beneficiary cap amount, resulting in that hospice's aggregate cap, which is the allowable amount of total Medicare payments that hospice can receive for that cap year. If a hospice exceeds its aggregate cap, then the hospice must repay the excess back to Medicare. The Medicare cap amount is reduced proportionately for patients who transferred in and out of our hospice services.
Available Information
We are subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). Consequently, we are required to file reports and information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including reports on the following forms: annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These reports and other information concerning the Company may be accessed through the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov.
You may also find on our website at http://www.ensigngroup.net, electronic copies of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Such filings are placed on our website as soon as reasonably possible after they are filed with the SEC. All such filings are available free of charge. Information contained in our website is not deemed to be a part of this Annual Report.
|
Item 1A.
Risk Factors
|
||
Set forth below are certain risk factors that could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. You should carefully read the following risk factors, together with the financial statements, related notes and other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that contain risks and uncertainties. Please refer to the section entitled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” on page 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K in connection with your consideration of the risk factors and other important factors that may affect future results described below.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Our revenue could be impacted by federal and state changes to reimbursement and other aspects of Medicaid and Medicare.
We derived
42.7%
of our revenue from the Medicaid program during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. We derived
33.7%
and
32.3%
of our revenue from the Medicare program during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. If reimbursement rates under these programs are reduced or fail to increase as quickly as our costs, or if there are changes in the way these programs pay for services, our business and results of operations would be adversely affected. The services for which we are currently reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare may not continue to be reimbursed at adequate levels or at all. Further limits on the scope of services being reimbursed, delays or reductions in reimbursement or changes in other aspects of reimbursement could impact our revenue. For example, in the past, the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) caused changes in government reimbursement systems, which, in some cases, made obtaining reimbursements more difficult and costly and lowered or restricted reimbursement rates for some of our residents.
The Medicaid and Medicare programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes affecting base rates or basis of payment, retroactive rate adjustments, annual caps that limit the amount that can be paid (including deductible and coinsurance amounts) for rehabilitation therapy services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries, administrative or executive orders and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially adversely affect the rates and frequency at which these programs reimburse us for our services. For example, the Medicaid Integrity Contractor (MIC) program is increasing
17
the scrutiny placed on Medicaid payments, and could result in recoupments of alleged overpayments in an effort to rein in Medicaid spending. The Mid-Session Review of the presidential budget submitted for federal fiscal year 2010 included, through federal fiscal year 2014, $490.0 million in savings from improving “Medicare and Medicaid program integrity”, and another $175.0 million in Medicaid savings through implementation of coding edits to ensure “appropriate Medicaid payments.” It is uncertain what proportion of these estimated cost savings will come from recoupments against long-term care facilities. However, despite the savings projected from effectively reducing payments to Medicaid providers, the Mid-Session Review of the presidential budget submitted for federal fiscal year 2010 also included an outlay of $1.5 billion for Medicaid spending through federal fiscal year 2014, with a net increase in Medicaid outlays of $48.0 billion during the same time period. The federal share of current law Medicaid outlays is expected to be $248.0 billion, a $26.0 billion increase over projected fiscal year 2009 spending. Some of the projected increases in Medicaid outlays are pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, which contained several temporary measures expected to increase Medicaid expenditures. In order to qualify for increases in Medicaid matching funds from the federal government, states must refrain from implementing eligibility standards, methodologies or procedures that are more restrictive than those in effect as of July 1, 2008. Implementation of these and other measures to reduce or delay reimbursement could result in substantial reductions in our revenue and profitability. Payors may disallow our requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain costs are not reimbursable or reasonable because either adequate or additional documentation was not provided or because certain services were not covered or considered reasonably necessary. Additionally, revenue from these payors can be retroactively adjusted after a new examination during the claims settlement process or as a result of post-payment audits. New legislation and regulatory proposals could impose further limitations on government payments to healthcare providers.
Our future revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be impacted by continued cost containment pressures on Medicaid spending.
Medicaid, which is largely administered by the states, is a significant payor for our skilled nursing services. Rapidly increasing Medicaid spending, combined with slow state revenue growth, has led many states to institute measures aimed at controlling spending growth. For example, in February 2009, the California legislature approved a new budget to help relieve a $42 billion budget deficit. The budget package was signed after months of negotiation, during which time California's governor declared a fiscal state of emergency in California. The new budget implements spending cuts in several areas, including Medi-Cal spending. Some of the spending cuts are triggered only if an inadequate amount of federal funding is received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 described above. Further, California initially had extended its cost-based Medi-Cal long-term care reimbursement system enacted through Assembly Bill 1629 (A.B.1629) through the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years with a growth rate of up to five percent for both years. However, due to California's severe budget crisis, in July 2009, the State passed a budget-balancing proposal that eliminated this five percent growth cap by amending the current statute to provide that, for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years, the weighted average Medi-Cal reimbursement rate paid to long-term care facilities shall not exceed the weighted average Medi-Cal reimbursement rate for the 2008-2009 rate year. In addition, the budget proposal increased the amounts that California nursing facilities will pay to Medi-Cal in quality assurance fees for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years by including Medicare revenue in the calculation of the quality assurance fee that nursing facilities pay under A.B. 1629. Although overall reimbursement from Medi-Cal remained stable, individual facility rates varied.
California's Governor signed the budget trailer into law in October 2010. Despite its enactment, these changes in reimbursement to long-term care facilities will be implemented retroactively to the beginning of the calendar quarter in which California submitted its request for federal approval of CMS. Most recently, on January 10, 2011, the California Governor proposed a budget for 2011-2012 which proposes to reduce Medi-Cal provider payments by 10%, including payments to long-term care facilities. Because state legislatures control the amount of state funding for Medicaid programs, cuts or delays in approval of such funding by legislatures could reduce the amount of, or cause a delay in, payment from Medicaid to skilled nursing facilities. Since a significant portion of our revenue is generated from our skilled nursing operations in California, these budget reductions, if approved, could adversely affect our net patient service revenue and profitability. We expect continuing cost containment pressures on Medicaid outlays for skilled nursing facilities, and any such decline could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
To generate funds to pay for the increasing costs of the Medicaid program, many states utilize financial arrangements such as provider taxes. Under provider tax arrangements, states collect taxes or fees from healthcare providers and then return the revenue to these providers as Medicaid expenditures. Congress, however, has placed restrictions on states' use of provider tax and donation programs as a source of state matching funds. Under the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, the federal medical assistance percentage available to a state was reduced by the total amount of healthcare related taxes that the state imposed, unless certain requirements are met. The federal medical assistance percentage is not reduced if the state taxes are broad-based and not
18
applied specifically to Medicaid reimbursed services. In addition, the healthcare providers receiving Medicaid reimbursement must be at risk for the amount of tax assessed and must not be guaranteed to receive reimbursement through the applicable state Medicaid program for the tax assessed. Lower Medicaid reimbursement rates would adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Our hospice operations are subject to annual Medicare caps calculated by Medicare. If such caps were to be exceeded by any of our hospice providers, our business and consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.
With respect to our hospice operations, overall payments made by Medicare to each provider number are subject to an inpatient cap amount and an overall payment cap, which are calculated and published by the Medicare fiscal intermediary on an annual basis covering the period from November 1 through October 31. If payments received by any one of our hospice provider numbers exceeds either of these caps, we may be required to reimburse Medicare for payments received in excess of the caps, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Skilled nursing facilities are required to perform consolidated billing for certain items and services furnished to patients and residents. The consolidated billing requirement essentially confers on the skilled nursing facility itself the Medicare billing responsibility for the entire package of care that its residents receive in these situations. The BBA also affected skilled nursing facility payments by requiring that post-hospitalization skilled nursing services be “bundled” into the hospital's Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) payment in certain circumstances. Where this rule applies, the hospital and the skilled nursing facility must, in effect, divide the payment which otherwise would have been paid to the hospital alone for the patient's treatment, and no additional funds are paid by Medicare for skilled nursing care of the patient. At present, this provision applies to a limited number of DRGs, but already is apparently having a negative effect on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments, either because hospitals are finding it difficult to place patients in skilled nursing facilities which will not be paid as before or because hospitals are reluctant to discharge the patients to skilled nursing facilities and lose part of their payment. This bundling requirement could be extended to more DRGs in the future, which would accentuate the negative impact on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments. We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Reforms to the U.S. healthcare system will impose new requirements upon us and may lower our reimbursements.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Reconciliation Act) were recently enacted as new laws. These new laws include sweeping changes to how health care is paid for and furnished in the United States.
PPACA, as modified by the Reconciliation Act, is projected to expand access to Medicaid for approximately 16 million additional people. It also reduces the projected growth of Medicare by $500 billion over ten years by tying payments to providers more closely to quality outcomes. It also imposes new obligations on skilled nursing facilities, requiring them to disclose information regarding ownership, expenditures and certain other information. This information will be disclosed on a website for comparison by members of the public.
To address potential fraud and abuse in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, PPACA includes provider screening and enhanced oversight periods for new providers and suppliers, as well as enhanced penalties for submitting false claims. It also provides funding for enhanced anti-fraud activities. The new law imposes enrollment moratoria in elevated risk areas by requiring providers and suppliers to establish compliance programs.
PPACA also provides the federal government with expanded authority to suspend payment if a provider is investigated for allegations or issues of fraud. Section 6402 of the PPACA provides that, beginning March 23, 2010, Medicare and Medicaid payments may be suspended pending a “credible investigation of fraud,” unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that good cause exists not to suspend payments. “Credible investigation of fraud” is undefined, although the Secretary must consult with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in determining whether a credible investigation of fraud exists. This suspension authority creates a new mechanism for the federal government to suspend both Medicare and Medicaid payments for allegations of fraud, independent of whether a state exercises its authority to suspend Medicaid payments pending a fraud investigation. To the extent the Secretary applies this suspension of payments provision to one of our facilities for allegations of fraud, such a suspension could adversely affect our results
19
of operations.
Under PPACA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish, test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies for Medicare services through a five-year, national, voluntary pilot program starting in 2013. This program will provide incentives for providers to coordinate patient care across the continuum and to be jointly accountable for an entire episode of care centered around a hospitalization. HHS will develop qualifying provider payment methods that may include bundled payments and bids from entities for episodes of care that begins three days prior to hospitalization and spans 30 days following discharge. The bundled payment will cover the costs of acute care inpatient services; physicians’ services delivered in and outside of an acute care hospital; outpatient hospital services including emergency department services; post-acute care services, including home health services, skilled nursing services; inpatient rehabilitation services; and inpatient hospital services. The payment methodology will include payment for services, such as care coordination, medication reconciliation, discharge planning and transitional care services, and other patient-centered activities. Payments for items and services cannot result in spending more than would otherwise be expended for such entities if the pilot program were not implemented. As with Medicare’s shared savings program discussed above, payment arrangements among providers on the backside of the bundled payment must take into account significant hurdles under the Anti-kickback Law, the Stark Law and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. This pilot program may expand in 2016 if expansion would reduce Medicare spending without also reducing quality of care.
PPACA attempts to improve the health care delivery system through incentives to enhance quality, improve beneficiary outcomes and increase value of care. One of these key delivery system reforms is the encouragement of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs will facilitate coordination and cooperation among providers to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries and reduce unnecessary costs. Participating ACOs that meet specified quality performance standards will be eligible to receive a share of any savings if the actual per capita expenditures of their assigned Medicare beneficiaries are a sufficient percentage below their specified benchmark amount. Quality performance standards will include measures in such categories as clinical processes and outcomes of care, patient experience and utilization of services.
In addition, on October 1, 2010, the next generation of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 was implemented, creating significant changes in the methodology for calculating the RUGS category under Medicare Part A, most notably eliminating Section T. Because therapy does not necessarily begin upon admission, MDS 2.0 and the RUGS-III system included a provision to capture therapy services that are scheduled to occur but have not yet been provided in order to calculate a RUG level that better reflects the level of care the recipient would actually receive. This is eliminated with MDS 3.0, which creates a new category of assessment called the Medicare Short Stay Assessment. This assessment provides for calculation of a rehabilitation RUG for residents discharged on or before day eight who received less than five days of therapy.
We cannot predict what effect these changes will have on our business, including the demand for our services or the amount of reimbursement available for those services. However, it is possible these new laws may lower reimbursement and adversely affect our business.
Increased competition for, or a shortage of, nurses and other skilled personnel could increase our staffing and labor costs and subject us to monetary fines.
Our success depends upon our ability to retain and attract nurses, Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) and therapists. Our success also depends upon our ability to retain and attract skilled management personnel who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of each of our facilities. Each facility has a facility leader responsible for the overall day-to-day operations of the facility, including quality of care, social services and financial performance. Depending upon the size of the facility, each facility leader is supported by facility staff that is directly responsible for day-to-day care of the patients and marketing and community outreach programs. Other key positions supporting each facility may include individuals responsible for physical, occupational and speech therapy, food service and maintenance. We compete with various healthcare service providers, including other skilled nursing providers, in retaining and attracting qualified and skilled personnel.
We operate one or more skilled nursing facilities in the states of California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. With the exception of Utah, which follows federal regulations, each of these states has established minimum staffing requirements for facilities operating in that state. Failure to comply with these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with the conditions of participation under relevant state and federal healthcare programs. In addition, if a facility is determined to be out of compliance with these requirements, it may be subject to a notice of deficiency, a citation, or a significant fine or litigation risk. For example, we are aware of one
20
company in our industry that is subject to a substantial judgment as a result of not complying with minimum staffing laws. Deficiencies may also result in the suspension of patient admissions and/or the termination of Medicaid participation, or the suspension, revocation or nonrenewal of the skilled nursing facility's license. If the federal or state governments were to issue regulations which materially change the way compliance with the minimum staffing standard is calculated or enforced, our labor costs could increase and the current shortage of healthcare workers could impact us more significantly.
Increased competition for or a shortage of nurses or other trained personnel, or general inflationary pressures may require that we enhance our pay and benefits packages to compete effectively for such personnel. We may not be able to offset such added costs by increasing the rates we charge to our patients. Turnover rates and the magnitude of the shortage of nurses or other trained personnel vary substantially from facility to facility. An increase in costs associated with, or a shortage of, skilled nurses, could negatively impact our business. In addition, if we fail to attract and retain qualified and skilled personnel, our ability to conduct our business operations effectively would be harmed.
We are subject to various government reviews, audits and investigations that could adversely affect our business, including an obligation to refund amounts previously paid to us, potential criminal charges, the imposition of fines, and/or the loss of our right to participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
As a result of our participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, we are subject to various governmental reviews, audits and investigations to verify our compliance with these programs and applicable laws and regulations. Private pay sources also reserve the right to conduct audits. We believe that billing and reimbursement errors and disagreements are common in our industry. We are regularly engaged in reviews, audits and appeals of our claims for reimbursement due to the subjectivities inherent in the process related to patient diagnosis and care, record keeping, claims processing and other aspects of the patient service and reimbursement processes, and the errors and disagreements those subjectivities can produce. An adverse review, audit or investigation could result in:
|
•
|
an obligation to refund amounts previously paid to us pursuant to the Medicare or Medicaid programs or from private payors, in amounts that could be material to our business;
|
|
•
|
state or federal agencies imposing fines, penalties and other sanctions on us;
|
|
•
|
loss of our right to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs or one or more private payor networks;
|
|
•
|
an increase in private litigation against us; and
|
|
•
|
damage to our reputation in various markets.
|
In 2004, one of our Medicare fiscal intermediaries began to conduct selected reviews of claims previously submitted by and paid to some of our facilities. While we have always been subject to post-payment audits and reviews, more intensive “probe reviews” appear to be a permanent procedure with our fiscal intermediary. Although some of these probe reviews identified patient miscoding, documentation deficiencies and other errors in our recordkeeping and Medicare billing, these errors resulted in no Medicare revenue recoupment, net of appeal recoveries, to the federal government and related resident copayments. As of December 31, 2010, we had one facility under probe review.
If the government or court were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies constituted criminal violations, or were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies resulted in the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs, or if it were to discover other problems in addition to the ones identified by the probe reviews that rose to actionable levels, we and certain of our officers might face potential criminal charges and/or civil claims, administrative sanctions and penalties for amounts that could be material to our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we and/or some of our key personnel could be temporarily or permanently excluded from future participation in state and federal healthcare reimbursement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. In any event, it is likely that a governmental investigation alone, regardless of its outcome, would divert material time, resources and attention from our management team and our staff, and could have a materially detrimental impact on our results of operations during and after any such investigation or proceedings.
In some cases, probe reviews can also result in a facility being temporarily placed on prepayment review of reimbursement claims, requiring additional documentation and adding steps and time to the reimbursement process for the affected facility. Failure to meet claim filing and documentation requirements during the prepayment review could subject a facility to an even more intensive “targeted review,” where a corrective action plan addressing perceived deficiencies must be prepared by the facility and approved by the fiscal intermediary. During a targeted review, additional claims are
21
reviewed pre-payment to ensure that the prescribed corrective actions are being followed. Failure to make corrections or to otherwise meet the claim documentation and submission requirements could eventually result in Medicare decertification. None of our operations are currently on prepayment review, although some may be placed on prepayment review in the future. We have no operations that are currently undergoing targeted review.
Separately, in 2006, the federal government introduced a program that utilizes independent contractors (other than the fiscal intermediaries) known as recovery audit contractors to identify and recoup Medicare overpayments. These recovery audit contractors are paid a contingent fee based on recoupments. In October 2008, this program was permanently implemented and from 2008 to the end of 2010 the program was expanded to all 50 states. We anticipate that the number of overpayment reviews will increase in the future, and that the reviewers could be more aggressive in making claims for recoupment. In 2006, one of our facilities was subjected to review under this program, resulting in a recoupment to the federal government of approximately $12,000. If future Medicare reviews result in significant refund payments to the federal government, it would have an adverse effect on our financial results.
Annual caps that limit the amounts that can be paid for outpatient therapy services rendered to any Medicare beneficiary may reduce our future revenue and profitability or cause us to incur losses.
Some of our rehabilitation therapy revenue is paid by the Medicare Part B program under a fee schedule. Congress has established annual caps that limit the amounts that can be paid (including deductible and coinsurance amounts) for rehabilitation therapy services rendered to any Medicare beneficiary under Medicare Part B. The BBA requires a combined cap for physical therapy and speech-language pathology and a separate cap for occupational therapy.
The DRA directs Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a process to allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services provided on or after January 1, 2006 for patients with certain conditions or multiple complexities whose therapy services are reimbursed under Medicare Part B. A significant portion of the residents in our skilled nursing facilities and patients served by our rehabilitation therapy programs whose therapy is reimbursed under Medicare Part B have qualified for the exceptions to these reimbursement caps. DRA added Sec. 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act and directed them to develop a process that allows exceptions for Medicare beneficiaries to therapy caps when continued therapy is deemed medically necessary. The therapy cap exception was reauthorized in a number of subsequent laws, most recently as part of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, which extends the exceptions process through December 31, 2011.
The application of annual caps, or the discontinuation of exceptions to the annual caps, could have an adverse effect on our rehabilitation therapy revenue. Additionally, the exceptions to these caps may not be extended beyond December 31, 2011, which could also have an adverse effect on our revenue after that date.
We are subject to extensive and complex federal and state government laws and regulations which could change at any time and increase our cost of doing business and subject us to enforcement actions.
We, along with other companies in the healthcare industry, are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things:
|
•
|
facility and professional licensure, certificates of need, permits and other government approvals;
|
|
•
|
adequacy and quality of healthcare services;
|
|
•
|
qualifications of healthcare and support personnel;
|
|
•
|
quality of medical equipment;
|
|
•
|
confidentiality, maintenance and security issues associated with medical records and claims processing;
|
|
•
|
relationships with physicians and other referral sources and recipients;
|
|
•
|
constraints on protective contractual provisions with patients and third-party payors;
|
|
•
|
operating policies and procedures;
|
|
•
|
certification of additional facilities by the Medicare program; and
|
22
|
•
|
payment for services.
|
The laws and regulations governing our operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how we do business, the services we offer, and our interactions with patients and other healthcare providers. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent change. We believe that such regulations may increase in the future and we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or impact on us of any healthcare reform legislation. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or the enactment of new laws or regulations, could negatively impact our business. If we fail to comply with these applicable laws and regulations, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties and other detrimental consequences, including denial of reimbursement, imposition of fines, temporary suspension of admission of new patients, suspension or decertification from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, restrictions on our ability to acquire new facilities or expand or operate existing facilities, the loss of our licenses to operate and the loss of our ability to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs.
We are subject to federal and state laws, such as the Federal False Claims Act, state false claims acts, the illegal remuneration provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal anti-kickback laws, state anti-kickback laws, and the federal “Stark” laws, that govern financial and other arrangements among healthcare providers, their owners, vendors and referral sources, and that are intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse. Among other things, these laws prohibit kickbacks, bribes and rebates, as well as other direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements that are designed to induce the referral of patients to a particular provider for medical products or services payable by any federal healthcare program, and prohibit presenting a false or misleading claim for payment under a federal or state program. They also prohibit some physician self-referrals. Possible sanctions for violation of any of these restrictions or prohibitions include loss of eligibility to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs and civil and criminal penalties. Changes in these laws could increase our cost of doing business. If we fail to comply, even inadvertently, with any of these requirements, we could be required to alter our operations, refund payments to the government, enter into corporate integrity, deferred prosecution or similar agreements with state or federal government agencies, and become subject to significant civil and criminal penalties.
In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
We are also required to comply with state and federal laws governing the transmission, privacy and security of health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires us to comply with certain standards for the use of individually identifiable health information within our company, and the disclosure and electronic transmission of such information to third parties, such as payors, business associates and patients. These include standards for common electronic healthcare transactions and information, such as claim submission, plan eligibility determination, payment information submission and the use of electronic signatures; unique identifiers for providers, employers and health plans; and the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information. In addition, some states have enacted comparable or, in some cases, more stringent privacy and security laws. If we fail to comply with these state and federal laws, we could be subject to criminal penalties and civil sanctions and be forced to modify our policies and procedures.
Our failure to obtain or renew required regulatory approvals or licenses or to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the suspension or revocation of our licenses or our disqualification from participation in federal and state reimbursement programs, or the imposition of other harsh enforcement sanctions could increase our cost of doing business and expose us to potential sanctions. Furthermore, if we were to lose licenses or certifications for any of our facilities as a result of regulatory action or otherwise, we could be deemed to be in default under some of our agreements, including agreements governing outstanding indebtedness and lease obligations.
23
Legislative reforms to investor and customer standards will impose new requirements upon us and increase our costs of doing business.
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1.0 million in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”
Increased civil and criminal enforcement efforts of government agencies against skilled nursing facilities could harm our business, and could preclude us from participating in federal healthcare programs.
Both federal and state government agencies have heightened and coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts as part of numerous ongoing investigations of healthcare companies and, in particular, skilled nursing facilities. The focus of these investigations includes, among other things:
|
•
|
cost reporting and billing practices;
|
|
•
|
quality of care;
|
|
•
|
financial relationships with referral sources; and
|
|
•
|
medical necessity of services provided.
|
If any of our facilities is decertified or loses its licenses, our revenue, financial condition or results of operations would be adversely affected. In addition, the report of such issues at any of our facilities could harm our reputation for quality care and lead to a reduction in our patient referrals and ultimately a reduction in occupancy at these facilities. Also, responding to enforcement efforts would divert material time, resources and attention from our management team and our staff, and could have a materially detrimental impact on our results of operations during and after any such investigation or proceedings, regardless of whether we prevail on the underlying claim.
Federal law provides that practitioners, providers and related persons may not participate in most federal healthcare programs, including the Medicaid and Medicare programs, if the individual or entity has been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of a product or service under these programs or if the individual or entity has been convicted under state or federal law of a criminal offense relating to neglect or abuse of patients in connection with the delivery of a healthcare product or service. Other individuals or entities may be, but are not required to be, excluded from such programs under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:
|
•
|
medical necessity of services provided;
|
|
•
|
conviction related to fraud;
|
|
•
|
conviction relating to obstruction of an investigation;
|
|
•
|
conviction relating to a controlled substance;
|
|
•
|
licensure revocation or suspension;
|
|
•
|
exclusion or suspension from state or other federal healthcare programs;
|
|
•
|
filing claims for excessive charges or unnecessary services or failure to furnish medically necessary services;
|
|
•
|
ownership or control of an entity by an individual who has been excluded from the Medicaid or Medicare programs, against whom a civil monetary penalty related to the Medicaid or Medicare programs has been assessed or who has been convicted of a criminal offense under federal healthcare programs; and
|
24
|
•
|
the transfer of ownership or control interest in an entity to an immediate family or household member in anticipation of, or following, a conviction, assessment or exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
|
The OIG, among other priorities, is responsible for identifying and eliminating fraud, abuse and waste in certain federal healthcare programs. The OIG has implemented a nationwide program of audits, inspections and investigations and from time to time issues “fraud alerts” to segments of the healthcare industry on particular practices that are vulnerable to abuse. The fraud alerts inform healthcare providers of potentially abusive practices or transactions that are subject to criminal activity and reportable to the OIG. An increasing level of resources has been devoted to the investigation of allegations of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and federal and state regulatory authorities are taking an increasingly strict view of the requirements imposed on healthcare providers by the Social Security Act and Medicaid and Medicare programs. Although we have created a corporate compliance program that we believe is consistent with the OIG guidelines, the OIG may modify its guidelines or interpret its guidelines in a manner inconsistent with our interpretation or the OIG may ultimately determine that our corporate compliance program is insufficient.
In some circumstances, if one facility is convicted of abusive or fraudulent behavior, then other facilities under common control or ownership may be decertified from participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs. Federal regulations prohibit any corporation or facility from participating in federal contracts if it or its principals have been barred, suspended or declared ineligible from participating in federal contracts. In addition, some state regulations provide that all facilities under common control or ownership licensed within a state may be de-licensed if one or more of the facilities are de-licensed. If any of our facilities were decertified or excluded from participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs, our revenue would be adversely affected.
In December 2010, the OIG released a report entitled “Questionable Billing by Skilled Nursing Facilities.” The report examined the billing practices of skilled nursing facilities based on Medicare Part A claims from 2006 to 2008 and found, among other things, that for-profit skilled nursing facilities were more likely to bill for higher paying therapy RUGs, particularly in the ultra high therapy categories, than government and not-for-profit operators. It also found that for-profit skilled nursing facilities showed a higher incidence of patients using RUGs with higher activities of daily living (ADL) scores, and had a “long” average length of stay among Part A beneficiaries, compared to their government and not-for-profit counterparts. The OIG recommended that CMS vigilantly monitor overall payments to skilled nursing facilities, adjust RUG rates annually, change the method for determining how much therapy is needed to ensure appropriate payments and conduct additional reviews for skilled nursing operators that exceed certain thresholds for higher paying therapy RUGs. CMS concurred with and agreed to take action on three of the four recommendations, declining only to change the methodology for assessing a patient's therapy needs. While the OIG report does not identify any particular skilled nursing operators, it indicated that the OIG would issue a separate memorandum to CMS listing 384 specific facilities that the OIG had identified as being in the top one percent for use of ultra high therapy, RUGs with high ADL scores, or “long” average lengths of stay, and CMS agreed to forward the list to the appropriate fiscal intermediaries or other contractors for follow up. Although we believe our therapy assessment and billing practices are consistent with applicable law and CMS requirements, we cannot predict the extent to which the OIGs recommendations to CMS will be implemented and, what effect, if any, such proposals would have on us. We are not aware of the identity of any facility that may have been listed for further review by the OIG or referred to the fiscal intermediaries or other contractors by CMS, and do not know if the OIG list includes any Ensign facility. Our business model, like those of some other for-profit operators, is based in part on seeking out higher-acuity patients whom we believe are generally more profitable, and over time our overall patient mix has consistently shifted to higher-acuity and higher-RUGs patients in most facilities we operate. We also use specialized care-delivery software that assists our caregivers in more accurately capturing and recording ADL services in order to, among other things, increase reimbursement to levels appropriate for the care actually delivered. These efforts may place us under greater scrutiny with the OIG, CMS, our fiscal intermediaries, recovery audit contractors and others, as well as other government agencies, unions, advocacy groups and others who seek to pursue their own mandates and agendas. Efforts by officials and others to make or advocate for any increase in regulatory monitoring and oversight, adversely change RUG rates, revise methodologies for assessing and treating patients, or conduct more frequent or intense reviews of our treatment and billing practices, could reduce our reimbursement, increase our costs of doing business and otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Public and governmental calls for increased survey and enforcement efforts against long-term care facilities could result in increased scrutiny by state and federal survey agencies.
CMS has undertaken several initiatives to increase or intensify Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, including federal oversight of state actions. CMS is taking steps to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to identify multi-facility providers with patterns of noncompliance. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services has adopted a rule that requires CMS to charge user fees to healthcare facilities cited during regular certification, recertification or
25
substantiated complaint surveys for deficiencies, which require a revisit to assure that corrections have been made. CMS is also increasing its oversight of state survey agencies and requiring state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified, to investigate complaints more promptly, and to survey facilities more consistently.
In addition, CMS has adopted, and is considering additional regulations expanding federal and state authority to impose civil monetary penalties in instances of noncompliance. When a facility is found to be deficient under state licensing and Medicaid and Medicare standards, sanctions may be threatened or imposed such as denial of payment for new Medicaid and Medicare admissions, civil monetary penalties, focused state and federal oversight and even loss of eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare participation or state licensure. Sanctions such as denial of payment for new admissions often are scheduled to go into effect before surveyors return to verify compliance. Generally, if the surveyors confirm that the facility is in compliance upon their return, the sanctions never take effect. However, if they determine that the facility is not in compliance, the denial of payment goes into effect retroactive to the date given in the original notice. This possibility sometimes leaves affected operators, including us, with the difficult task of deciding whether to continue accepting patients after the potential denial of payment date, thus risking the retroactive denial of revenue associated with those patients' care if the operators are later found to be out of compliance, or simply refusing admissions from the potential denial of payment date until the facility is actually found to be in compliance.
Facilities with otherwise acceptable regulatory histories generally are given an opportunity to correct deficiencies and continue their participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs by a certain date, usually within nine months, although where denial of payment remedies are asserted, such interim remedies go into effect much sooner. Facilities with deficiencies that immediately jeopardize patient health and safety and those that are classified as poor performing facilities, however, are not generally given an opportunity to correct their deficiencies prior to the imposition of remedies and other enforcement actions. Moreover, facilities with poor regulatory histories continue to be classified by CMS as poor performing facilities notwithstanding any intervening change in ownership, unless the new owner obtains a new Medicare provider agreement instead of assuming the facility's existing agreement. However, new owners (including us, historically) nearly always assume the existing Medicare provider agreement due to the difficulty and time delays generally associated with obtaining new Medicare certifications, especially in previously-certified locations with sub-par operating histories. Accordingly, facilities that have poor regulatory histories before we acquire them and that develop new deficiencies after we acquire them are more likely to have sanctions imposed upon them by CMS or state regulators. In addition, CMS has increased its focus on facilities with a history of serious quality of care problems through the special focus facility initiative. A facility's administrators and owners are notified when it is identified as a special focus facility. This information is also provided to the general public. The special focus facility designation is based in part on the facility's compliance history typically dating before our acquisition of the facility. Local state survey agencies recommend to CMS that facilities be placed on special focus status. A special focus facility receives heightened scrutiny and more frequent regulatory surveys. Failure to improve the quality of care can result in fines and termination from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. A facility “graduates” from the program once it demonstrates significant improvements in quality of care that are continued over time. We have had several facilities placed on special focus facility status, due largely or entirely to their respective regulatory histories prior to our acquisition of the operations, and have successfully graduated four facilities from the program to date. We currently have two facilities operating under special focus status.
State efforts to regulate or deregulate the healthcare services industry or the construction or expansion of healthcare facilities could impair our ability to expand our operations, or could result in increased competition.
Some states require healthcare providers, including skilled nursing facilities, to obtain prior approval, known as a certificate of need, for:
|
•
|
the purchase, construction or expansion of healthcare facilities;
|
|
•
|
capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount; or
|
|
•
|
changes in services or bed capacity.
|
In addition, other states that do not require certificates of need have effectively barred the expansion of existing facilities and the development of new ones by placing partial or complete moratoria on the number of new Medicaid beds they will certify in certain areas or in the entire state. Other states have established such stringent development standards and approval procedures for constructing new healthcare facilities that the construction of new facilities, or the expansion or renovation of existing facilities, may become cost-prohibitive or extremely time-consuming. Our ability to acquire or construct new facilities or expand or provide new services at existing facilities would be adversely affected if we are unable
26
to obtain the necessary approvals, if there are changes in the standards applicable to those approvals, or if we experience delays and increased expenses associated with obtaining those approvals. We may not be able to obtain licensure, certificate of need approval, Medicaid certification, or other necessary approvals for future expansion projects. Conversely, the elimination or reduction of state regulations that limit the construction, expansion or renovation of new or existing facilities could result in increased competition to us or result in overbuilding of facilities in some of our markets. If overbuilding in the skilled nursing industry in the markets in which we operate were to occur, it could reduce the occupancy rates of existing facilities and, in some cases, might reduce the private rates that we charge for our services.
Changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could increase our cost of doing business.
Our operations are subject to a variety of federal and state employment-related laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act which governs such matters as minimum wages, overtime and other working conditions, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar state laws that provide civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the context of employment, public accommodations and other areas, the National Labor Relations Act, regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regulations of the Office of Civil Rights, regulations of state Attorneys General, family leave mandates and a variety of similar laws enacted by the federal and state governments that govern these and other employment law matters. Because labor represents such a large portion of our operating costs, changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could increase our cost of doing business.
The compliance costs associated with these laws and evolving regulations could be substantial. For example, all of our facilities are required to comply with the ADA. The ADA has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial properties,” but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of government fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Further legislation may impose additional burdens or restrictions with respect to access by disabled persons. In addition, federal proposals to introduce a system of mandated health insurance and flexible work time and other similar initiatives could, if implemented, adversely affect our operations. We also may be subject to employee-related claims such as wrongful discharge, discrimination or violation of equal employment law. While we are insured for these types of claims, we could experience damages that are not covered by our insurance policies or that exceed our insurance limits, and we may be required to pay such damages directly, which would negatively impact our cash flow from operations.
Compliance with federal and state fair housing, fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unanticipated expenditures, which could be costly to us.
We must comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws, which prohibit us from discriminating against individuals if it would cause such individuals to face barriers in gaining residency in any of our facilities. Additionally, the Fair Housing Act and other similar state laws require that we advertise our services in such a way that we promote diversity and not limit it. We may be required, among other things, to change our marketing techniques to comply with these requirements.
In addition, we are required to operate our facilities in compliance with applicable fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations and food licensing or certification requirements as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies from time to time. Like other healthcare facilities, our skilled nursing facilities are subject to periodic surveys or inspections by governmental authorities to assess and assure compliance with regulatory requirements. Surveys occur on a regular (often annual or biannual) schedule, and special surveys may result from a specific complaint filed by a patient, a family member or one of our competitors. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements.
We depend largely upon reimbursement from third-party payors, and our revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted by any changes in the acuity mix of patients in our facilities as well as payor mix and payment methodologies.
Our revenue is affected by the percentage of our patients who require a high level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, and by our mix of payment sources. Changes in the acuity level of patients we attract, as well as our payor mix among Medicaid, Medicare, private payors and managed care companies, significantly affect our profitability because we generally receive higher reimbursement rates for high acuity patients and because the payors reimburse us at different rates. For the year ended December 31, 2010,
76.4%
of our revenue was provided by government payors that reimburse us at predetermined rates. If our labor or other operating costs increase, we will be unable to recover such increased costs from government payors. Accordingly, if we fail to maintain our
27
proportion of high acuity patients or if there is any significant increase in the percentage of our patients for whom we receive Medicaid reimbursement, our results of operations may be adversely affected.
Initiatives undertaken by major insurers and managed care companies to contain healthcare costs may adversely affect our business. These payors attempt to control healthcare costs by contracting with healthcare providers to obtain services on a discounted basis. We believe that this trend will continue and may limit reimbursements for healthcare services. If insurers or managed care companies from whom we receive substantial payments were to reduce the amounts they pay for services, we may lose patients if we choose not to renew our contracts with these insurers at lower rates.
Compliance with state and federal employment, immigration, licensing and other laws could increase our cost of doing business.
We have hired personnel, including skilled nurses and therapists, from outside the United States. If immigration laws are changed, or if new and more restrictive government regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security are enacted, our access to qualified and skilled personnel may be limited.
We operate in at least one state that requires us to verify employment eligibility using procedures and standards that exceed those required under federal Form I-9 and the statutes and regulations related thereto. Proposed federal regulations would extend similar requirements to all of the states in which our facilities operate. To the extent that such proposed regulations or similar measures become effective, and we are required by state or federal authorities to verify work authorization or legal residence for current and prospective employees beyond existing Form I-9 requirements and other statutes and regulations currently in effect, it may make it more difficult for us to recruit, hire and/or retain qualified employees, may increase our risk of non-compliance with state and federal employment, immigration, licensing and other laws and regulations and could increase our cost of doing business.
We are subject to litigation that could result in significant legal costs and large settlement amounts or damage awards.
The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of our patients and residents and the services we provide. We and others in our industry are subject to a large and increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that our services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The defense of these lawsuits has in the past, and may in the future, result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. Plaintiffs tend to sue every healthcare provider who may have been involved in the patient's care and, accordingly, we respond to multiple lawsuits and claims every year.
In addition, plaintiffs' attorneys have become increasingly more aggressive in their pursuit of claims against healthcare providers, including skilled nursing providers and other long-term care companies, and have employed a wide variety of advertising and publicity strategies. Among other things, these strategies include establishing their own Internet websites, paying for premium advertising space on other websites, paying Internet search engines to optimize their plaintiff solicitation advertising so that it appears in advantageous positions on Internet search results, including results from searches for our company and facilities, using newspaper, magazine and television ads targeted at customers of the healthcare industry generally, as well as at customers of specific providers, including us. From time to time, law firms claiming to specialize in long-term care litigation have named us, our facilities and other specific healthcare providers and facilities in their advertising and solicitation materials. These advertising and solicitation activities could result in more claims and litigation, which could increase our liability exposure and legal expenses, divert the time and attention of our personnel from day-to-day business operations, and materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, to the extent the frequency and/or severity of losses from such claims and suits increases, our liability insurance premiums could increase and/or available insurance coverage levels could decline, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Certain lawsuits filed on behalf of patients of long-term care facilities for alleged negligence and/or alleged abuses have resulted in large damage awards against other companies, both in and related to our industry. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of class action suits filed against long-term and rehabilitative care companies. For example, the State of California has established minimum staffing requirements for facilities operating in the state. Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with the conditions of participation as established under relevant state and federal healthcare programs; it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a citation, civil money penalty, or the possibility of litigation. We are aware of one company in our industry that is subject to a substantial judgment in a class action suit as a result of not complying with minimum staffing laws.
28
A class action suit was previously filed against us in the State of California alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of our California facilities. In 2007, we settled this class action suit and this settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court. We have been, and continue to be, subject to similar claims and legal actions, which could possibly result in large damage awards and settlements. In the wake of the substantial judgment awarded by a jury to a group of plaintiffs in a recent case against one of our competitors, we expect that plaintiff's attorneys will become increasingly more aggressive in their pursuit of claims alleging non-compliance with such requirements. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of any known such action will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. However, if there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could have a material adverse effect to our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, we contract with a variety of landlords, lenders, vendors, suppliers, consultants and other individuals and businesses. These contracts typically contain covenants and default provisions. If the other party to one or more of our contracts were to allege that we have violated the contract terms, we could be subject to civil liabilities which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Were litigation to be instituted against one or more of our subsidiaries, a successful plaintiff might attempt to hold us or another subsidiary liable for the alleged wrongdoing of the subsidiary principally targeted by the litigation. If a court in such litigation decided to disregard the corporate form, the resulting judgment could increase our liability and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
On February 26, 2009, Congress reintroduced the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009. After failing to be enacted into law in the 110th Congress in 2008, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009 was introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the House and Senate judiciary committees in March 2009. The 111
th
Congress did not pass the bill and therefore has been cleared from the present agenda. We anticipate this bill will be reintroduced in the 112
th
Congress in 2011. If enacted, this bill would require, among other things, that agreements to arbitrate nursing home disputes be made after the dispute has arisen rather than before prospective residents move in, to prevent nursing home operators and prospective residents from mutually entering into a pre-admission pre-dispute arbitration agreement. We use arbitration agreements, which have generally been favored by the courts, to streamline the dispute resolution process and reduce our exposure to legal fees and excessive jury awards. If we are not able to secure pre-admission arbitration agreements, our litigation exposure and costs of defense in patient liability actions could increase, our liability insurance premiums could increase, and our business may be adversely affected.
The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation into the billing and reimbursement processes of some of our operating subsidiaries, which could adversely affect our operations and financial condition.
In March 2007, we and certain of our officers received a series of notices from our bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to our bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. Subsequently, in June of 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of our current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both we and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
On December 17, 2007, we were informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of our operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed our previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of our operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of our 82 facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. We also continue to sporadically receive anecdotal reports of former employees who have been contacted by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's office. Based on these events, we believe that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of our skilled nursing facilities.
29
Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) served search warrants on our Service Center and six of our Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. We have worked with the U.S. Attorney's office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. We and our regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney's office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office, and intend to continue working with them to the extent they will allow us to help move their inquiry forward. To our knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of its operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. We cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any
qui tam
litigation that may follow, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, we have not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a
qui tam
relator who elects to pursue the matter, and we are subjected to or alleged to be liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
We conducted an internal investigation into the billing and reimbursement processes of some of our operating subsidiaries. Future reviews could result in additional billing and reimbursement noncompliance, which would also decrease our revenue.
We initiated an internal investigation in November 2006 when we became aware of an allegation of possible reimbursement irregularities at one or more of our facilities. This investigation focused on 12 facilities, and included all six of the facilities which were covered by the warrants served in December 2008. We retained outside counsel to assist us in looking into these matters. We and our outside counsel concluded this investigation in February 2008 without identifying any systemic or patterns and practices of fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We made observations at certain facilities regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our recordkeeping and billing practices and have implemented measures, some of which were already underway before the investigation began, that we believe will strengthen our recordkeeping and billing processes. None of these additional findings or observations appears to be rooted in fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We continue to evaluate the measures we have implemented for effectiveness, and we are continuing to seek ways to improve these processes.
As a byproduct of our investigation we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located or for which other billing deficiencies existed. We, with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing, completed a billing review on these claims. To the extent missing documentation was not located, we treated the claims as overpayments. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, we record any charge for refunded payments against revenue in the period in which the claim adjustment becomes known.
From time to time our systems and controls highlight potential compliance issues, which we investigate as they arise. As a result of the detection by management at one of our facilities, and their Service Center support personnel, of possible recordkeeping and related irregularities at that facility, we initiated an internal inquiry in the second quarter of 2010.
We concluded the investigatory phase of this inquiry and completed a billing review of potentially affected claims in the third quarter of 2010. As a result of our billing reviews, we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located, or for which other billing deficiencies existed. Where accepted procedures and necessary data for reviewing and calculating potential overpayments were available, we followed such procedures and completed a billing review. Where such procedures and/or data were not available we developed a methodology for making a good faith estimate of potential overpayments with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing. The issues detected appear to be isolated to one facility and one department within that facility. During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, we remitted payment of approximately $0.5 million, plus interest, for the estimated overpayments described above, with a resulting impact to net income of approximately $0.3 million.
In addition, we made observations at the facility regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our historical recordkeeping and billing practices and have identified measures, some of which had already been implemented
30
before the inquiry began, that we believe have strengthened, and can strengthen further, our recordkeeping and billing processes.
If additional reviews result in identification and quantification of additional amounts to be refunded, we would accrue additional liabilities for claim costs and interest, and repay any amounts due in normal course. If future investigations ultimately result in findings of significant billing and reimbursement noncompliance which could require us to record significant additional provisions or remit payments, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of our board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the stockholders' interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring our response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
We may be unable to complete future facility acquisitions at attractive prices or at all, which may adversely affect our revenue; we may also elect to dispose of underperforming or non-strategic operations, which would also decrease our revenue.
To date, our revenue growth has been significantly driven by our acquisition of new facilities. Subject to general market conditions and the availability of essential resources and leadership within our company, we continue to seek both single-and multi-facility acquisition opportunities that are consistent with our geographic, financial and operating objectives.
We face competition for the acquisition of facilities and expect this competition to increase. Based upon factors such as our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, the purchase price of the facilities, prevailing market conditions, the availability of leadership to manage new facilities and our own willingness to take on new operations, the rate at which we have historically acquired facilities has fluctuated significantly. In the future, we anticipate the rate at which we may acquire facilities will continue to fluctuate, which may affect our revenue.
We have also historically acquired a few facilities, either because they were included in larger, indivisible groups of facilities or under other circumstances, which were or have proven to be non-strategic or less desirable, and we may consider disposing of such facilities or exchanging them for facilities which are more desirable. To the extent we dispose of such a facility without simultaneously acquiring a facility in exchange, our revenues might decrease.
We may not be able to successfully integrate acquired facilities into our operations, and we may not achieve the benefits we expect from any of our facility acquisitions.
We may not be able to successfully or efficiently integrate new acquisitions with our existing operations, culture and systems. The process of integrating acquired facilities into our existing operations may result in unforeseen operating difficulties, divert management's attention from existing operations, or require an unexpected commitment of staff and financial resources, and may ultimately be unsuccessful. Existing facilities available for acquisition frequently serve or target different markets than those that we currently serve. We also may determine that renovations of acquired facilities and changes in staff and operating management personnel are necessary to successfully integrate those facilities into our existing operations. We may not be able to recover the costs incurred to reposition or renovate newly acquired facilities. The financial benefits we expect to realize from many of our acquisitions are largely dependent upon our ability to improve clinical performance, overcome regulatory deficiencies, rehabilitate or improve the reputation of the facilities in the community, increase and maintain occupancy, control costs, and in some cases change the patient acuity mix. If we are unable to accomplish any of these objectives at facilities we acquire, we will not realize the anticipated benefits and we may experience lower than anticipated profits, or even losses.
In the year ended December 31, 2010, we acquired four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility which also offers independent living services and one home health and hospice operation with a total of 650 operational beds. In 2009 we acquired twelve skilled nursing facilities, one skilled nursing facility which also offers independent living and
31
hospice services, one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one assisted living facility with a total of 1,777 operational beds. This growth has placed and will continue to place significant demands on our current management resources. Our ability to manage our growth effectively and to successfully integrate new acquisitions into our existing business will require us to continue to expand our operational, financial and management information systems and to continue to retain, attract, train, motivate and manage key employees, including facility-level leaders and our local directors of nursing. We may not be successful in attracting qualified individuals necessary for future acquisitions to be successful, and our management team may expend significant time and energy working to attract qualified personnel to manage facilities we may acquire in the future. Also, the newly acquired facilities may require us to spend significant time improving services that have historically been substandard, and if we are unable to improve such facilities quickly enough, we may be subject to litigation and/or loss of licensure or certification. If we are not able to successfully overcome these and other integration challenges, we may not achieve the benefits we expect from any of our facility acquisitions, and our business may suffer.
In undertaking acquisitions, we may be adversely impacted by costs, liabilities and regulatory issues that may adversely affect our operations.
In undertaking acquisitions, we also may be adversely impacted by unforeseen liabilities attributable to the prior providers who operated those facilities, against whom we may have little or no recourse. Many facilities we have historically acquired were underperforming financially and had clinical and regulatory issues prior to and at the time of acquisition. Even where we have improved operations and patient care at facilities that we have acquired, we still may face post-acquisition regulatory issues related to pre-acquisition events. These may include, without limitation, payment recoupment related to our predecessors' prior noncompliance, the imposition of fines, penalties, operational restrictions or special regulatory status. Further, we may incur post-acquisition compliance risk due to the difficulty or impossibility of immediately or quickly bringing non-compliant facilities into full compliance. Diligence materials pertaining to acquisition targets, especially the underperforming facilities that often represent the greatest opportunity for return, are often inadequate, inaccurate or impossible to obtain, sometimes requiring us to make acquisition decisions with incomplete information. Despite our due diligence procedures, facilities that we have acquired or may acquire in the future may generate unexpectedly low returns, may cause us to incur substantial losses, may require unexpected levels of management time, expenditures or other resources, or may otherwise not meet a risk profile that our investors find acceptable. For example, in July of 2006 we acquired a facility that had a history of intermittent noncompliance. Although the facility had already been surveyed once by the local state survey agency after being acquired by us, and that survey would have met the heightened requirements of the special focus facility program, based upon the facility's compliance history prior to our acquisition, in January 2008, state officials nevertheless recommended to CMS that the facility be placed on special focus facility status. In addition, in October of 2006, we acquired a facility which had a history of intermittent non-compliance. This facility was surveyed by the local state survey agency during the third quarter of 2008 and passed the heightened survey requirements of the special focus facility program. Both facilities have successfully graduated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Special Focus program. We currently have two facilities remaining on special focus facility status.
In addition, we might encounter unanticipated difficulties and expenditures relating to any of the acquired facilities, including contingent liabilities. For example, when we acquire a facility, we generally assume the facility's existing Medicare provider number for purposes of billing Medicare for services. If CMS later determined that the prior owner of the facility had received overpayments from Medicare for the period of time during which it operated the facility, or had incurred fines in connection with the operation of the facility, CMS could hold us liable for repayment of the overpayments or fines. If the prior operator is defunct or otherwise unable to reimburse us, we may be unable to recover these funds. We may be unable to improve every facility that we acquire. In addition, operation of these facilities may divert management time and attention from other operations and priorities, negatively impact cash flows, result in adverse or unanticipated accounting charges, or otherwise damage other areas of our company if they are not timely and adequately improved.
We also incur regulatory risk in acquiring certain facilities due to the licensing, certification and other regulatory requirements affecting our right to operate the acquired facilities. For example, in order to acquire facilities on a predictable schedule, or to acquire declining operations quickly to prevent further pre-acquisition declines, we frequently acquire such facilities prior to receiving license approval or provider certification. We operate such facilities as the interim manager for the outgoing licensee, assuming financial responsibility, among other obligations for the facility. To the extent that we may be unable or delayed in obtaining a license, we may need to operate the facility under a management agreement from the prior operator. Any inability in obtaining consent from the prior operator of a target acquisition to utilizing its license in this manner could impact our ability to acquire additional facilities. If we were subsequently denied licensure or certification for any reason, we might not realize the expected benefits of the acquisition and would likely incur unanticipated costs and
32
other challenges which could cause our business to suffer.
Potential sanctions and remedies based upon alleged regulatory deficiencies could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We have received notices of potential sanctions and remedies based upon alleged regulatory deficiencies from time to time, and such sanctions have been imposed on some of our facilities. CMS has included two of our facilities on its recently released list of special focus facilities, which are described above, and other facilities may be identified for such status in the future, the sanctions for which involve increased scrutiny in the form of more frequent inspection visits from state regulators. From time to time, we have opted to voluntarily stop accepting new patients pending completion of a new state survey, in order to avoid possible denial of payment for new admissions during the deficiency cure period, or simply to avoid straining staff and other resources while retraining staff, upgrading operating systems or making other operational improvements. In the past, some of our facilities have been in denial of payment status due to findings of continued regulatory deficiencies, resulting in an actual loss of the revenue associated with the Medicare and Medicaid patients admitted after the denial of payment date. Additional sanctions could ensue and, if imposed, these sanctions, entailing various remedies up to and including decertification, would further negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
The intensified and evolving enforcement environment impacts providers like us because of the increase in the scope or number of inspections or surveys by governmental authorities and the severity of consequent citations for alleged failure to comply with regulatory requirements. We also divert personnel resources to respond to federal and state investigations and other enforcement actions. The diversion of these resources, including our management team, clinical and compliance staff, and others take away from the time and energy that these individuals could otherwise spend on routine operations. As noted, from time to time in the ordinary course of business, we receive deficiency reports from state and federal regulatory bodies resulting from such inspections or surveys. The focus of these deficiency reports tends to vary from year to year. Although most inspection deficiencies are resolved through an agreed-upon plan of corrective action, the reviewing agency typically has the authority to take further action against a licensed or certified facility, which could result in the imposition of fines, imposition of a provisional or conditional license, suspension or revocation of a license, suspension or denial of payment for new admissions, loss of certification as a provider under state or federal healthcare programs, or imposition of other sanctions, including criminal penalties. In the past, we have experienced inspection deficiencies that have resulted in the imposition of a provisional license and could experience these results in the future. We currently have no facilities operating under provisional licenses which were the result of inspection deficiencies.
Furthermore, in some states, citations in one facility impact other facilities in the state. Revocation of a license at a given facility could therefore impair our ability to obtain new licenses or to renew existing licenses at other facilities, which may also trigger defaults or cross-defaults under our leases and our credit arrangements, or adversely affect our ability to operate or obtain financing in the future. If state or federal regulators were to determine, formally or otherwise, that one facility's regulatory history ought to impact another of our existing or prospective facilities, this could also increase costs, result in increased scrutiny by state and federal survey agencies, and even impact our expansion plans. Therefore, our failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements in any single facility could negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations as a whole.
Termination of our patient admission agreements and the resulting vacancies in our facilities could cause revenue at our facilities to decline.
Most state regulations governing skilled nursing and assisted living facilities require written patient admission agreements with each patient. Several of these regulations also require that each patient have the right to terminate the patient agreement for any reason and without prior notice. Consistent with these regulations, all of our skilled nursing patient agreements allow patients to terminate their agreements without notice, and all of our assisted living resident agreements allow residents to terminate their agreements upon thirty days' notice. Patients and residents terminate their agreements from time to time for a variety of reasons, causing some fluctuations in our overall occupancy as patients and residents are admitted and discharged in normal course. If an unusual number of patients or residents elected to terminate their agreements within a short time, occupancy levels at our facilities could decline. As a result, beds may be unoccupied for a period of time, which would have a negative impact on our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
33
We face significant competition from other healthcare providers and may not be successful in attracting patients and residents to our facilities.
The skilled nursing and assisted living industries are highly competitive, and we expect that these industries may become increasingly competitive in the future. Our skilled nursing facilities compete primarily on a local and regional basis with many long-term care providers, from national and regional multi-facility providers that have substantially greater financial resources to small providers who operate a single nursing facility. We also compete with other skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and with inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, home healthcare and other similar services and care alternatives. Increased competition could limit our ability to attract and retain patients, attract and retain skilled personnel, maintain or increase private pay and managed care rates or expand our business. Our ability to compete successfully varies from location to location depending upon a number of factors, including:
|
•
|
our ability to attract and retain qualified facility leaders, nursing staff and other employees;
|
|
•
|
the number of competitors in the local market;
|
|
•
|
the types of services available;
|
|
•
|
our local reputation for quality care of patients;
|
|
•
|
the commitment and expertise of our staff;
|
|
•
|
our local service offerings;
|
|
•
|
the cost of care in each locality; and
|
|
•
|
the physical appearance, location, age and condition of our facilities.
|
We may not be successful in attracting patients to our facilities, particularly Medicare, managed care, and private pay patients who generally come to us at higher reimbursement rates. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than us, may have greater brand recognition and may be more established in their respective communities than we are. Competing skilled nursing companies may also offer newer facilities or different programs or services than we do and may thereby attract current or potential patients. Other competitors may have lower expenses or other competitive advantages, and, therefore, present significant price competition for managed care and private pay patients. In addition, some of our competitors operate on a not-for-profit basis or as charitable organizations and have the ability to finance capital expenditures on a tax-exempt basis or through the receipt of charitable contributions, neither of which are available to us.
If we do not achieve and maintain competitive quality of care ratings from CMS and private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, or if the frequency of CMS surveys and enforcement sanctions increases, our business may be negatively affected.
CMS, as well as certain private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, provides comparative data available to the public on its web site, rating every skilled nursing facility operating in each state based upon quality-of-care indicators. These quality-of-care indicators include such measures as percentages of patients with infections, bedsores and unplanned weight loss. In addition, CMS has undertaken an initiative to increase Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to require state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified. For example, two of our facilities are now surveyed every nine months instead of every 12 to 15 months as a result of historical survey results that may date back to prior operators. We have found a correlation between negative Medicaid and Medicare surveys and the incidence of professional liability litigation. From time to time, we experience a higher than normal number of negative survey findings in some of our facilities.
In December 2008, CMS introduced the Five-Star Quality Rating System to help consumers, their families and caregivers compare nursing homes more easily. The Five-Star Quality Rating System gives each nursing home a rating of between one and five stars in various categories. In cases of acquisitions, the previous operator's clinical ratings are
34
included in our overall Five-Star Quality Rating. The prior operator's results will impact our rating until we have sufficient clinical measurements subsequent to the acquisition date. If we are unable to achieve quality of care ratings that are comparable or superior to those of our competitors, our ability to attract and retain patients could be adversely affected.
In some states, the law prohibits or limits insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional liability and general liability claims or litigation. Coverage for punitive damages is also excluded under some insurance policies. As a result, we may be liable for punitive damage awards in these states that either are not covered or are in excess of our insurance policy limits. Claims against us, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, also could inhibit our ability to attract patients or expand our business, and could require our management to devote time to matters unrelated to the day-to-day operation of our business.
If we are unable to obtain insurance, or if insurance becomes more costly for us to obtain, our business may be adversely affected.
It may become more difficult and costly for us to obtain coverage for resident care liabilities and other risks, including property and casualty insurance. For example, the following circumstances may adversely affect our ability to obtain insurance at favorable rates:
|
•
|
we experience higher-than-expected professional liability, property and casualty, or other types of claims or losses;
|
|
•
|
we receive survey deficiencies or citations of higher-than-normal scope or severity;
|
|
•
|
we acquire especially troubled operations or facilities that present unattractive risks to current or prospective insurers;
|
|
•
|
insurers tighten underwriting standards applicable to us or our industry; or
|
|
•
|
insurers or reinsurers are unable or unwilling to insure us or the industry at historical premiums and coverage levels.
|
If any of these potential circumstances were to occur, our insurance carriers may require us to significantly increase our self-insured retention levels or pay substantially higher premiums for the same or reduced coverage for insurance, including workers compensation, property and casualty, automobile, employment practices liability, directors and officers liability, employee healthcare and general and professional liability coverages.
With few exceptions, workers' compensation and employee health insurance costs have also increased markedly in recent years. To partially offset these increases, we have increased the amounts of our self-insured retention (SIR) and deductibles in connection with general and professional liability claims. We also have implemented a self-insurance program for workers compensation in California, and elected non-subscriber status for workers compensation in Texas. If we are unable to obtain insurance, or if insurance becomes more costly for us to obtain, or if the coverage levels we can economically obtain decline, our business may be adversely affected.
Our self-insurance programs may expose us to significant and unexpected costs and losses.
We have maintained general and professional liability insurance since 2002 and worker's compensation insurance since 2005 through a wholly-owned subsidiary insurance company, Standardbearer Insurance Company, Ltd. (Standardbearer), to insure our SIR and deductibles as part of a continually evolving overall risk management strategy. We establish the insurance loss reserves based on an estimation process that uses information obtained from both company-specific and industry data. The estimation process requires us to continuously monitor and evaluate the life cycle of the claims. Using data obtained from this monitoring and our assumptions about emerging trends, we, along with an independent actuary, develop information about the size of ultimate claims based on our historical experience and other available industry information. The most significant assumptions used in the estimation process include determining the trend in costs, the expected cost of claims incurred but not reported and the expected costs to settle or pay damages with respect to unpaid claims. It is possible, however, that the actual liabilities may exceed our estimates of loss. We may also experience an unexpectedly large number of successful claims or claims that result in costs or liability significantly in excess of our projections. For these and other reasons, our self-insurance reserves could prove to be inadequate, resulting in liabilities in excess of our available insurance and self-insurance. If a successful claim is made against us and it is not covered by our insurance or exceeds the insurance policy limits, our business may be negatively and materially impacted.
35
Further, because our SIR under our general and professional liability and workers compensation programs applies on a per claim basis, there is no limit to the maximum number of claims or the total amount for which we could incur liability in any policy period.
In May 2006, we began self-insuring our employee health benefits. With respect to our health benefits self-insurance, our reserves and premiums are computed based on a mix of company specific and general industry data that is not specific to our own company. Even with a combination of limited company-specific loss data and general industry data, our loss reserves are based on actuarial estimates that may not correlate to actual loss experience in the future. Therefore, our reserves may prove to be insufficient and we may be exposed to significant and unexpected losses.
The geographic concentration of our facilities could leave us vulnerable to an economic downturn, regulatory changes or acts of nature in those areas.
Our facilities located in California and Arizona account for the majority of our total revenue. As a result of this concentration, the conditions of local economies, changes in governmental rules, regulations and reimbursement rates or criteria, changes in demographics, state funding, acts of nature and other factors that may result in a decrease in demand and/or reimbursement for skilled nursing services in these states could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our revenue, costs and results of operations. Moreover, since approximately 40% of our facilities are located in California, we are particularly susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes or mudslides. In addition, to the extent we acquire additional facilities in Texas, we become more susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by hurricanes or flooding. Any significant loss due to a natural disaster may not be covered by insurance or may exceed our insurance limits and may also lead to an increase in the cost of insurance.
The actions of a national labor union that has pursued a negative publicity campaign criticizing our business in the past may adversely affect our revenue and our profitability.
We continue to maintain our right to inform our employees about our views of the potential impact of unionization upon the workplace generally and upon individual employees. With one exception, to our knowledge the staffs at our facilities that have been approached to unionize have uniformly rejected union organizing efforts. If employees decide to unionize, our cost of doing business could increase, and we could experience contract delays, difficulty in adapting to a changing regulatory and economic environment, cultural conflicts between unionized and non-unionized employees, strikes and work stoppages, and we may conclude that affected facilities or operations would be uneconomical to continue operating.
The unwillingness on the part of both our management and staff to accede to union demands for “neutrality” and other concessions has resulted in a negative labor campaign by at least one labor union, the Service Employees International Union. From 2002 to 2007, this union, and individuals and organizations allied with or sympathetic to this union actively prosecuted a negative retaliatory publicity action, also known as a “corporate campaign,” against us and filed, promoted or participated in multiple legal actions against us. The union's campaign asserted, among other allegations, poor treatment of patients, inferior medical services provided by our employees, poor treatment of our employees, and health code violations by us. In addition, the union has publicly mischaracterized actions taken by the DHS against us and our facilities. In numerous cases, the union's allegations created the false impression that violations and other events that occurred at facilities prior to our acquisition of those facilities were caused by us. Since a large component of our business involves acquiring underperforming and distressed facilities, and improving the quality of operations at these facilities, we may have been associated with the past poor performance of these facilities. To the extent this union or another elects to directly or indirectly prosecute a corporate campaign against us or any of our facilities, our business could be negatively affected.
It has issued in the past, and may again issue in the future, public statements alleging that we or other for-profit skilled nursing operators have engaged in unfair, questionable or illegal practices in various areas, including staffing, patient care, patient evaluation and treatment, billing and other areas and activities related to the industry and our operations. We continue to anticipate similar criticisms, charges and other negative publicity from such sources on a regular basis, particularly in the current political environment and following the recent December 2010 OIG report entitled “Questionable Billing by Skilled Nursing Facilities,” which found, among other things, that for-profit skilled nursing facilities were more likely to bill for higher paying therapy RUGs, particularly in the ultra high therapy categories, than government and not-for-profit operators, and that for-profit skilled nursing facilities showed a higher incidence of patients using RUGs with higher ADL scores, and had a longer average length of stay among Part A beneficiaries, than their government and not-for-profit counterparts. Even though no specific facility is named in the report, such reports provide unions and their allies with additional opportunities to make negative statements about, and to encourage regulators to seek investigatory and enforcement actions against, the industry in
36
general and non-union operators like us specifically. Although we believe that our operations and business practices substantially conform to applicable laws and regulations, we cannot predict the extent to which we might be subject to adverse publicity or calls for increased regulatory scrutiny from union and union ally sources, or what effect, if any, such negative publicity would have on us, but to the extent they are successful, our revenue may be reduced, our costs may be increased and our profitability and business could be adversely affected.
This union has also attempted to pressure hospitals, doctors, insurers and other healthcare providers and professionals to cease doing business with or referring patients to us. If this union or another union is successful in convincing our patients, their families or our referral sources to reduce or cease doing business with us, our revenue may be reduced and our profitability could be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to attract and retain qualified staff due to negative public relations efforts by this or other union organizations, our quality of service and our revenue and profits could decline. Our strategy for responding to union allegations involves clear public disclosure of the union's identity, activities and agenda, and rebuttals to its negative campaign.
Our ability to respond to unions, however, may be limited by some state laws, which purport to make it illegal for any recipient of state funds to promote or deter union organizing. For example, such a state law passed by the California Legislature was successfully challenged on the grounds that it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, only to have the challenge overturned by the Ninth Circuit in 2006 before being ultimately upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2008. In addition, proposed legislation making it more difficult for employees and their supervisors to educate co-workers and oppose unionization, such as the proposed Employee Free Choice Act which would allow organizing on a single “card check” and without a secret ballot and similar changes to federal law, regulation and labor practice being advocated by unions and considered by Congress and the National Labor Relations Board, could make it more difficult to maintain union-free workplaces in our facilities. If proponents of these and similar laws are successful in facilitating unionization procedures or hindering employer responses thereto, our ability to oppose unionization efforts could be hindered, and our business could be negatively affected.
A number of our facilities are operated under master lease arrangements or leases that contain cross-default provisions, and in some cases the breach of a single facility lease could subject multiple facilities to the same risk.
We currently occupy approximately 7% of our facilities under agreements that are structured as master leases. Under a master lease, we may lease a large number of geographically dispersed properties through an indivisible lease. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord. Failure to comply with Medicare or Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of our master lease and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in our outstanding debt arrangements and other leases, which would have a negative impact on our capital structure and our ability to generate future revenue, and could interfere with our ability to pursue our growth strategy.
In addition, we occupy approximately 13% of our facilities under individual facility leases that are held by the same or related landlords, the largest of which covers five of our facilities. These leases typically contain cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to one or more other locations, potentially subjecting us to the various remedies available to the landlords under each of the related leases.
Failure to generate sufficient cash flow to cover required payments or meet operating covenants under our long-term debt, mortgages and long-term operating leases could result in defaults under such agreements and cross-defaults under other debt, mortgage or operating lease arrangements, which could harm our operations and cause us to lose facilities or experience foreclosures.
At December 31, 2010, we had
$143.6
million of outstanding indebtedness under our Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (the Amended Term Loan), our Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the Revolver), promissory notes, bonds and mortgage notes, plus
$141.5
million of operating lease obligations. We intend to continue financing our facilities through mortgage financing, long-term operating leases and other types of financing, including borrowings under our lines of credit and future credit facilities we may obtain.
We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover required interest, principal and lease payments. In addition, from time to time the financial performance of one or more of our mortgaged facilities may not comply with the required operating covenants under the terms of the mortgage. Any non-payment, noncompliance or other default under our financing arrangements could, subject to cure provisions, cause the lender to foreclose upon the facility or facilities securing such indebtedness or, in the case of a lease, cause the lessor to terminate the lease, each with a consequent loss of revenue and asset value to us or a loss of property. Furthermore, in many cases, indebtedness is secured by both a mortgage
37
on one or more facilities, and a guaranty by us. In the event of a default under one of these scenarios, the lender could avoid judicial procedures required to foreclose on real property by declaring all amounts outstanding under the guaranty immediately due and payable, and requiring us to fulfill our obligations to make such payments. If any of these scenarios were to occur, our financial condition would be adversely affected. For tax purposes, a foreclosure on any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds, which would negatively impact our earnings and cash position. Further, because our mortgages and operating leases generally contain cross-default and cross-collateralization provisions, a default by us related to one facility could affect a significant number of other facilities and their corresponding financing arrangements and operating leases.
Because our term loan, promissory notes, bonds, mortgages and lease obligations are fixed expenses and secured by specific assets, and because our revolving loan obligations are secured by virtually all of our assets, if reimbursement rates, patient acuity mix or occupancy levels decline, or if for any reason we are unable to meet our loan or lease obligations, we may not be able to cover our costs and some or all of our assets may become at risk. Our ability to make payments of principal and interest on our indebtedness and to make lease payments on our operating leases depends upon our future performance, which will be subject to general economic conditions, industry cycles and financial, business and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases, we may be required, among other things, to seek additional financing in the debt or equity markets, refinance or restructure all or a portion of our indebtedness, sell selected assets, reduce or delay planned capital expenditures or delay or abandon desirable acquisitions. Such measures might not be sufficient to enable us to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases. The failure to make required payments on our debt or operating leases or the delay or abandonment of our planned growth strategy could result in an adverse effect on our future ability to generate revenue and sustain profitability. In addition, any such financing, refinancing or sale of assets might not be available on terms that are economically favorable to us, or at all.
Our existing credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and any default under such facilities or loans could result in a freeze on additional advances, the acceleration of indebtedness, the termination of leases, or cross-defaults, any of which would negatively impact our liquidity and inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue.
Our outstanding credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and require us to maintain or satisfy specified coverage tests on a consolidated basis and on a facility or facilities basis. These restrictions and operating covenants include, among other things, requirements with respect to occupancy, debt service coverage and project yield. The debt service coverage ratios are generally calculated as revenue less operating costs, including an implied management fee and a reserve for capital expenditures, divided by the outstanding principal and accrued interest under the debt. These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain additional advances under existing credit facilities or to obtain new financing or to engage in other business activities, which may inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue. At times in the past we have failed to timely deliver audited financial statements to our lender as required under our loan covenants. In each such case, we obtained waivers from our lender. In addition, in December 2000, we were unable to make balloon payments due under two mortgages on one of our facilities, but we were able to negotiate extensions with both lenders, and paid off both loans in January 2001 as required by the terms of the extensions. If we fail to comply with any of our loan requirements, or if we experience any defaults, then the related indebtedness could become immediately due and payable prior to its stated maturity date. We may not be able to pay this debt if it becomes immediately due and payable.
If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health or hospice industries, we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience.
The majority of our facilities have historically been skilled nursing facilities. If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health and hospice industries or other relevant long term care service, our existing overall business model would change and we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience. Although assisted living operations generally have lower costs and higher margins than skilled nursing, they typically generate lower overall revenue than skilled nursing operations. In addition, assisted living revenue is derived primarily from private payors as opposed to government reimbursement. In most states, skilled nursing, assisted living, home health and hospice are regulated by different agencies, and we have less experience with the agencies that regulate assisted living, home health and hospice. In general, we believe that assisted living is a more competitive industry than skilled nursing. If we decided to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health and hospice industries, we might have to adjust part
38
of our existing business model, which could have an adverse effect on our business.
If our referral sources fail to view us as an attractive skilled nursing provider, or if our referral sources otherwise refer fewer patients, our patient base may decrease.
We rely significantly on appropriate referrals from physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers in the communities in which we deliver our services to attract appropriate residents and patients to our facilities. Our referral sources are not obligated to refer business to us and may refer business to other healthcare providers. We believe many of our referral sources refer business to us as a result of the quality of our patient care and our efforts to establish and build a relationship with our referral sources. If we lose, or fail to maintain, existing relationships with our referral resources, fail to develop new relationships, or if we are perceived by our referral sources as not providing high quality patient care, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer. In addition, if any of our referral sources have a reduction in patients whom they can refer due to a decrease in their business, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer.
We may need additional capital to fund our operations and finance our growth, and we may not be able to obtain it on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which may limit our ability to grow.
Our ability to maintain and enhance our facilities and equipment in a suitable condition to meet regulatory standards, operate efficiently and remain competitive in our markets requires us to commit substantial resources to continued investment in our facilities and equipment. We are sometimes more aggressive than our competitors in capital spending to address issues that arise in connection with aging and obsolete facilities and equipment. In addition, continued expansion of our business through the acquisition of existing facilities, expansion of our existing facilities and construction of new facilities may require additional capital, particularly if we were to accelerate our acquisition and expansion plans. Financing may not be available to us or may be available to us only on terms that are not favorable. In addition, some of our outstanding indebtedness and long-term leases restrict, among other things, our ability to incur additional debt. If we are unable to raise additional funds or obtain additional funds on terms acceptable to us, we may have to delay or abandon some or all of our growth strategies. Further, if additional funds are raised through the issuance of additional equity securities, the percentage ownership of our stockholders would be diluted. Any newly issued equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of our common stock.
The condition of the financial markets, including volatility and deterioration in the capital and credit markets, could limit the availability of debt and equity financing sources to fund the capital and liquidity requirements of our business.
Financial markets experienced significant disruptions from 2008 through 2010. These disruptions impacted liquidity in the debt markets, making financing terms for borrowers less attractive and, in certain cases, significantly reducing the availability of certain types of debt financing. As a result of these market conditions, the cost and availability of credit has been and may continue to be adversely affected by illiquid credit markets and wider credit spreads. Concern about the stability of the markets has led many lenders and institutional investors to reduce, and in some cases, cease to provide credit to borrowers. These factors have led to a decrease in spending by businesses and consumers alike. Continued turbulence in the U.S. and prolonged declines in business and consumer spending may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition. Though we anticipate that the cash amounts generated internally, together with amounts available under the Revolver, will be sufficient to implement our business plan for the foreseeable future, we may need additional capital if a substantial acquisition or other growth opportunity becomes available or if unexpected events occur or opportunities arise. We cannot assure you that additional capital will be available or available on terms favorable to us. If capital is not available, we may not be able to fund internal or external business expansion or respond to competitive pressures or other market conditions.
Delays in reimbursement may cause liquidity problems.
If we experience problems with our information systems or if issues arise with Medicare, Medicaid or other payors, we may encounter delays in our payment cycle. From time to time, we have experienced such delays as a result of government payors instituting planned reimbursement delays for budget balancing purposes or as a result of prepayment reviews. For example, in 2008, California delayed any reimbursement subsequent to the end of July until such time as the budget was enacted. Further, and independent to the budget impasse, the State of California delayed all August 2008 payments until September. We cannot predict whether similar reimbursement delays will continue in future fiscal years. Medi-Cal had also delayed the release of the reimbursement rates which were announced in January 2010. These rate increases were put in place on a retrospective basis, effective August 1, 2009. In January 2009, the State of California announced expected cash shortages in February which impacted payments to Medi-Cal providers from late March through
39
April. Any future timing delay may cause working capital shortages. As a result, working capital management, including prompt and diligent billing and collection, is an important factor in our results of operations and liquidity. Our working capital management procedures may not successfully ameliorate the effects of any delays in our receipt of payments or reimbursements. Accordingly, such delays could have an adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition.
Compliance with the regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may require us to make unanticipated expenditures which could increase our costs.
Four of our facilities are currently subject to regulatory agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that give the Commissioner of HUD broad authority to require us to be replaced as the operator of those facilities in the event that the Commissioner determines there are operational deficiencies at such facilities under HUD regulations. In 2006, one of our HUD-insured mortgaged facilities did not pass its HUD inspection. Following an unsuccessful appeal of the decision, we requested a re-inspection. The re-inspection occurred in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the facility passed its HUD re-inspection. Compliance with HUD's requirements can often be difficult because these requirements are not always consistent with the requirements of other federal and state agencies. Appealing a failed inspection can be costly and time-consuming and, if we do not successfully remediate the failed inspection, we could be precluded from obtaining HUD financing in the future or we may encounter limitations or prohibitions on our operation of HUD-insured facilities.
Failure to comply with existing environmental laws could result in increased expenditures, litigation and potential loss to our business and in our asset value.
Our operations are subject to regulations under various federal, state and local environmental laws, primarily those relating to the handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of medical waste; the identification and warning of the presence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, as well as the encapsulation or removal of such materials; and the presence of other substances in the indoor environment.
Our facilities generate infectious or other hazardous medical waste due to the illness or physical condition of the patients. Each of our facilities has an agreement with a waste management company for the proper disposal of all infectious medical waste, but the use of a waste management company does not immunize us from alleged violations of such laws for operations for which we are responsible even if carried out by a third party, nor does it immunize us from third-party claims for the cost to cleanup disposal sites at which such wastes have been disposed.
Some of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may have asbestos-containing materials. Federal regulations require building owners and those exercising control over a building's management to identify and warn their employees and other employers operating in the building of potential hazards posed by workplace exposure to installed asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials in their buildings. Significant fines can be assessed for violation of these regulations. Building owners and those exercising control over a building's management may be subject to an increased risk of personal injury lawsuits. Federal, state and local laws and regulations also govern the removal, encapsulation, disturbance, handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials when such materials are in poor condition or in the event of construction, remodeling, renovation or demolition of a building. Such laws may impose liability for improper handling or a release into the environment of asbestos containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials and may provide for fines to, and for third parties to seek recovery from, owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or improper work exposure associated with asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials. The presence of asbestos-containing materials, or the failure to properly dispose of or remediate such materials, also may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain patients and staff, to borrow when using such property as collateral or to make improvements to such property.
The presence of mold, lead-based paint, underground storage tanks, contaminants in drinking water, radon and/or other substances at any of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may lead to the incurrence of costs for remediation, mitigation or the implementation of an operations and maintenance plan and may result in third party litigation for personal injury or property damage. Furthermore, in some circumstances, areas affected by mold may be unusable for periods of time for repairs, and even after successful remediation, the known prior presence of extensive mold could adversely affect the ability of a facility to retain or attract patients and staff and could adversely affect a facility's market value and ultimately could lead to the temporary or permanent closure of the facility.
If we fail to comply with applicable environmental laws, we would face increased expenditures in terms of fines and remediation of the underlying problems, potential litigation relating to exposure to such materials, and a potential decrease in value to our business and in the value of our underlying assets.
In addition, because environmental laws vary from state to state, expansion of our operations to states where we
40
do not currently operate may subject us to additional restrictions in the manner in which we operate our facilities.
If we fail to safeguard the monies held in our patient trust funds, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties.
Each of our facilities is required by federal law to maintain a patient trust fund to safeguard certain assets of their residents and patients. If any money held in a patient trust fund is misappropriated, we are required to reimburse the patient trust fund for the amount of money that was misappropriated. In 2005 we became aware of two separate and unrelated instances of employees misappropriating an aggregate of approximately $380,000 in patient trust funds, some of which was recovered from the employees and some of which we were required to reimburse from our funds. If any monies held in our patient trust funds are misappropriated in the future and are unrecoverable, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties pursuant to federal and state laws.
We are a holding company with no operations and rely upon our multiple independent operating subsidiaries to provide us with the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations. Liabilities of any one or more of our subsidiaries could be imposed upon us or our other subsidiaries.
We are a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. Each of our facilities is operated through a separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiary, which has its own management, employees and assets. Our principal assets are the equity interests we directly or indirectly hold in our multiple operating and real estate holding subsidiaries. As a result, we are dependent upon distributions from our subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and pay dividends. Our subsidiaries are legally distinct from us and have no obligation to make funds available to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us will depend substantially on their respective operating results and will be subject to restrictions under, among other things, the laws of their jurisdiction of organization, which may limit the amount of funds available for distribution to investors or shareholders, agreements of those subsidiaries, the terms of our financing arrangements and the terms of any future financing arrangements of our subsidiaries.
Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock
We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends and the failure to do so would adversely affect our stock price.
Our ability to pay and maintain cash dividends is based on many factors, including our ability to make and finance acquisitions, our ability to negotiate favorable lease and other contractual terms, anticipated operating cost levels, the level of demand for our beds, the rates we charge and actual results that may vary substantially from estimates. Some of the factors are beyond our control and a change in any such factor could affect our ability to pay or maintain dividends. In addition, the Revolver with the Lender restricts our ability to pay dividends to stockholders if we receive notice that we are in default under this agreement.
While we do not have a formal dividend policy, we currently intend to continue to pay regular quarterly dividends to the holders of our common stock, but future dividends will continue to be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on many factors, including our results of operations, financial condition and capital requirements, earnings, general business conditions, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements including pursuant to the loan and security agreement governing our revolving line of credit, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. From 2002 through 2010, we paid aggregate annual dividends equal to approximately 5% to 15% of our net income. We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends, and we may at any time elect not to pay dividends but to retain cash for other purposes. We also cannot assure you that the level of dividends will be maintained or increase over time or that increases in demand for our beds and monthly patient fees will increase our actual cash available for dividends to stockholders. It is possible that we may pay dividends in a future period that may exceed our net income for such period. The failure to pay or maintain dividends could adversely affect our stock price.
If the ownership of our common stock continues to be highly concentrated, it may prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and may result in conflicts of interest that could cause our stock price to decline.
Our current executive officers, directors and their affiliates, if they act together, will have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors' perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.
41
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.
The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for our stockholders.
The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. On some occasions in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending or settling the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management from our business.
Future offerings of debt or equity securities by us may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by offering debt or additional equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, series of preferred shares or shares of our common stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares, and lenders with respect to other borrowings, would receive a distribution of our available assets prior to any distribution to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their shareholdings in us. We also intend to continue to actively pursue acquisitions of facilities and may issue shares of stock in connection with these acquisitions.
Any shares issued in connection with our acquisitions, the exercise of outstanding stock options or otherwise would dilute the holdings of the investors who purchase our shares.
Failure to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could result in a restatement of our financial statements, cause investors to lose confidence in our financial statements and our company and have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.
We produce our consolidated financial statements in accordance with the requirements of GAAP. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports to help mitigate the risk of fraud and to operate successfully as a publicly traded company. As a public company, we are required to document and test our internal control procedures in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, which requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting.
Testing and maintaining internal controls can divert our management's attention from other matters that are important to our business. We may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able or willing to issue an unqualified report if we conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective. If either we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified report as required by Section 404, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and our company, which could result in a decline in the market price of our common stock, and cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations in the future, which in turn could impact our ability to raise additional financing if needed in the future.
The requirements of being a public company, including compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, may strain our resources, increase our costs and distract management, and we may be unable to comply with these
42
requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner.
As a public company, we need to comply with laws, regulations and requirements, certain corporate governance provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, related regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and requirements of NASDAQ. As a result, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. Complying with these statutes, regulations and requirements occupies a significant amount of the time of our board of directors and management, requires us to have additional finance and accounting staff, makes it difficult to attract and retain qualified officers and members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee, and makes some activities difficult, time consuming and costly.
If we are unable to fulfill the requirements related to being a public company in a timely and effective fashion, our ability to comply with our financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired. If our finance and accounting personnel insufficiently support us in fulfilling these public-company compliance obligations, or if we are unable to hire adequate finance and accounting personnel, we could face significant legal liability, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, if we identify any issues in complying with those requirements (for example, if we or our independent registered public accountants identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting), we could incur additional costs rectifying those issues, and the existence of those issues could adversely affect us, our reputation or investor perceptions of us.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage transactions resulting in a change in control, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.
In addition to the effect that the concentration of ownership by our significant stockholders may have, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that may enable our management to resist a change in control. These provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a change in the ownership of our company or a change in our management, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. In addition, these provisions could limit the price that investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Such provisions set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws include:
|
•
|
our board of directors are authorized, without prior stockholder approval, to create and issue preferred stock, commonly referred to as “blank check” preferred stock, with rights senior to those of common stock;
|
|
•
|
advance notice requirements for stockholders to nominate individuals to serve on our board of directors or to submit proposals that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings;
|
|
•
|
our board of directors are classified so not all members of our board are elected at one time, which may make it more difficult for a person who acquires control of a majority of our outstanding voting stock to replace our directors;
|
|
•
|
stockholder action by written consent is limited;
|
|
•
|
special meetings of the stockholders are permitted to be called only by the chairman of our board of directors, our chief executive officer or by a majority of our board of directors;
|
|
•
|
stockholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for the election of directors;
|
|
•
|
newly created directorships resulting from an increase in the authorized number of directors or vacancies on our board of directors are filled only by majority vote of the remaining directors;
|
|
•
|
our board of directors is expressly authorized to make, alter or repeal our bylaws; and
|
|
•
|
stockholders are permitted to amend our bylaws only upon receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of our outstanding common stock.
|
These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could discourage acquisition proposals and make it more difficult or expensive for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delaying or impeding a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving us. Any delay or prevention
43
of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
Item 1B.
Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
44
Item 2.
Properties
Service Center.
We currently lease 29,829 square feet of office space in Mission Viejo, California for our Service Center pursuant to a lease that expires in August 2019. We have two options to extend our lease term at this location for an additional five-year term for each option.
Facilities.
As of December 31, 2010, we operated
82
facilities in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Idaho, with the operational capacity to serve approximately
9,500
residents. Of the
82
facilities that we operated, we owned
52
facilities and leased
30
facilities pursuant to operating leases, eight of which contain purchase options that provide us with the right to purchase or agreements to purchase the facility in the future, which we believe will enable us to better control our occupancy costs over time. We currently do not manage any facilities for third parties and do not actively seek to manage facilities for others, except on a short-term basis pending receipt of new operating licenses by our operating subsidiaries.
The following table provides summary information regarding the number of operational beds at our facilities at
December 31, 2010
:
|
State
|
Leased without a Purchase Option
|
|
Purchase Agreement or Leased with a Purchase Option
|
|
Owned
|
|
Total Operational Beds
|
|||||
|
California
|
1,703
|
|
|
869
|
|
|
1,130
|
|
|
3,702
|
|
|
|
Arizona
|
579
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,235
|
|
|
1,814
|
|
|
|
Texas
|
112
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,957
|
|
|
2,069
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
222
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
745
|
|
|
967
|
|
|
|
Colorado
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
Idaho
|
—
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
246
|
|
|
|
Total
|
2,616
|
|
|
957
|
|
|
5,966
|
|
|
9,539
|
|
|
|
Skilled nursing
|
2,616
|
|
|
887
|
|
|
5,211
|
|
|
8,714
|
|
|
|
Assisted living
|
—
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
608
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
Independent living
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
Total
|
2,616
|
|
|
957
|
|
|
5,966
|
|
|
9,539
|
|
|
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
In March 2007, we and certain of our officers received a series of notices from our bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to our bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. Subsequently, in June 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of our current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both we and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
On December 17, 2007, we were informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of our operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed our previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of our operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of our
82
facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. We also continue to sporadically receive anecdotal reports of former employees who have been contacted by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's office. Based on these events, we believe that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of our skilled nursing facilities.
Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
45
served search warrants on our Service Center and six of our Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. We have worked with the U.S. Attorney's office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. We and our regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney's office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office, and intend to continue working with them to the extent they will allow us to help move their inquiry forward. To our knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of our operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. We cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any
qui tam
litigation that may follow, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, we have not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a
qui tam
relator who elects to pursue the matter, and we are subjected to or alleged to be liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of our board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the stockholders' interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring our response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
We are party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings and are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims that our services have resulted in injury or death to the residents of our facilities and claims related to employment and commercial matters. Although we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters, there can be no assurance that the outcomes of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In certain states in which we have or have had operations, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from general and professional liability litigation may not be available due to state law public policy prohibitions. There can be no assurance that we will not be liable for punitive damages awarded in litigation arising in states for which punitive damage insurance coverage is not available.
We operate in an industry that is extremely regulated. As such, in the ordinary course of business, we are continuously subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny, supervision and control. Such regulatory scrutiny often includes inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, site visits and surveys, some of which are non-routine. In addition to being subject to direct regulatory oversight of state and federal regulatory agencies, our industry is frequently subject to the regulatory practices, which could subject us to civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or restitutionary relief, and reimbursement authorities could also seek the suspension or exclusion of the provider or individual from participation in their program. We believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Adverse discriminations in legal proceedings or governmental investigations, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
46
Item 5.
Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common stock has been traded under the symbol “ENSG” on the NASDAQ Global Select Market since our initial public offering on November 8, 2007. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table shows the high and low sale prices for the common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the periods indicated:
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
||||
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|||||||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
18.79
|
|
$
|
15.32
|
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
18.98
|
|
16.51
|
|
|||
|
Third Quarter
|
18.85
|
|
15.01
|
|
|||
|
Fourth Quarter
|
26.97
|
|
17.47
|
|
|||
|
Fiscal 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
18.90
|
|
|
$
|
12.58
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
16.50
|
|
|
12.50
|
|
||
|
Third Quarter
|
16.34
|
|
|
12.94
|
|
||
|
Fourth Quarter
|
15.70
|
|
|
13.50
|
|
||
During fiscal 2010, we declared aggregate cash dividends of
$0.205
per share of common stock, for a total of approximately
$4.3
million.
As of February 15, 2011, there were approximately 110 holders of record of our common stock.
47
The graph below shows the cumulative total stockholder return of an investment of $100 (and the reinvestment of any dividends thereafter) on November 9, 2007 in (i) our common stock, (ii) the Skilled Nursing Facilities Peer Group 1 and (iii) the NASDAQ Market Index. Our stock price performance shown in the graph below is not indicative of future stock price performance.
COMPARISON OF 38 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Ensign Group, the NASDAQ Composite Index
and a Peer Group
*$100 invested on 11/9/07 in stock or 10/31/07 in index, including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending December 31.
Comparison of 38 month cumulative total return among The Ensign Group, Inc., NASDAQ Market Index, Skilled Nursing Facilities
|
|
12/31/2007
|
12/31/2008
|
12/31/2009
|
12/31/2010
|
||||||||
|
The Ensign Group, Inc.
|
$
|
89.47
|
|
$
|
105.39
|
|
$
|
97.97
|
|
$
|
160.26
|
|
|
NASDAQ Market Index
|
$
|
92.69
|
|
$
|
54.85
|
|
$
|
79.65
|
|
$
|
93.63
|
|
|
Peer Group
|
$
|
100.28
|
|
$
|
64.56
|
|
$
|
64.83
|
|
$
|
86.64
|
|
The current composition of SIC Code 8051 - Skilled Nursing Facilities - is as follows:
AdCare Health Systems, Inc., Advocat, Inc., Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., Capital Senior Living Corp., Five Star Quality Care, Inc., National Healthcare Corporation, Sabra Healthcare, Inc., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., The Ensign Group, Inc.
48
Dividend Policy
The following table summarizes common stock dividends declared to shareholders during the two most recent fiscal years:
|
|
Dividend per Share
|
|
Aggregate Dividend Declared
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
0.045
|
|
|
$
|
926
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
$
|
0.045
|
|
|
$
|
927
|
|
|
Third Quarter
|
$
|
0.045
|
|
|
$
|
928
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
$
|
0.050
|
|
|
$
|
1,032
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
0.050
|
|
|
$
|
1,037
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
$
|
0.050
|
|
|
$
|
1,039
|
|
|
Third Quarter
|
$
|
0.050
|
|
|
$
|
1,042
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
$
|
0.055
|
|
|
$
|
1,150
|
|
We do not have a formal dividend policy but we currently intend to continue to pay regular quarterly dividends to the holders of our common stock. From 2002 to 2010, we paid aggregate annual dividends equal to approximately 5% to 15% of our net income. However, future dividends will continue to be at the discretion of our board of directors, and we may or may not continue to pay dividends at such rate. We expect that the payment of dividends will depend on many factors, including our results of operations, financial condition and capital requirements, earnings, general business conditions, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. The loan and security agreement governing our revolving line of credit with General Electric Capital Corporation restricts our ability to pay dividends to stockholders if we receive notice that we are in default under this agreement. In addition, we are a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. As a result, we are dependent upon distributions from our independent operating subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and pay dividends. It is possible that in certain quarters, we may pay dividends that exceed our net income for such period as calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities
We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the year ended
December 31, 2010
, nor issue any securities that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
49
Item 6.
Selected Financial Data
The following selected consolidated financial data for the periods indicated have been derived from our consolidated financial statements. The financial data set forth below should be read in connection with Item 7 - “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and with our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
$
|
411,318
|
|
$
|
358,574
|
|
||||
|
Expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Cost of services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately below)
|
516,668
|
|
434,318
|
|
|
376,742
|
|
|
335,014
|
|
|
284,847
|
|
||||||
|
Facility rent - cost of services
|
14,478
|
|
14,703
|
|
|
14,932
|
|
|
16,675
|
|
|
16,404
|
|
||||||
|
General and administrative expense
|
26,099
|
|
20,767
|
|
|
20,017
|
|
|
15,945
|
|
|
14,210
|
|
||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
16,633
|
|
13,276
|
|
|
9,026
|
|
|
6,966
|
|
|
4,221
|
|
||||||
|
Total expenses
|
573,878
|
|
483,064
|
|
|
420,717
|
|
|
374,600
|
|
|
319,682
|
|
||||||
|
Income from operations
|
75,654
|
|
58,938
|
|
|
48,655
|
|
|
36,718
|
|
|
38,892
|
|
||||||
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Interest expense
|
(9,123
|
)
|
(5,691
|
)
|
|
(4,784
|
)
|
|
(4,844
|
)
|
|
(2,990
|
)
|
||||||
|
Interest income
|
248
|
|
279
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
|
1,558
|
|
|
772
|
|
||||||
|
Other expense, net
|
(8,875
|
)
|
(5,412
|
)
|
(3,410
|
)
|
(3,286
|
)
|
(2,218
|
)
|
|||||||||
|
Income before provision for income taxes
|
66,779
|
|
53,526
|
|
45,245
|
|
33,432
|
|
36,674
|
|
|||||||||
|
Provision for income taxes
|
26,253
|
|
21,040
|
|
|
17,736
|
|
|
12,905
|
|
|
14,125
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
$
|
20,527
|
|
$
|
22,549
|
|
||||
|
Net income per share(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Basic
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
$
|
1.58
|
|
$
|
1.34
|
|
$
|
1.39
|
|
$
|
1.66
|
|
||||
|
Diluted
|
$
|
1.92
|
|
$
|
1.55
|
|
$
|
1.33
|
|
$
|
1.17
|
|
$
|
1.34
|
|
||||
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Basic
|
20,744
|
|
20,603
|
|
20,520
|
|
14,497
|
|
|
13,366
|
|
||||||||
|
Diluted
|
21,159
|
|
20,925
|
|
20,715
|
|
17,470
|
|
|
16,823
|
|
||||||||
|
(1) See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
72,088
|
|
38,855
|
|
$
|
41,326
|
|
$
|
51,732
|
|
$
|
25,491
|
|
||||
|
Working capital
|
76,642
|
|
45,559
|
|
46,811
|
|
62,969
|
|
28,281
|
|
||||||||
|
Total assets
|
479,892
|
|
391,348
|
|
296,901
|
|
267,389
|
|
190,531
|
|
||||||||
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
139,451
|
|
107,401
|
|
59,489
|
|
60,577
|
|
63,587
|
|
||||||||
|
Redeemable, convertible preferred stock
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
2,725
|
|
||||||||
|
Stockholders' equity
|
228,203
|
|
187,559
|
|
156,021
|
|
129,677
|
|
51,147
|
|
||||||||
|
Cash dividends declared per common share
|
$
|
0.205
|
|
0.185
|
|
$
|
0.165
|
|
$
|
0.160
|
|
$
|
0.130
|
|
||||
On December 31, 2010, we executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for a $35.0 million term loan (RBS Term Loan). See the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section below for further details.
50
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Other Non-GAAP Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
EBITDA(1)
|
$
|
92,287
|
|
$
|
72,214
|
|
|
$
|
57,681
|
|
|
$
|
43,684
|
|
|
$
|
43,113
|
|
|
|
EBITDAR(1)
|
$
|
106,765
|
|
$
|
86,917
|
|
|
$
|
72,613
|
|
|
$
|
60,359
|
|
|
$
|
59,517
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
EBITDA and EBITDAR are supplemental non-GAAP financial measures. Regulation G, Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures, and other provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, define and prescribe the conditions for use of certain non-GAAP financial information. We calculate EBITDA as net income before (a) interest expense, net, (b) provision for income taxes, and (c) depreciation and amortization. We calculate EBITDAR by adjusting EBITDA to exclude facility rent - cost of services. These non-GAAP financial measures are used in addition to and in conjunction with results presented in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures should not be relied upon to the exclusion of GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures reflect an additional way of viewing aspects of our operations that, when viewed with our GAAP results and the accompanying reconciliations to corresponding GAAP financial measures, provide a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting our business.
|
We believe EBITDA and EBITDAR are useful to investors and other external users of our financial statements in evaluating our operating performance because:
|
•
|
they are widely used by investors and analysts in our industry as a supplemental measure to evaluate the overall operating performance of companies in our industry without regard to items such as interest expense, net and depreciation and amortization, which can vary substantially from company to company depending on the book value of assets, capital structure and the method by which assets were acquired; and
|
|
•
|
they help investors evaluate and compare the results of our operations from period to period by removing the impact of our capital structure and asset base from our operating results.
|
We use EBITDA and EBITDAR:
|
•
|
as measurements of our operating performance to assist us in comparing our operating performance on a consistent basis;
|
|
•
|
to allocate resources to enhance the financial performance of our business;
|
|
•
|
to evaluate the effectiveness of our operational strategies; and
|
|
•
|
to compare our operating performance to that of our competitors.
|
We typically use EBITDA and EBITDAR to compare the operating performance of each skilled nursing and assisted living facility. EBITDA and EBITDAR are useful in this regard because they do not include such costs as net interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense, and, with respect to EBITDAR, facility rent - cost of services, which may vary from period-to-period depending upon various factors, including the method used to finance facilities, the amount of debt that we have incurred, whether a facility is owned or leased, the date of acquisition of a facility or business, or the tax law of the state in which a business unit operates. As a result, we believe that the use of EBITDA and EBITDAR provide a meaningful and consistent comparison of our business between periods by eliminating certain items required by GAAP.
We also establish compensation programs and bonuses for our facility level employees that are partially based upon the achievement of EBITDAR targets.
Despite the importance of these measures in analyzing our underlying business, designing incentive compensation and for our goal setting, EBITDA and EBITDAR are non-GAAP financial measures that have no standardized meaning defined by GAAP. Therefore, our EBITDA and EBITDAR measures have limitations as analytical tools, and they should not be considered in isolation, or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported in accordance with GAAP. Some of these limitations are:
|
•
|
they do not reflect our current or future cash requirements for capital expenditures or contractual commitments;
|
51
|
•
|
they do not reflect changes in, or cash requirements for, our working capital needs;
|
|
•
|
they do not reflect the net interest expense, or the cash requirements necessary to service interest or principal payments, on our debt;
|
|
•
|
they do not reflect any income tax payments we may be required to make;
|
|
•
|
although depreciation and amortization are non-cash charges, the assets being depreciated and amortized will often have to be replaced in the future, and EBITDA and EBITDAR do not reflect any cash requirements for such replacements; and
|
|
•
|
other companies in our industry may calculate these measures differently than we do, which may limit their usefulness as comparative measures.
|
We compensate for these limitations by using them only to supplement net income on a basis prepared in accordance with GAAP in order to provide a more complete understanding of the factors and trends affecting our business.
Management strongly encourages investors to review our consolidated financial statements in their entirety and to not rely on any single financial measure. Because these non-GAAP financial measures are not standardized, it may not be possible to compare these financial measures with other companies' non-GAAP financial measures having the same or similar names. For information about our financial results as reported in accordance with GAAP, see our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this document.
The table below reconciles net income to EBITDA and EBITDAR for the periods presented:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||||||||||
|
(In thousands)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Consolidated Statement of Income Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
$
|
20,527
|
|
$
|
22,549
|
|
||||
|
Interest expense, net
|
8,875
|
|
5,412
|
|
3,410
|
|
3,286
|
|
2,218
|
|
|||||||||
|
Provision for income taxes
|
26,253
|
|
21,040
|
|
17,736
|
|
12,905
|
|
14,125
|
|
|||||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
16,633
|
|
13,276
|
|
9,026
|
|
6,966
|
|
4,221
|
|
|||||||||
|
EBITDA
|
$
|
92,287
|
|
$
|
72,214
|
|
$
|
57,681
|
|
$
|
43,684
|
|
$
|
43,113
|
|
||||
|
Facility rent - cost of services
|
14,478
|
|
14,703
|
|
14,932
|
|
16,675
|
|
16,404
|
|
|||||||||
|
EBITDAR
|
$
|
106,765
|
|
$
|
86,917
|
|
$
|
72,613
|
|
$
|
60,359
|
|
$
|
59,517
|
|
||||
52
Item 7.
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, which appear elsewhere in this Annual Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. See Item 1A. - “Risk Factors.”
Overview
We are a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of 85 facilities located in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. All of these facilities are skilled nursing facilities, other than four stand-alone assisted living facilities in Arizona, Colorado and Texas and seven campuses that offer both skilled nursing and assisted living, independent living or hospice care services in California, Arizona, Utah and Texas. Our facilities provide a broad spectrum of skilled nursing and assisted living services, physical, occupational and speech therapies, and other rehabilitative and healthcare services, for both long-term residents and short-stay rehabilitation patients. We encourage and empower our facility leaders and staff to make their facility the “facility of choice” in the community it serves. This means that our facility leaders and staff are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then work to create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility. As of December 31, 2010, we operated
82
facilities, of which we owned
52
and operated an additional
30
facilities under long-term lease arrangements, and had options to purchase for eight of those 30 facilities. The following table summarizes our facilities and licensed and independent living beds by ownership status as of
December 31, 2010
:
|
|
Owned
|
Leased (with a Purchase Option)
|
Leased (without a Purchase Option)
|
Total
|
||||||||
|
Number of facilities
|
52
|
|
8
|
|
22
|
|
82
|
|
||||
|
Percent of total
|
63.4
|
|
%
|
9.8
|
|
%
|
26.8
|
|
%
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
Operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
|
5,966
|
|
957
|
|
2,616
|
|
9,539
|
|
||||
|
Percent of total
|
62.6
|
|
%
|
10.0
|
|
%
|
27.4
|
|
%
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
The Ensign Group, Inc. is a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. All of our facilities are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries, which have their own management, employees and assets. In addition, one of our wholly-owned independent subsidiaries, which we call our Service Center, provides centralized accounting, payroll, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management and other services to each operating subsidiary through contractual relationships between such subsidiaries. In addition, we have the Captive that provides some claims-made coverage to our operating subsidiaries for general and professional liability, as well as for certain workers’ compensation insurance liabilities. References herein to the consolidated “Company” and “its” assets and activities, as well as the use of the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that The Ensign Group, Inc. has direct operating assets, employees or revenue, or that any of the facilities, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity.
Acquisitions and Developments
On January 1, 2010, we purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Idaho for $7.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 158 operational skilled nursing beds to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as a part of this transaction.
On May 1, 2010, we purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Texas for approximately $8.5 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added approximately 277 operational skilled nursing beds to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1.5 million was recognized in goodwill as a part of this transaction.
On May 1, 2010, we purchased a home health and hospice operation in Idaho for approximately $2.7 million, which was paid in cash. The acquisition did not have an impact on our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1.6 million and $0.7 million was recognized
53
as goodwill and other indefinite lived intangibles, respectively, as a part of this transaction.
On November 1, 2010, we purchased an assisted living facility in Colorado for approximately $2.4 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 215 assisted living beds to our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction.
On December 31, 2010, four of our real estate holding subsidiaries executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35.0 million (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to certain prepayment fees. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018. As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had
$35.0
million outstanding on the RBS Loan.
On January 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility which also provides assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 123 operational skilled nursing beds, 77 assisted living units, 72 independent living units and 20 independent living cottages to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
On February 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services for approximately $16.6 million which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 221 operational skilled nursing beds, 48 operational assisted living units and 60 independent living apartments to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
See further discussion of facility acquisitions in Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements below.
Key Performance Indicators
We manage our skilled nursing business by monitoring key performance indicators that affect our financial performance. These indicators and their definitions include the following:
|
•
|
Routine revenue:
Routine revenue is generated by the contracted daily rate charged for all contractually inclusive services. The inclusion of therapy and other ancillary treatments varies by payor source and by contract. Services provided outside of the routine contractual agreement are recorded separately as ancillary revenue, including Medicare Part B therapy services, and are not included in the routine revenue definition
|
|
•
|
Skilled revenue:
The amount of routine revenue generated from patients in our skilled nursing facilities who are receiving higher levels of care under Medicare, managed care, Medicaid, or other skilled reimbursement programs. The other skilled residents that are included in this population represent very high acuity residents who are receiving high levels of nursing and ancillary services which are reimbursed by payors other than Medicare or managed care. Skilled revenue excludes any revenue generated from our assisted living services.
|
|
•
|
Skilled mix:
The amount of our skilled revenue as a percentage of our total routine revenue. Skilled mix (in days) represents the number of days our Medicare, managed care, or other skilled patients are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities divided by the total number of days patients (less days from assisted living services) from all payor sources are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities for any given period (less days from assisted living services).
|
|
•
|
Quality mix:
The amount of routine non-Medicaid revenue as a percentage of our total routine revenue. Quality mix (in days) represents the number of days our non-Medicaid patients are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities divided by the total number of days patients from all payor sources are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities for any given period (less days from assisted living services).
|
|
•
|
Average daily rates:
The routine revenue by payor source for a period at our skilled nursing facilities divided by actual patient days for that revenue source for that given period.
|
|
•
|
Occupancy percentage (operational beds):
The total number of residents occupying a bed in a skilled nursing, assisted living or independent living facility as a percentage of the beds in a facility which are available for occupancy during the
|
54
measurement period.
|
•
|
Number of facilities and operational beds:
The total number of skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living facilities that we own or operate and the total number of operational beds associated with these facilities.
|
Skilled and Quality Mix.
Like most skilled nursing providers, we measure both patient days and revenue by payor. Medicare, managed care and other skilled patients, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, typically require a higher level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care. Accordingly, Medicare and managed care reimbursement rates are typically higher than from other payors. In most states, Medicaid reimbursement rates are generally the lowest of all payor types. Changes in the payor mix can significantly affect our revenue and profitability.
The following table summarizes our overall skilled mix and quality mix for the periods indicated as a percentage of our total routine revenue (less revenue from assisted living services) and as a percentage of total patient days (less days from assisted living services):
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||
|
Skilled Mix:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Days
|
25.0
|
%
|
24.6
|
|
%
|
25.1
|
|
%
|
|
Revenue
|
49.1
|
%
|
48.2
|
|
%
|
48.8
|
|
%
|
|
Quality Mix:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Days
|
36.7
|
%
|
37.3
|
|
%
|
37.8
|
|
%
|
|
Revenue
|
57.8
|
%
|
57.7
|
|
%
|
58.2
|
|
%
|
Occupancy.
We define occupancy as the ratio of actual patient days (one patient day equals one resident occupying one bed for one day) during any measurement period to the number of beds in facilities which are available for occupancy during the measurement period. The number of licensed and independent living beds in a skilled nursing, assisted living or independent living facility that are actually operational and available for occupancy may be less than the total official licensed bed capacity. This sometimes occurs due to the permanent dedication of bed space to alternative purposes, such as enhanced therapy treatment space or other desirable uses calculated to improve service offerings and/or operational efficiencies in a facility. In some cases, three- and four-bed wards have been reduced to two-bed rooms for resident comfort, and larger wards have been reduced to conform to changes in Medicare requirements. These beds are seldom expected to be placed back into service. We define occupancy in operational beds as the ratio of actual patient days during any measurement period to the number of available patient days for that period. We believe that reporting occupancy based on operational beds is consistent with industry practices and provides a more useful measure of actual occupancy performance from period to period.
The following table summarizes our occupancy statistics for the periods indicated:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Occupancy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational beds at end of period
|
9,539
|
|
|
8,948
|
|
|
7,324
|
|
|
|
Available patient days
|
3,389,313
|
|
|
2,965,401
|
|
|
2,634,183
|
|
|
|
Actual patient days
|
2,706,543
|
|
|
2,353,087
|
|
|
2,135,662
|
|
|
|
Occupancy percentage (based on operational beds)
|
79.9
|
|
%
|
79.4
|
|
%
|
81.1
|
|
%
|
55
Revenue Sources
Our total revenue represents revenue derived primarily from providing services to patients and residents of skilled nursing facilities, and to a lesser extent from assisted living facilities and ancillary services. We receive service revenue from Medicaid, Medicare, private payors and other third-party payors, and managed care sources. The sources and amounts of our revenue are determined by a number of factors, including bed capacity and occupancy rates of our healthcare facilities, the mix of patients at our facilities and the rates of reimbursement among payors. Payment for ancillary services varies based upon the service provided and the type of payor. The following table sets forth our total revenue by payor source and as a percentage of total revenue for the periods indicated:
|
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Medicaid - custodial
|
$
|
259,711
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
$
|
219,188
|
|
|
40.4
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
187,499
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
%
|
||
|
Medicare
|
219,217
|
|
33.7
|
174,769
|
|
|
32.3
|
|
|
|
154,852
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
||||||
|
Medicaid - skilled
|
17,573
|
|
2.7
|
12,449
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
8,537
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
||||||
|
Total
|
496,501
|
|
76.4
|
406,406
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
|
|
350,888
|
|
|
74.8
|
|
|
||||||
|
Managed care
|
84,364
|
|
13.0
|
72,544
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
64,361
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
||||||
|
Private and other(1)
|
68,667
|
|
10.6
|
63,052
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
54,123
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
||||||
|
Total revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
||
|
(1)
|
Includes revenue from assisted living facilities.
|
Primary Components of Expense
Cost of Services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately).
Our cost of services represents the costs of operating our facilities and primarily consists of payroll and related benefits, supplies, purchased services, and ancillary expenses such as the cost of pharmacy and therapy services provided to residents. Cost of services also includes the cost of general and professional liability insurance and other general cost of services with respect to our facilities.
Facility Rent - Cost of Services.
Facility rent - cost of services consists solely of base minimum rent amounts payable under lease agreements to third-party owners of the facilities that we operate but do not own and does not include taxes, insurance, impounds, capital reserves or other charges payable under the applicable lease agreements.
General and Administrative Expense.
General and administrative expense consists primarily of payroll and related benefits and travel expenses for our Service Center personnel, including training and other operational support. General and administrative expense also includes professional fees (including accounting and legal fees), costs relating to our information systems, stock-based compensation and rent for our Service Center office.
Depreciation and Amortization.
Property and equipment are recorded at their original historical cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the depreciable assets. The following is a summary of the depreciable lives of our depreciable assets:
|
Buildings and improvements
|
15 to 50 years
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
Shorter of the lease term or estimated useful life, generally 5 to 15 years
|
|
Furniture and equipment
|
3 to 10 years
|
Critical Accounting Policies
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that
56
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis we review our judgments and estimates, including those related to doubtful accounts, income taxes, stock compensation, intangible assets and loss contingencies. We base our estimates and judgments upon our historical experience, knowledge of current conditions and our belief of what could occur in the future considering available information, including assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. By their nature, these estimates and judgments are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty and actual results could differ materially from the amounts reported. The following summarizes our critical accounting policies, defined as those policies that we believe: (a) are the most important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations; and (b) require management's most subjective or complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effects of matters that are inherently uncertain.
Revenue Recognition
We recognize revenue when the following four conditions have been met: (i) there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists; (ii) delivery has occurred or service has been rendered; (iii) the price is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is reasonably assured. Revenue from the Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for
76.4%
and
75.0
% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We record revenue from these governmental and managed care programs as services are performed at their expected net realizable amounts under these programs. Our revenue from governmental and managed care programs is subject to audit and retroactive adjustment by governmental and third-party agencies. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, any changes to these governmental revenue estimates are recorded in the period the change or adjustment becomes known based on final settlements. We recorded retroactive adjustments that increased (decreased) revenue by ($0.1) million, $0.2 million and $0.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The decrease in revenue from retroactive revenue adjustments in 2010 is attributable to the item disclosed under “Other Matters” in Note 17 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Retroactive revenue adjustments increased revenue by
$0.3
million for the year ended December 31, 2010 prior to the item disclosed in Note 17. Based on Management's assessment, liabilities of approximately $1.1 million have been accrued for retroactive revenue adjustments as of December 31, 2010.
The Company’s service specific revenue recognition policies are as follows:
Skilled Nursing Revenue
Our revenue is derived primarily from providing long-term healthcare services to residents and is recognized on the date services are provided at amounts billable to individual residents. For residents under reimbursement arrangements with third-party payors, including Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers, revenue is recorded based on contractually agreed-upon amounts on a per patient, daily basis. We record revenue from private pay patients, at the agreed upon rate, as services are performed.
Home Health and Hospice Revenue Recognition
Episodic Based Revenue —
Net service revenue is typically recorded on a 60-day episode payment rate. We make adjustments to revenue on completed episodes to reflect differences between estimated and actual payment amounts, an inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or authorizations acceptable to the payor and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. We record an estimate for the impact of such payment adjustments based on our historical experience. In addition to revenue recognized on completed episodes, we also recognize a portion of revenue associated with episodes in progress. Episodes in progress are 60-day episodes of care that begin during the reporting period, but were not completed as of the end of the period. We estimate this revenue on a monthly basis based upon historical trends. The primary factors underlying this estimate are the number of episodes in progress at the end of the reporting period, expected Medicare revenue per episode and our estimate of the average percentage complete based on days completed of the episode of care.
Non-episodic Based Revenue —
Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to our established or estimated per-visit rates, as applicable.
Hospice Revenue —
Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to the estimated payment rates. The estimated payment rates are daily rates for each of the levels of care we deliver. We make adjustments to revenue for an inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or authorizations acceptable to the payor and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. We estimate the impact of these adjustments based on our historical experience, which primarily includes historical collection rates on Medicare claims, and record it during the period services are rendered as an estimated revenue adjustment and as a reduction to our outstanding patient accounts receivable. Additionally, as Medicare hospice
57
revenue is subject to an inpatient cap limit and an overall payment cap, we monitor our provider numbers and estimate amounts due back to Medicare if a cap has been exceeded. We record these adjustments as a reduction to revenue and increase other accrued liabilities.
Accounts Receivable
Accounts receivable consist primarily of amounts due from Medicare and Medicaid programs, other government programs, managed care health plans and private payor sources. Estimated provisions for doubtful accounts are recorded to the extent it is probable that a portion or all of a particular account will not be collected.
In evaluating the collectability of accounts receivable, we consider a number of factors, including the age of the accounts, changes in collection patterns, the composition of patient accounts by payor type and the status of ongoing disputes with third-party payors. The percentages applied to the aged receivable balances are based on our historical experience and time limits, if any, for managed care, Medicare and Medicaid. We periodically refine our procedures for estimating the allowance for doubtful accounts based on experience with the estimation process and changes in circumstances.
Self-Insurance
We are partially self-insured for general and professional liability up to a base amount per claim (the self-insured retention) with an aggregate, one time deductible above this limit. Losses beyond these amounts are insured through third-party policies with coverage limits per occurrence, per location and on an aggregate basis for us. For claims made after April 1, 2010, the combined self-insured retention was $0.5 million per claim with an aggregate $1.7 million deductible limit. For all facilities, except for four located in Colorado, the third-party coverage above these limits was $1.0 million per occurrence, $3.0 million per facility, with a $10.0 million blanket aggregate and an additional state-specific aggregate where required by state law. In Colorado, the third-party coverage above these limits was $1.0 million per occurrence and $3.0 million per facility, which is independent of the $10.0 million blanket aggregate applicable to our other 78 facilities.
The self-insured retention and deductible limits for general and professional liability and worker’s compensation are self-insured through the Captive, the related assets and liabilities of which are included in the accompanying Financial Statements. The Captive is subject to certain statutory requirements as an insurance provider. These requirements include, but are not limited to, maintaining statutory capital. Our policy is to accrue amounts equal to the actuarially estimated costs to settle open claims of insureds, as well as an estimate of the cost of insured claims that have been incurred but not reported. We develop information about the size of the ultimate claims based on historical experience, current industry information and actuarial analysis, and evaluate the estimates for claim loss exposure on a quarterly basis. Accrued general liability and professional malpractice liabilities recorded on an undiscounted basis in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets were
$26.0
million and $22.3 million as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, respectively.
Our operating subsidiaries are self-insured for workers’ compensation liability in California. To protect ourself against loss exposure in California with this policy, we have purchased individual stop-loss insurance coverage that insures individual claims that exceed $0.5 million for each claim. In Texas, the operating subsidiaries have elected non-subscriber status for workers’ compensation claims. Our operating subsidiaries in other states have third party guaranteed cost coverage. In California and Texas, we accrue amounts equal to the estimated costs to settle open claims, as well as an estimate of the cost of claims that have been incurred but not reported. We use actuarial valuations to estimate the liability based on historical experience and industry information. Accrued workers' compensation liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and were
$9.2
million and $7.6 million as of
December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively.
We provide self-insured medical (including prescription drugs) and dental healthcare benefits to the majority of our employees. We are fully liable for all financial and legal aspects of these benefit plans. To protect ourself against loss exposure with this policy, we have purchased individual stop-loss insurance coverage that insures individual claims that exceed $0.3 million for each covered person with an aggregate individual stop loss deductible of $0.1 million. These limits reset every plan year subject to a lifetime maximum of $5.0 million per each covered person on the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) plans and an unlimited lifetime plan maximum on the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan. The aforementioned coverage only applies to claims paid during the plan year. Our accrued liability under these plans recorded on an undiscounted basis in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets was
$2.2
million and $2.3 million at
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, respectively.
We believe that adequate provision has been made in the Financial Statements for liabilities that may arise out of patient care, workers’ compensation, healthcare benefits and related services provided to date. The amount of our reserves was
58
determined based on an estimation process that uses information obtained from both company-specific and industry data. This estimation process requires us to continuously monitor and evaluate the life cycle of the claims. Using data obtained from this monitoring and our assumptions about emerging trends, we, with the assistance of an independent actuary, develop information about the size of ultimate claims based on our historical experience and other available industry information. The most significant assumptions used in the estimation process include determining the trend in costs, the expected cost of claims incurred but not reported and the expected costs to settle or pay damage awards with respect to unpaid claims. The self-insured liabilities are based upon estimates, and while management believes that the estimates of loss are reasonable, the ultimate liability may be in excess of or less than the recorded amounts. Due to the inherent volatility of actuarially determined loss estimates, it is reasonably possible that we could experience changes in estimated losses that could be material to net income. If our actual liability exceeds our estimates of loss, our future earnings and financial condition, and cash flows would be adversely affected.
The self-insured liabilities are based upon estimates, and while management believes that the estimates of loss are reasonable, the ultimate liability may be in excess of or less than the recorded amounts. Due to the inherent volatility of actuarially determined loss estimates, it is reasonably possible that we could experience changes in estimated losses that could be material to net income. If our actual liability exceeds its estimates of loss, its future earnings and financial condition would be adversely affected.
Income Taxes
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are established for temporary differences between the financial reporting basis and the tax basis of our assets and liabilities at tax rates in effect when such temporary differences are expected to reverse. We generally expect to fully utilize our deferred tax assets; however, when necessary, we record a valuation allowance to reduce our net deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized.
The provision for income taxes is determined by applying the estimated annual effective tax rate to pretax income, adjusted for discrete transactions occurring during the period. In determining the annual income tax rate for financial statements for interim periods, we must consider expected annual income, permanent differences between financial reporting and tax recognition of income or expense and other factors. When we take uncertain income tax positions, we record a liability for underpayment of income taxes and related interest and penalties, if any. In considering the need for and magnitude of a liability for such positions, we must consider the potential outcomes from a review of the positions by the taxing authorities.
In determining the need for a valuation allowance, the annual income tax rate for interim periods, or the need for a magnitude of liabilities for uncertain tax positions, the Company makes certain estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions are based on, among other things, knowledge of operations, markets, historical trends and likely future changes and, when appropriate, the opinions of advisors with knowledge and expertise in certain fields. Due to certain risks associated with our estimates and assumptions, actual results could differ.
Leases and Leasehold Improvements
At the inception of each lease, we perform an evaluation to determine whether the lease should be classified as an operating or capital lease. We record rent expense for leases that contain scheduled rent increases on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The lease term used for straight-line rent expense is calculated from the date we are given control of the leased premises through the end of the lease term. The lease term used for this evaluation also provides the basis for establishing depreciable lives for buildings subject to lease and leasehold improvements, as well as the period over which we record straight-line rent expense.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In August 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board clarified that health care entities should not net insurance recoveries against related claim liability unless otherwise allowed under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Further, such entities should determine the claim liability without considering insurance recoveries. It was determined a cumulative-effect adjustment should be recognized in opening retained earnings in the period of adoption if a difference exists between any liabilities and insurance receivables recorded as a result of applying these amendments. These amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2010. We evaluated the potential impact of adopting these amendments and determined the impact to be an increase to our insurance receivables and liabilities of approximately $2.0 million as of December 31, 2010.
In November 2010, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of the FASB reached a final consensus that if comparative financial statements are presented, an entity should present the pro forma disclosures as if the business combination occurred at
59
the beginning of the prior annual period when preparing the pro forma financial information. The EITF also reached a final consensus that entities must provide additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This final consensus will be effective for business combinations consummated in periods beginning after December 15, 2010, and should be applied prospectively as of the date of adoption. We
do not believe the adoption of these amendments will have a material effect on our financial statements.
In December, 2010, the FASB amended its view on performing step two of a goodwill impairment analysis. The amendment does not prescribe a specific method of calculating the carrying value of a reporting unit in the performance of step one of the goodwill impairment test and requires entities with a zero or negative carrying value to assess, considering qualitative factors such as those listed in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 350-20-35-30 Intangibles - Goodwill and Other, whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. If an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, the entity must perform step two of the goodwill impairment test. For public entities, these amendments are effective for impairment tests performed during entities' fiscal years that begin after December 15, 2010. We do not believe the adoption of these amendments will have a material effect on our financial statements.
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth details of our revenue, expenses and earnings as a percentage of total revenue for the periods indicated:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Revenue
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately below)
|
79.5
|
|
|
80.1
|
|
|
80.3
|
|
|
|
Facility rent - cost of services
|
2.2
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expense
|
4.0
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
2.6
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
Total expenses
|
88.3
|
|
|
89.1
|
|
|
89.6
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
11.7
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Interest expense
|
(1.4
|
)
|
(1.1
|
)
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|||
|
Interest income
|
—
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net
|
(1.4
|
)
|
(1.0
|
)
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|||
|
Income before provision for income taxes
|
10.3
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
4.1
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
6.2
|
|
%
|
6.0
|
|
%
|
5.9
|
|
%
|
60
Year Ended
December 31, 2010
Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2009
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Total Facility Results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
|
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
|
$
|
107,530
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
82
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
2,706,543
|
|
|
|
2,353,087
|
|
|
|
353,456
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
79.9
|
|
%
|
|
79.4
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
25.0
|
|
%
|
|
24.6
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
49.1
|
|
%
|
|
48.2
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
%
|
|||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Same Facility Results(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
497,274
|
|
|
|
$
|
468,032
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,242
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end(1)
|
56
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
1,971,860
|
|
|
|
1,980,008
|
|
|
|
(8,148
|
)
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
83.1
|
|
%
|
|
81.7
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
28.6
|
|
%
|
|
26.6
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
53.5
|
|
%
|
|
50.6
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
%
|
||||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Transitioning Facility Results(2)
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
35,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
33,305
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,525
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
167,245
|
|
|
|
162,250
|
|
|
|
4,995
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
71.9
|
|
%
|
|
69.8
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
19.1
|
|
%
|
|
18.1
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
41.5
|
|
%
|
|
41.2
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
%
|
||||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Recently Acquired Facility Results(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
116,428
|
|
|
|
$
|
40,665
|
|
|
|
$
|
75,763
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
20
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
567,438
|
|
|
|
210,829
|
|
|
|
356,609
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
72.5
|
|
%
|
|
68.1
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
13.8
|
|
%
|
|
11.2
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
31.5
|
|
%
|
|
25.2
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
%
|
||||
(1) Same Facility results represent all facilities purchased prior to January 1, 2007. Same Facility results for 2009 include the results of operations through September 30, 2009 of our assisted living facility in Arizona where we decided not to exercise our renewal option on the lease which expired on September 30, 2009. The non-renewal of this lease reduced the number of actual patient days by 21,984 during the year ended December 31, 2010.
(2) Transitioning Facility results represents all facilities purchased from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008.
(3) Recently Acquired Facility (or “Acquisitions”) results represent all facilities purchased on or subsequent to January 1, 2009. Recently Acquired Facilities also includes the operations of our one home health and hospice operation for the year ended December 31, 2010.
61
Revenue.
Revenue increased $
107.5
million, or
19.8%
, to $
649.5
million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $
542.0
million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Of the $
107.5
million increase, Medicare and managed care revenue increased $
55.8
million, or
22.5%
, Medicaid revenue increased $
40.5
million, or
18.5%
, other skilled revenue increased $
5.1
million, or
41.2%
, and private and other revenue increased $
6.1
million, or
9.8%
. Approximately $
75.8
million of the total revenue increase was due to revenue generated by Recently Acquired Facilities. Since January 1, 2009, the Company has acquired twenty facilities and one home health and hospice operation in six states.
Revenue generated by Same Facilities increased $
29.2
million, or
6.2%
, for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase was primarily due to an increase in occupancy of
1.4%
to
83.1%
and skilled mix of
2.9%
, to
53.5%
, which was the result of an 8.2% increase in skilled mix days combined with higher acuity levels and rates. Same Facility revenue in 2009 included approximately $1.4 million in revenue from our assisted living facility in Arizona where the lease expired on September 30, 2009 due to our decision not to exercise our renewal option on the lease. The reduction in the number of actual patient days relates to the non-renewal of this lease. Excluding the impact of the non-renewal of this lease, patient days increased by 13,826, or 0.7%.
The following table reflects the change in the skilled nursing average daily revenue rates by payor source, excluding services that are not covered by the daily rate:
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Skilled Nursing Average Daily Revenue Rates:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Medicare
|
$
|
577.63
|
|
|
$
|
547.06
|
|
|
$
|
488.63
|
|
|
$
|
471.51
|
|
|
$
|
456.48
|
|
|
$
|
456.84
|
|
|
$
|
553.61
|
|
|
$
|
536.74
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
345.36
|
|
|
337.99
|
|
|
395.10
|
|
|
418.52
|
|
|
399.98
|
|
|
405.22
|
|
|
351.11
|
|
|
342.32
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Other skilled
|
546.35
|
|
|
592.57
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
624.07
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
548.94
|
|
|
592.57
|
|
|
(7.4
|
)
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Total skilled revenue
|
484.67
|
|
|
465.12
|
|
|
452.74
|
|
|
456.75
|
|
|
448.69
|
|
|
448.21
|
|
|
478.92
|
|
|
464.00
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Medicaid
|
165.10
|
|
|
161.36
|
|
|
150.22
|
|
|
144.87
|
|
|
155.75
|
|
|
160.38
|
|
|
162.00
|
|
|
160.11
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Private and other payors
|
189.78
|
|
|
182.69
|
|
|
150.86
|
|
|
141.28
|
|
|
172.33
|
|
|
189.20
|
|
|
180.72
|
|
|
178.12
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Total skilled nursing revenue
|
$
|
258.89
|
|
|
$
|
244.39
|
|
|
$
|
208.04
|
|
|
$
|
200.50
|
|
|
$
|
199.07
|
|
|
$
|
198.74
|
|
|
$
|
243.26
|
|
|
$
|
237.18
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
%
|
Same Facility Medicare daily rates increased by 5.6%, due to increased acuity levels and rates. The 2010 results only incorporate one quarter of the impact of the implementation of RUGS IV on both revenue reimbursement and related cost structure changes included in MDS 3.0 and concurrent therapy.
Historically, we have generally experienced lower occupancy rates, lower skilled mix and quality mix at Recently Acquired Facilities and therefore, we anticipate generally lower overall occupancy during years of growth. Accordingly, the overall average Medicare daily rate increased by
3.1%
in the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of the impact of lower acuity levels at Transitioning and Recently Acquired Facilities. The average Medicaid rate increased
1.2%
in the year ended December 31, 2010 relative to the same period in the prior year, primarily due to increases in rates in acuity based reimbursement states. In addition, we have experienced continued growth in our managed care rates as we have and will continue to enhance our relationships with these organizations to appropriately service resident needs in their respective communities.
In the future, if we acquire additional facilities into our overall portfolio, we expect this trend to continue. Accordingly, we anticipate our overall occupancy will vary from quarter to quarter based upon the maturity of the facilities within our portfolio.
62
Payor Sources as a Percentage of Skilled Nursing Services.
We use both our skilled mix and quality mix as measures of the quality of reimbursements we receive at our skilled nursing facilities over various periods. The following tables set forth our percentage of skilled nursing patient revenue and days by payor source:
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||||||
|
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
34.9
|
%
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
27.6
|
%
|
|
30.7
|
%
|
|
25.7
|
%
|
|
21.4
|
%
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
32.0
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
14.9
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
Other skilled
|
3.7
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
Skilled mix
|
53.5
|
|
|
50.6
|
|
|
41.5
|
|
|
41.2
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
25.2
|
|
|
49.1
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|
Private and other payors
|
7.4
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
15.4
|
|
|
16.0
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
|
8.7
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
Quality mix
|
60.9
|
|
|
58.7
|
|
|
56.9
|
|
|
57.2
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
45.7
|
|
|
57.8
|
|
|
57.7
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
39.1
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
43.1
|
|
|
42.8
|
|
|
56.1
|
|
|
54.3
|
|
|
42.2
|
|
|
42.3
|
|
|
Total skilled nursing
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||||||
|
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Days:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
14.5
|
%
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
11.2
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
Other skilled
|
1.8
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
Skilled mix
|
28.6
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
18.1
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
|
Private and other payors
|
10.1
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
21.3
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
11.7
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
Quality mix
|
38.7
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
40.3
|
|
|
40.8
|
|
|
29.4
|
|
|
32.7
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
37.3
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
61.3
|
|
|
62.5
|
|
|
59.7
|
|
|
59.2
|
|
|
70.6
|
|
|
67.3
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
Total skilled nursing
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Cost of Services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately).
Cost of services increased $
82.4
million, or
19.0%
, to $
516.7
million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $434.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Cost of services decreased as a percent of total revenue to
79.5%
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 80.1% for the year ended December 31, 2009. Of the $
82.4
million increase, Same Facilities increased $
18.9
million, or
5.1%
and Recently Acquired Facilities increased
$62.2
million. The $
18.9
million increase in Same Facility cost of services was primarily due to a $
9.4
million increase in salaries and benefits and a $5.5 million increase in ancillary expenses, partially offset by a decrease in insurance costs of
$0.9
million. The increase in salaries and benefits was primarily due to increases in nursing wages and benefits and the increase in ancillary expenses was primarily due to increased therapy wages. The decrease in insurance was primarily due to decreased medical and dental healthcare benefits due to a decrease in current and projected claims.
Facility Rent - Cost of Services.
Facility rent - cost of services decreased $0.2 million, or 1.5%, to $14.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Facility rent-cost of services as a percent of total revenue was
2.2%
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 2.7% for the year ended December 31, 2009.
General and Administrative Expense.
General and administrative expense increased
$5.3
million, or
25.7%
, to $26.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $20.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. General and administrative expense increased as a percent of total revenue to
4.0%
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 3.8% for the year ended December 31, 2009. The
$5.3
million increase was primarily due to increases in wages and benefits due to our growth and improved financial performance.
We have higher stock-based compensation expense which has impacted cost of services and general and administrative expenses. In 2011 the prospective method used at the adoption date will no longer impact the expense calculation.
Depreciation and Amortization.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $3.3 million, or
25.3%
, to $16.6 million
63
for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $13.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Depreciation and amortization expense increased as a percent of total revenue to
2.6%
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to
2.5
% for the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase was primarily related to the additional depreciation of $2.2 million at Recently Acquired Facilities, as well as an increase of $1.1 million at Same Facilities due to recent renovations. Of the $2.2 million increase at Recently Acquired Facilities,
$0.5
million represented amortization expense of patient base intangible assets which are amortized over four to eight months.
Other Income (Expense).
Other expense, net increased $3.5 million, or
64.0%
, to $8.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Other expense, net increased as a percent of total revenue to 1.4% for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 1.0% for the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase was primarily the result of interest expense on the additional $40.0 million added to the Amended Term Loan in November 2009. We anticipate interest expense will increase in 2011 due to the addition of $35.0 million in long term debt added with the promissory notes with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS Loan). See further discussion of RBS Loan below.
Provision for Income Taxes.
Provision for income taxes increased $
5.3
million, or
24.8%
, to $
26.3
million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $
21.0
million for the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase resulted from the increase in income before income taxes of $
13.3
million, or
24.8%
. Our effective tax rate was
39.3%
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.
64
Year Ended
December 31, 2009
Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2008
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Total Facility Results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
|
|
$
|
72,630
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
77
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
22.2
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
2,353,087
|
|
|
|
2,135,662
|
|
|
|
217,425
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
79.4
|
|
%
|
|
81.1
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
%
|
|||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
24.6
|
|
%
|
|
25.1
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
%
|
|||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
48.2
|
|
%
|
|
48.8
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
%
|
|||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Same Facility Results(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
403,384
|
|
|
|
$
|
384,537
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,847
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end(1)
|
46
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
1,690,102
|
|
|
|
1,717,473
|
|
|
|
(27,371
|
)
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
83.2
|
|
%
|
|
83.9
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
26.9
|
|
%
|
|
26.4
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
50.8
|
|
%
|
|
50.0
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
%
|
||||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Transitioning Facility Results(2)
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
87,770
|
|
|
|
$
|
79,876
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,894
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
15
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
407,437
|
|
|
|
397,544
|
|
|
|
9,893
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
73.5
|
|
%
|
|
71.5
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
22.3
|
|
%
|
|
19.4
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
46.6
|
|
%
|
|
42.5
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
%
|
||||
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Change
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Recently Acquired Facility Results(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
50,848
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,959
|
|
|
|
$
|
45,889
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|
Number of facilities at period end
|
17
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Actual patient days
|
255,548
|
|
|
|
20,645
|
|
|
|
234,903
|
|
|
NM
|
|
%
|
|||
|
Occupancy percentage - Operational beds
|
67.1
|
|
%
|
|
67.5
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing days
|
13.2
|
|
%
|
|
29.3
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(16.1
|
)
|
%
|
||||
|
Skilled mix by nursing revenue
|
29.5
|
|
%
|
|
53.3
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(23.8
|
)
|
%
|
||||
|
(1)
|
Same Facility results represent all facilities purchased prior to January 1, 2006. Same Facility includes the results of operations through September 30, 2009 of our assisted living facility in Arizona where we decided not to exercise our renewal option on the lease. The lease expired on September 30, 2009.
|
|
(2)
|
Transitioning Facility results represents all facilities acquired from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007.
|
|
(3)
|
Recently Acquired Facility (or “Acquisitions”) results represent all facilities purchased on or subsequent to January 1, 2008.
|
65
Revenue.
Revenue increased $72.6 million, or 15.5%, to $542.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $469.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Of the $72.6 million increase, Medicare and managed care revenue increased $28.1 million, or 12.8%, other skilled revenue increased $3.9 million, or 45.8%, Medicaid custodial revenue increased $31.7 million, or 16.9%, and private and other revenue increased $8.9 million, or 16.5%. Approximately $45.9 million of the total revenue increase was due to revenue generated by the increase in the number of Recently Acquired Facilities. Since January 1, 2008, the Company has acquired seventeen facilities in six states. Overall occupancy and skilled mix decreased by 1.7% and 0.5%, respectively as a result of Recently Acquired Facilities which had a combined occupancy rate and skilled mix of 67.1% and 13.2%, respectively. Historically, we have generally experienced lower occupancy rates, lower skilled mix and quality mix in Recently Acquired Facilities and therefore, we anticipate generally lower overall occupancy during years of growth. In the future, if we acquire additional facilities into our overall portfolio, we expect this trend to continue. Accordingly, we anticipate that our overall occupancy will vary from quarter to quarter based upon the maturity of the facilities within our portfolio.
Revenue generated by Transitioning Facilities increased $7.9 million, or 9.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. This increase was primarily due to increases in occupancy and skilled mix by nursing days of 2.0% and 2.9%, respectively, relative to the year ended December 31, 2008. In addition, this revenue increase occurred despite a decrease in occupancy at our assisted living facilities of 5.2%. Revenue generated by Same Facilities increased $18.8 million, or 4.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. This increase was primarily due to an increase in skilled mix of 0.8% to a Company Same Facility record of 50.8% which was the result of higher acuity levels and higher reimbursement rates resulting from statutory increases relative to the year ended December 31, 2008.
The following table reflects the change in the skilled nursing average daily revenue rates by payor source, excluding therapy and other ancillary services that are not covered by the daily rate:
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
% Change
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Skilled Nursing Average Daily Revenue Rates:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Medicare
|
$
|
560.03
|
|
|
$
|
523.70
|
|
|
$
|
480.01
|
|
|
$
|
448.70
|
|
|
$
|
460.62
|
|
|
$
|
433.13
|
|
|
$
|
536.74
|
|
|
$
|
507.02
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
334.88
|
|
|
322.00
|
|
|
369.77
|
|
|
387.26
|
|
|
429.58
|
|
|
427.95
|
|
|
342.32
|
|
|
328.17
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Other skilled
|
613.44
|
|
|
596.84
|
|
|
436.26
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
592.57
|
|
|
596.84
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Total skilled revenue
|
468.44
|
|
|
441.79
|
|
|
446.55
|
|
|
436.33
|
|
|
453.80
|
|
|
431.55
|
|
|
464.00
|
|
|
440.84
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Medicaid
|
163.72
|
|
|
155.21
|
|
|
145.93
|
|
|
140.18
|
|
|
159.64
|
|
|
163.24
|
|
|
160.11
|
|
|
152.33
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Private and other payors
|
187.24
|
|
|
177.66
|
|
|
152.48
|
|
|
149.38
|
|
|
181.74
|
|
|
144.68
|
|
|
178.12
|
|
|
169.24
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
%
|
||||||||
|
Total skilled nursing revenue
|
$
|
248.16
|
|
|
$
|
233.48
|
|
|
$
|
214.13
|
|
|
$
|
199.33
|
|
|
$
|
203.09
|
|
|
$
|
237.33
|
|
|
$
|
237.18
|
|
|
$
|
226.88
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
%
|
The average Medicare daily rate increased by approximately 5.9% in the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008, in spite of a reduction in the national average Medicare rate of approximately 1.1% during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, as a result of higher acuity patient mix. In addition, during the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009 the Medicare daily rate was increased as a result of the market basket increase of 3.3% which began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008. The average Medicaid rate increase of 5.1% in the year ended December 31, 2009 relative to the same period in the prior year primarily resulted from increases in reimbursement rates in the state of Texas due to the state reimbursement system changing to a RUG based system.
66
Payor Sources as a Percentage of Skilled Nursing Services.
We use both our skilled mix and quality mix as measures of the quality of reimbursements we receive at our skilled nursing facilities over various periods. The following table sets forth our percentage of skilled nursing patient revenue and days by payor source:
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
32.6
|
|
%
|
|
32.4
|
|
%
|
|
34.0
|
|
%
|
|
34.9
|
|
%
|
|
23.4
|
|
%
|
|
37.2
|
|
%
|
|
32.0
|
|
%
|
|
32.9
|
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
15.2
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
|
|
|
Other skilled
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
Skilled mix
|
50.8
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
46.6
|
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
53.3
|
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|
|
48.8
|
|
|
|
Private and other payors
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
Quality mix
|
58.7
|
|
|
|
58.6
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
56.0
|
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|
|
68.0
|
|
|
|
57.7
|
|
|
|
58.2
|
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
41.4
|
|
|
|
41.7
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
51.8
|
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
42.3
|
|
|
|
41.8
|
|
|
|
Total skilled nursing
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Same Facility
|
|
Transitioning
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Days:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medicare
|
14.5
|
|
%
|
|
14.4
|
|
%
|
|
15.2
|
|
%
|
|
15.5
|
|
%
|
|
10.3
|
|
%
|
|
20.4
|
|
%
|
|
14.1
|
|
%
|
|
14.7
|
|
%
|
|
Managed care
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
Other skilled
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
Skilled mix
|
26.9
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
Private and other payors
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
20.9
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
Quality mix
|
37.4
|
|
|
|
37.7
|
|
|
|
38.8
|
|
|
|
37.4
|
|
|
|
34.1
|
|
|
|
53.4
|
|
|
|
37.3
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
62.6
|
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
|
|
65.9
|
|
|
|
46.6
|
|
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
|
62.2
|
|
|
|
Total skilled nursing
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
Cost of Services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately).
Cost of services increased $57.6 million, or 15.3%, to $434.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $376.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Cost of services decreased as a percent of total revenue to 80.1% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 80.3% for the year ended December 31, 2008. Of the $57.6 million increase, $13.5 million was attributable to Same Facility increases, $5.8 million was attributable to Transitioning Facilities, and the remaining $38.3 million was attributable to Recently Acquired Facilities. The $13.5 million increase in Same Facility cost of services was primarily due to a $4.2 million increase in salaries and benefits, partially offset by a reduction in contract nursing services of $1.0 million, a $2.9 million increase in insurance costs and a $3.1 million increase in ancillary expenses. The increase in salaries and benefits was primarily due to increases in nursing wages and benefits, a portion of which was attributable to replacing contract nursing labor with full time employees. The increase in insurance costs was primarily a result of increased self-insured general and professional liability due to an increase in the level of self-insured deductible and higher actuarial projections for future claim settlements and increased medical and dental healthcare benefits due to an increase in current and projected claims. The increase in ancillary expenses is primarily due to increased therapy wages.
Facility Rent - Cost of Services.
Facility rent - cost of services decreased $0.2 million, or 1.5%, to $14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Facility rent-cost of services as a percent of total revenue was 2.7% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 3.2% for the year ended December 31, 2008. In 2008, rent expense was reduced by a recovery of $0.6 million related to the favorable settlement of an accrued contingent rent liability, which did not recur in the current year. Taking the recovery into consideration, rent expense decreased by $0.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008 due to the purchases of six previously leased properties during 2008.
General and Administrative Expense.
General and administrative expense increased $0.8 million, or 3.8%, to $20.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $20.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. General and
67
administrative expense decreased as a percent of total revenue to 3.8% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 4.3% for the year ended December 31, 2008. The $0.8 million increase was primarily due to an increase in wages and benefits, largely due to additional staffing in our Service Center and resource departments.
We have, and expect to continue to experience higher stock-based compensation expense, which will impact cost of services and general and administrative expenses on a go forward basis, until the beginning of 2011 when the prospective method used at the adoption date will no longer impact the expense calculation.
Depreciation and Amortization.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $4.3 million, or 47.1%, to $13.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $9.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Depreciation and amortization expense increased as a percent of total revenue to 2.5% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 1.9% for the year ended December 31, 2008. This increase was primarily related to an increase in Same Facility depreciation expense due to purchases of six previously leased properties during 2008 and recent renovations, as well as the additional depreciation of Recently Acquired Facilities. In addition, amortization expense increased $0.8 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008 related to the amortization of patient base intangible assets at Recently Acquired Facilities.
Other Income (Expense).
Other expense, net increased $2.0 million, or 58.7%, to $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Other expense, net increased as a percent of total revenue to 1.0% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 0.7% for the year ended December 31, 2008. This change was due to a decrease in interest income received for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. In addition, we anticipate our interest expense will increase in 2010 as a result of the additional $40.0 million added to the Term Loan in November 2009.
Provision for Income Taxes.
Provision for income taxes increased $3.3 million, or 18.6%, to $21.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $17.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. This increase resulted from the increase in income before income taxes of $8.3 million, or 18.3%. Our effective tax rate was 39.3% for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 39.2% for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our primary sources of liquidity have historically been derived from our cash flow from operations, long term debt secured by our real property and our Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the Revolver). As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the maximum available for borrowing under the Revolver was approximately $50.0 million, respectively, subject to available collateral limits. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the amount of borrowing capacity pledged to secure outstanding letters of credit was $2.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively. In addition, the Revolver includes provisions that allow the Lender to establish reserves against collateral for actual and contingent liabilities, a right which the Lender exercised with our cooperation in December 2008. This reserve restricts $6.0 million of our borrowing capacity, and may be reduced or eliminated based upon developments with respect to the ongoing U.S. Attorney investigation.
Since 2004, we have financed the majority of our facility acquisitions primarily through leveraging mortgages on existing facilities, cash generated from operations or proceeds from the IPO. Cash paid for business acquisitions was
$21.1
million, $61.3 million and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Cash paid for asset acquisitions was $0, $0 and $18.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Where we enter into a facility lease agreement, we typically do not pay any material amount to the prior facility operator, nor do we acquire any assets or assume any liabilities, other than our rights and obligations under the new lease and operations transfer agreement, as part of the transaction. Leases are included in the contractual obligations section below. Total capital expenditures for property and equipment were
$28.8
million, $21.9 million and $19.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. We currently have $30.0 million budgeted for capital expenditure projects in 2011.
On January 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14.6 million, which was paid in cash. In February 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services, for approximately $16.6 million, which was paid in cash.
We believe our current cash balances, our cash flow from operations and our Revolver will be sufficient to cover our operating and investing needs for at least the next 12 months. We may in the future seek to raise additional capital to fund growth, capital renovations, operations and other business activities, but such additional capital may not be available on acceptable terms, on a timely basis, or at all.
68
Our cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2010 consisted of bank term deposits, money market funds and treasury bill related investments. In addition, as of December 31, 2010, we held debt security investments of approximately
$12.1
million, of which $8.1 million are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program upon maturity. The remaining $4.0 million debt security investment is AAA rated and backed by the FDIC. Our market risk exposure is interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because the majority of our investments are in cash equivalents. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 10% change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our portfolio. Accordingly, we would not expect our operating results or cash flows to be affected to any significant degree by the effect of a sudden change in market interest rates on our securities portfolio.
The following table presents selected data from our consolidated statement of cash flows for the periods presented:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
$
|
60,501
|
|
$
|
46,271
|
|
|
$
|
46,671
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
(57,186
|
)
|
(80,469
|
)
|
|
(50,930
|
)
|
||||
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
29,918
|
|
31,727
|
|
|
(6,147
|
)
|
||||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
33,233
|
|
(2,471
|
)
|
|
(10,406
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
38,855
|
|
41,326
|
|
|
51,732
|
|
||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
72,088
|
|
38,855
|
|
|
41,326
|
|
||||
Year Ended December 31, 2010 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2009
Net cash provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 was
$60.5
million compared to
$46.3
million for the year ended December 31, 2009, an increase of $
14.2
million. This increase was primarily due to our improved operating results, which contributed
$64.7
million in 2010 after adding back depreciation and amortization, deferred income taxes, provision for doubtful accounts, stock-based compensation, impairment charges, excess tax benefits from share based compensation and loss on disposition of property and equipment (non-cash charges), as compared to
$52.2
million for 2009, an increase of
$12.5
million.
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2010 was
$57.2
million compared to
$80.5
million for the year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$23.3
million. The decrease was primarily the result of
$56.7
million in cash paid for business acquisitions and purchased property and equipment in the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to
$80.7
million in the year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$24.0
million.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2010 was
$29.9
million as compared to
$31.7
million for the year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$1.8
million. This decrease was primarily the result of the receipt of proceeds from the issuance of debt of
$35.0
million during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to
$40.0
million in 2009, a decrease of
$5.0
million. This decrease was partially offset by a reduction in payments of principal on capital lease obligations of $3.0 million due to our 2009 purchase of one facility which we previously operated under a capital lease which did not recur in 2010. Further, this decrease was partially offset by increases in dividends paid of
$0.4
million and payments of long term debt of
$0.9
million during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.
Year Ended December 31, 2009 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2008
Net cash provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $46.3 million compared to $46.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, a decrease of $0.4 million. This decrease was primarily due to increases in outstanding accounts receivable balances and decreased cash reimbursements related to prepaid income taxes in 2008, which did not recur in the current year. This increase was partially offset by our improved operating results, which contributed $52.2 million in 2009 after adding back depreciation and amortization, deferred income taxes, provision for doubtful accounts, stock-based compensation, excess tax benefit from share based compensation and loss on disposition of property and equipment (non-cash charges), as compared to $41.8 million for 2008, an increase of $10.4 million.
69
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $80.5 million compared to $50.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of $29.6 million. The increase was the result of $83.2 million in cash paid for business acquisitions and purchased property and equipment during the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $40.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2008.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2009 totaled $31.7 million compared to net cash used of $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of $37.8 million. The increase was primarily due to the receipt of proceeds from the issuance of debt of $40.0 million.
Total long-term debt obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 were as follows:
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
2010
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amended Term Loan with GE Capital
|
$
|
16,968
|
|
|
$
|
55,653
|
|
|
$
|
54,929
|
|
|
$
|
54,102
|
|
|
$
|
93,170
|
|
$
|
91,724
|
|
|
|
Mortgage Loan and Promissory Notes
|
9,086
|
|
|
8,875
|
|
|
8,641
|
|
|
6,449
|
|
|
15,064
|
|
49,744
|
|
|||||||
|
Bond payable
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,232
|
|
1,038
|
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
$
|
26,054
|
|
|
$
|
64,528
|
|
|
$
|
63,570
|
|
|
$
|
60,551
|
|
|
$
|
109,466
|
|
$
|
142,506
|
|
|
The following table represents the Company's cumulative facility growth from 2004 to the present:
|
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
2010
|
||||||||
|
Cumulative number of facilities
|
43
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
77
|
|
82
|
|
|
Term Loan with GE Capital
On December 29, 2006, a number of our independent real estate holding subsidiaries jointly entered into the Third Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, with the Lender, which consists of an approximately $55.7 million multiple-advance term loan, further referred to as the Ten Project Note. The Ten Project Note matures on September 29, 2016, and is currently secured by the real and personal property comprising the ten facilities owned by these subsidiaries.
The Ten Project Note was funded in advances, with each advance bearing interest at a separate rate. The interest rates range from 6.95% to 7.50% per annum. The proceeds of the advances made under the Ten Project Note have been used to refinance an existing loan from the Lender secured by certain of the properties, and to purchase other additional properties that we were previously leasing.
On November 6, 2009, we finalized the Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (Amended Term Loan) with the Lender which increased the borrowing capacity of the loan by $40.0 million, further referred to as the Six Project Loan. The Six Project Loan will mature on September 30, 2014 and is secured by, among other things (a) a perfected first priority mortgage/deed of trust on the fee simple interest in six of our skilled nursing facilities (the Property), (b) an assignment of all related leases, rents, deposits, letters of credit, income and profits, (c) an assignment and/or a perfected security interest in all assignable licenses, permits, general intangibles, contracts, agreements and personal property relating to the Property and (d) a perfected first priority security interest in all reserve accounts. The Amended Term Loan, which includes both the Ten Project Note and Six Project Loan, is cross collateralized and cross defaulted with the existing Revolver. The interest rate on the loan is calculated at the current five year swap rate on the date of closing plus 585 basis points for half of the loan balance and the three year swap rate on the date of closing plus 585 basis points and thereafter floating at 90-day LIBOR plus 575 basis points, reset monthly and subject to a LIBOR floor of 2.0% for the remaining half of the loan balance. The Amended Term Loan did not modify any of the existing terms of the Ten Project Note.
In connection with the Amended Term Loan, we have guaranteed the payment and performance of all the obligations of our real estate holding subsidiaries under the loan documents. In the event of our default under the Amended Term Loan, all amounts owed by our subsidiaries and guaranteed by us under this loan agreement and any other loan with the Lender, including the
70
Revolver discussed above, would become immediately due and payable. In addition, in the event of our default under the Amended Term Loan, the Lender has the right to take control of our facilities encumbered by the loan to the extent necessary to make such payments and perform such acts required under the loan.
Under the Amended Term Loan, we are subject to standard reporting requirements and certain additional affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on the disposition of the Borrowers and the collateral. Effective October 1, 2006 and continuing each calendar quarter thereafter, we are subject to restrictive financial covenants, including average occupancy, Debt Service (as defined in the agreement) and Project Yield (as defined in the agreement). As of
December 31, 2010
, we were in compliance with all loan covenants. As of
December 31, 2010
, our borrowing subsidiaries had
$91.7
million outstanding on the Amended Term Loan.
Revolving Credit Facility with GE Capital
On February 21, 2008, we amended our Revolver by extending the term to 2013, increasing the available credit thereunder up to the lesser of $50.0 million or 85% of the eligible accounts receivable, and changing the interest rate for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness thereunder to any of three options, as we may elect from time to time, (i) the 1, 2, 3 or 6 month LIBOR (at our option) plus 2.5%, or (ii) the greater of (a) prime plus 1.0% or (b) the federal funds rate plus 1.5% or (iii) a floating LIBOR rate plus 2.5%. In connection with the Revolver, we incurred financing costs of approximately $0.5 million. The Revolver contains typical representations and financial and non-financial covenants for a loan of this type, a violation of which could result in a default under the Revolver and could possibly cause all amounts owed by us, including amounts due under the Term Loan, to be declared immediately due and payable. In addition, the Revolver includes provisions that allow the Lender to establish reserves against collateral for actual and contingent liabilities, a right which the Lender exercised with our cooperation in December 2008. This reserve restricts $6.0 million of our borrowing capacity, and may be reduced or eliminated based upon developments with respect to the ongoing, U.S. Attorney investigation.
The proceeds of the loans under the Revolver have been and continue to be used for working capital and other expenses arising in our ordinary course of business.
The Revolver contains affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on:
•
certain indebtedness;
•
certain investments, loans, advances and acquisitions;
•
certain sales or other dispositions of our assets;
•
certain liens and negative pledges;
•
financial covenants;
•
changes of control (as defined in the loan agreement);
•
certain mergers, consolidations, liquidations and dissolutions;
•
certain sale and leaseback transactions without the Lender's consent;
•
dividends and distributions during the existence of an event of default;
•
guarantees and other contingent liabilities;
•
affiliate transactions that are not in the ordinary course of business; and
•
certain changes in capital structure.
A violation of these or other representations or covenants of ours could result in a default under the Revolver and could possibly cause the entire amount outstanding under the Revolver and a cross-default of all amounts owed by us, including amounts due under the Amended Term Loan, to be declared immediately due and payable.
In connection with the Revolver, the majority of our subsidiaries granted a first priority security interest to the Lender in, among other things: (1) all accounts, accounts receivable and rights to payment of every kind, contract rights, chattel paper, documents and instruments with respect thereto, and all of our rights, remedies, securities and liens in, to, and in respect of our accounts, (2) all moneys, securities, and other property and the proceeds thereof under the control of the Lender and its affiliates, (3) all right, title and interest in, to and in respect of all goods relating to or resulting in accounts, (4) all deposit accounts into which our accounts are deposited, (5) general intangibles and other property of every kind relating to our accounts, (6) all other general intangibles, including, without limitation, proceeds from insurance policies, intellectual property rights, and goodwill, (7) inventory, machinery, equipment, tools, fixtures, goods, supplies, and all related attachments, accessions and replacements,
71
and (8) proceeds, including insurance proceeds, of all of the foregoing. In the event of our default, the Lender has the right to take possession of the foregoing with or without judicial process.
Promissory Notes with
RBS Asset Finance, Inc.
On December 31, 2010, four of our real estate holding subsidiaries as Borrowers executed a promissory note in favor of RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35.0 million (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan was secured by Commercial Deeds of Trust, Security Agreements, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Fillings on the four properties owned by the four Borrowers, and other related instruments and agreements, including without limitation a promissory note and a Company guaranty. The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to certain prepayment fees. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018.
Among other things, under the RBS Loan, we must maintain compliance with specified financial covenants measured on a quarterly basis, including a minimum debt service coverage ratio, an average occupancy rate and a minimum project yield . The Loan Documents also include certain additional affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on the disposition of the Borrowers and the collateral.
As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had
$35.0
million outstanding on the RBS Loan.
Promissory Notes with Johnson Land Enterprises, Inc.
On October 1, 2009, four subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. entered into four separate promissory notes with Johnson Land Enterprises, LLC (the Seller), for an aggregate of $10.0 million, as a part of the Company's acquisition of three skilled nursing facilities in Utah. The unpaid balance of principal and accrued interest from these notes is due on September 30, 2019. The notes bear interest at a rate of 6.0% per annum. As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had
$9.7
million outstanding on the Promissory Notes.
Bonds Payable to Lynn Family Partnership
On October 1, 2009, a subsidiary of The Ensign Group, Inc. in West Jordan, Utah assumed the obligation to pay the remaining principal and interest on bonds which were originally sold to finance the construction of the facility. These bonds were assumed as a part of the Company's acquisition of three skilled nursing facilities in Utah. The unpaid balance of principal and accrued interest from these bonds is due on July 1, 2015. The bonds bear interest at an annual rate equal to sixty percent of the rate announced from time to time by Bank of America as its prime rate (Prime Rate), which was 2.1% on
December 31, 2010
. As of
December 31, 2010
, the balance outstanding on these bonds was
$1.0
million.
Mortgage Loan with Continental Wingate Associates, Inc.
Ensign Southland LLC, a subsidiary of The Ensign Group, Inc., entered into a mortgage loan on January 30, 2001 with Continental Wingate Associates, Inc. The mortgage loan is insured with the U.S. Department of Housing and Development, or HUD, which subjects our Southland facility to HUD oversight and periodic inspections. As of
December 31, 2010
, the balance outstanding on this mortgage loan was approximately
$6.1
million. The unpaid balance of principal and accrued interest from this mortgage loan is due on February 1, 2027. The mortgage loan bears interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
This mortgage loan is secured by the real property comprising the Southland Care Center facility and the rents, issues and profits thereof, as well as all personal property used in the operation of the facility.
Contractual Obligations, Commitments and Contingencies
Our principal contractual obligations and commitments as of
December 31, 2010
were as follows:
72
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
Other
|
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Operating lease obligations
|
$
|
15,306
|
|
|
$
|
15,455
|
|
|
$
|
15,236
|
|
|
$
|
15,022
|
|
|
$
|
13,477
|
|
|
$
|
67,015
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
141,511
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations
|
3,055
|
|
|
3,351
|
|
|
3,610
|
|
|
41,033
|
|
|
3,301
|
|
|
89,222
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
143,572
|
|
||||||||
|
Interest payments on long-term debt
|
9,942
|
|
|
9,938
|
|
|
9,710
|
|
|
9,211
|
|
|
6,181
|
|
|
11,258
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
56,240
|
|
||||||||
|
FIN 48 obligations, including interest and penalties
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
2
|
|
||||||||
|
Total
|
$
|
28,303
|
|
|
$
|
28,744
|
|
|
$
|
28,556
|
|
|
$
|
65,266
|
|
|
$
|
22,959
|
|
|
$
|
167,495
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
341,325
|
|
Not included in the table above are our actuarially determined self-insured general and professional malpractice liability, worker's compensation and medical (including prescription drugs) and dental healthcare obligations which are broken out between current and long-term liabilities in our financial statements included in this annual report.
We lease certain facilities and our Service Center office under operating leases, most of which have initial lease terms ranging from five to 20 years. Most of these leases contain options to renew or extend the lease term, some of which involve rent increases. We also lease equipment under operating leases, the majority of which have initial terms ranging from three to five years. Total rent expense, inclusive of straight-line rent adjustments, was
$14.9
million, $15.2 million and $15.4 million for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, respectively.
In March 2007, we and certain of our officers received a series of notices from our bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to our bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. Subsequently, in June 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of our current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both we and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
On December 17, 2007, we were informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of our operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed our previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of our operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of our
82
facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. We also continue to sporadically receive anecdotal reports of former employees who have been contacted by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's office. Based on these events, we believe that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of our skilled nursing facilities.
Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) served search warrants on our Service Center and six of our Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. We have worked with the U.S. Attorney's office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. We and our regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney's office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office, and will continue working with them to the extent they will allow us to help move their inquiry forward. To our knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of our operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. We cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any
qui tam
litigation that may follow, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, we have not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a
qui tam
relator who elects to pursue the matter, and we are subjected to or alleged to be
73
liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
We initiated an internal investigation in November 2006 when we became aware of an allegation of possible reimbursement irregularities at one or more of our facilities. This investigation focused on 12 facilities, and included all six of the facilities which were covered by the warrants served in December 2008. We retained outside counsel to assist us in looking into these matters. We and our outside counsel concluded this investigation in February 2008 without identifying any systemic or patterns and practices of fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We made observations at certain facilities regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our recordkeeping and billing practices and have implemented measures, some of which were already underway before the investigation began, that we believe will strengthen our recordkeeping and billing processes. None of these additional findings or observations appears to be rooted in fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We continue to evaluate the measures we have implemented for effectiveness, and we are continuing to seek ways to improve these processes.
As a byproduct of our investigation we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located or for which other billing deficiencies existed. We, with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing, completed a billing review on these claims. To the extent missing documentation was not located, we treated the claims as overpayments. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, we record any charge for refunded payments against revenue in the period in which the claim adjustment becomes known.
From time to time our systems and controls highlight potential compliance issues, which we investigate as they arise. As a result of the detection by management at one of our facilities, and their Service Center support personnel, of possible recordkeeping and related irregularities at that facility, we initiated an internal inquiry in the second quarter of 2010.
We concluded our investigatory phase of this inquiry and completed a billing review of potentially affected claims in the third quarter of 2010. As a result of our billing reviews, we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located, or for which other billing deficiencies existed. Where accepted procedures and necessary data for reviewing and calculating potential overpayments were available, we followed such procedures and completed a billing review. Where such procedures and/or data were not available we developed a methodology for making a good faith estimate of potential overpayments with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing. The issues detected appear to be isolated to one facility and one department within that facility. During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, we remitted payment of approximately $0.5 million, plus interest, for the estimated overpayments described above, with a resulting impact to net income of approximately $0.3 million.
In addition, we made observations at the facility regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our historical recordkeeping and billing practices and have identified measures, some of which had already been implemented before the inquiry began, that we believe have strengthened, and can strengthen further, our recordkeeping and billing process.
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of our board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the shareholder’s interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring the Company’s response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
See additional description of our contingencies in Notes 13, 15 and 17 in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Inflation
We have historically derived a substantial portion of our revenue from the Medicare program. We also derive revenue from state Medicaid and similar reimbursement programs. Payments under these programs generally provide for reimbursement levels that are adjusted for inflation annually based upon the state's fiscal year for the Medicaid programs and in each October for the Medicare program. These adjustments may not continue in the future, and even if received, such adjustments may not reflect the
74
actual increase in our costs for providing healthcare services.
Labor and supply expenses make up a substantial portion of our cost of services. Those expenses can be subject to increase in periods of rising inflation and when labor shortages occur in the marketplace. To date, we have generally been able to implement cost control measures or obtain increases in reimbursement sufficient to offset increases in these expenses. We may not be successful in offsetting future cost increases.
Off-Balance Sheet and Other Arrangements
As of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, we had approximately $2.4 million and $2.1 million of borrowing capacity on the Revolver pledged as collateral to secure outstanding letters of credit, respectively.
75
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Interest Rate Risk.
We are exposed to interest rate changes in connection with the Revolver, which is available but is not regularly used to maintain liquidity and fund capital expenditures and operations. Our interest rate risk management objective is to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings and cash flows and to provide more predictability to our overall borrowing costs. To achieve this objective, we borrow primarily at fixed rates, although the Revolver is available and could be used for short-term borrowing purposes. At
December 31, 2010
, we had no outstanding floating rate debt, however, beginning in 2013, approximately $20.0 million of the Six Project Loan will be floating rate debt.
Our cash and cash equivalents as of
December 31, 2010
consisted of bank term deposits, money market funds and treasury bill related investments. In addition, as of
December 31, 2010
, we held debt security investments of approximately
$12.1
million, of which $8.1 million is guaranteed by the FDIC under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program upon maturity. The remaining $4.0 million debt security investment is AAA rated and backed by the FDIC. Our market risk exposure is interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because our investments are in cash equivalents. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 10% change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our portfolio. Accordingly, we would not expect our operating results or cash flows to be affected to any significant degree by the effect of a sudden change in market interest rates on our securities portfolio.
The above only incorporates those exposures that exist as of
December 31, 2010
, and does not consider those exposures or positions which could arise after that date. If we diversify our investment portfolio into securities and other investment alternatives, we may face increased risk and exposures as a result of interest risk and the securities markets in general.
Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
The following table presents our unaudited quarterly consolidated results of operations for each of the eight quarters in the two year period ended
December 31, 2010
. The unaudited quarterly consolidated information has been derived from our unaudited quarterly financial statements on Forms 10-Q, which were prepared on the same basis as our audited consolidated financial statements. You should read the following table presenting our quarterly consolidated results of operations in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The operating results for any quarter are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for any future period.
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
June 30,
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
172,757
|
|
$
|
164,653
|
|
$
|
157,948
|
|
$
|
154,174
|
|
|
$
|
146,615
|
|
|
$
|
132,924
|
|
|
$
|
132,178
|
|
|
$
|
130,285
|
|
|||
|
Cost of services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization)
|
136,217
|
|
131,460
|
|
125,808
|
|
123,183
|
|
|
117,565
|
|
|
107,264
|
|
|
105,290
|
|
|
104,199
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Total expenses
|
151,473
|
|
146,064
|
|
139,854
|
|
136,487
|
|
|
130,505
|
|
|
119,093
|
|
|
117,640
|
|
|
115,826
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Income from operations
|
21,284
|
|
|
18,589
|
|
|
18,094
|
|
|
17,687
|
|
|
16,110
|
|
|
13,831
|
|
|
14,538
|
|
|
14,459
|
|
||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
11,672
|
|
$
|
9,887
|
|
$
|
9,619
|
|
$
|
9,348
|
|
|
$
|
8,693
|
|
|
$
|
7,686
|
|
|
$
|
8,184
|
|
|
$
|
7,923
|
|
|||
|
Net income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Basic
|
$
|
0.56
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.40
|
|
|
$
|
0.39
|
|
|||
|
Diluted
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
$
|
0.44
|
|
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.39
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|||
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Basic
|
20,791
|
|
20,756
|
|
20,741
|
|
20,686
|
|
|
20,637
|
|
|
20,616
|
|
|
20,586
|
|
|
20,572
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Diluted
|
21,275
|
|
21,147
|
|
21,126
|
|
21,074
|
|
|
20,966
|
|
|
20,928
|
|
|
20,874
|
|
|
20,892
|
|
|||||||||||
The additional information required by this Item 8 is included in appendix pages 80 through 108 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
76
Item 9.
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants and Financial Disclosures
None.
Item 9A.
Controls and Procedures
(a) Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, our management recognized that any system of controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, as ours are designed to do, and management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.
In connection with the preparation of this Annual Report on Form 10-K our management evaluated, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act, and to ensure that information required to be disclosed is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive and financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
(b) Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) promulgated under the Exchange Act. Internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting using the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in
Internal Control - Integrated Framework.
Based on our evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Our independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued an audit report, included herein, on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Their report is set forth below.
(c) Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) promulgated under the Exchange Act, that occurred during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
77
(d) Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Ensign Group, Inc.
Mission Viejo, California
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of The Ensign Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of
December 31, 2010
, based on criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company's principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company's board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010
, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company and our report dated February 16, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and the financial statement schedule.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
February 16, 2011
78
Item 9B.
Other Information
None.
Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
There is incorporated herein by reference the information required by this Item in our definitive proxy statement for the
2011
Annual Meeting of Stockholders that will be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
.
Item 11.
Executive Compensation
There is incorporated herein by reference the information required by this Item in our definitive proxy statement for the
2011
Annual Meeting of Stockholders that will be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
.
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
There is incorporated herein by reference the information required by this Item in our definitive proxy statement for the
2011
Annual Meeting of Stockholders that will be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
.
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence
There is incorporated herein by reference the information required by this Item in our definitive proxy statement for the
2011
Annual Meeting of Stockholders that will be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
.
Item 14.
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
There is incorporated herein by reference the information required by this Item in our definitive proxy statement for the
2011
Annual Meeting of Stockholders that will be filed with the SEC no later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
.
Item 15.
Exhibits, Financial Statements and Schedules
The following documents are filed as a part of this report:
(a) (1)
Financial Statements:
The Financial Statements are included in Item 8 and are filed as part of this report.
(2)
Financial Statement Schedule:
Schedule II: Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(a) (3)
Exhibits:
An “Exhibit Index” has been filed as a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K beginning on page 110 hereof and is incorporated herein by reference
79
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Dated: February 16, 2011
|
The Ensign Group, Inc.
|
||
|
By:
|
/s/ Christopher R. Christensen
|
|
|
Christopher R. Christensen
|
||
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
||
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. CHRISTENSEN
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director (principal executive officer)
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Christopher R. Christensen
|
|
|||
|
/s/ SUZANNE D. SNAPPER
|
Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Suzanne D. Snapper
|
|
|||
|
/s/ ROY E. CHRISTENSEN
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Roy E. Christensen
|
|
|||
|
/s/ ANTOINETTE T. HUBENETTE
|
Director
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Antoinette T. Hubenette
|
|
|||
|
/s/ THOMAS A. MALOOF
|
Director
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Thomas A. Maloof
|
|
|||
|
/s/ VAN R. JOHNSON
|
Director
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
Van R. Johnson
|
|
|||
|
/s/ JOHN G. NACKEL
|
Director
|
|
February 16, 2011
|
|
|
John G. Nackel
|
|
80
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
Consolidated Financial Statements:
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009
|
|
81
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Ensign Group, Inc.
Mission Viejo, California
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The Ensign Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010
. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and the financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The Ensign Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010
, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010
, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 16, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
February 16, 2011
82
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|||||
|
|
(In thousands, except par values)
|
||||||
|
ASSETS
|
|||||||
|
Current assets:
|
|
||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
72,088
|
|
$
|
38,855
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable - net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $9,793 and $7,575 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
69,437
|
|
62,606
|
|
|||
|
Prepaid income taxes
|
1,333
|
|
1,242
|
|
|||
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
7,175
|
|
6,498
|
|
|||
|
Deferred tax asset - current
|
9,975
|
|
8,126
|
|
|||
|
Total current assets
|
160,008
|
|
117,327
|
|
|||
|
Property and equipment, net
|
262,527
|
|
230,774
|
|
|||
|
Insurance subsidiary deposits and investments
|
16,358
|
|
13,810
|
|
|||
|
Escrow deposits
|
14,422
|
|
7,595
|
|
|||
|
Deferred tax asset
|
4,987
|
|
4,262
|
|
|||
|
Restricted and other assets
|
6,509
|
|
5,650
|
|
|||
|
Intangible assets, net
|
4,070
|
|
4,498
|
|
|||
|
Goodwill
|
10,339
|
|
7,432
|
|
|||
|
Other indefinite-lived intangibles
|
672
|
|
—
|
|
|||
|
Total assets
|
$
|
479,892
|
|
$
|
391,348
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|||||||
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
||||||
|
Accounts payable
|
$
|
17,897
|
|
$
|
15,498
|
|
|
|
Accrued wages and related liabilities
|
37,377
|
|
28,756
|
|
|||
|
Accrued self-insurance liabilities - current
|
11,480
|
|
10,074
|
|
|||
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
13,557
|
|
15,375
|
|
|||
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
3,055
|
|
2,065
|
|
|||
|
Total current liabilities
|
83,366
|
|
71,768
|
|
|||
|
Long-term debt - less current maturities
|
139,451
|
|
107,401
|
|
|||
|
Accrued self-insurance liabilities - long-term
|
25,920
|
|
22,096
|
|
|||
|
Deferred rent and other long-term liabilities
|
2,952
|
|
2,524
|
|
|||
|
Commitments and contingencies (Notes 13 and 17)
|
|
||||||
|
Stockholders' equity:
|
|
||||||
|
Common stock; $0.001 par value; 75,000 shares authorized; 21,397 and 20,815 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010, respectively, and 21,280 and 20,642 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009, respectively.
|
21
|
|
21
|
|
|||
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
70,814
|
|
66,765
|
|
|||
|
Retained earnings
|
161,168
|
|
124,910
|
|
|||
|
Common stock in treasury, at cost, 582 and 638 shares at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
(3,800
|
)
|
(4,137
|
)
|
|||
|
Total stockholders' equity
|
228,203
|
|
187,559
|
|
|||
|
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$
|
479,892
|
|
$
|
391,348
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
83
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
||||||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
|
|
Expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Cost of services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately below)
|
516,668
|
|
434,318
|
|
|
376,742
|
|
||||
|
Facility rent - cost of services
|
14,478
|
|
14,703
|
|
|
14,932
|
|
||||
|
General and administrative expense
|
26,099
|
|
20,767
|
|
|
20,017
|
|
||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
16,633
|
|
13,276
|
|
|
9,026
|
|
||||
|
Total expenses
|
573,878
|
|
483,064
|
|
|
420,717
|
|
||||
|
Income from operations
|
75,654
|
|
58,938
|
|
|
48,655
|
|
||||
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Interest expense
|
(9,123
|
)
|
(5,691
|
)
|
|
(4,784
|
)
|
||||
|
Interest income
|
248
|
|
279
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
||||
|
Other expense, net
|
(8,875
|
)
|
(5,412
|
)
|
|
(3,410
|
)
|
||||
|
Income before provision for income taxes
|
66,779
|
|
53,526
|
|
|
45,245
|
|
||||
|
Provision for income taxes
|
26,253
|
|
21,040
|
|
|
17,736
|
|
||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
|
|
Net income per share:
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Basic
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
$
|
1.58
|
|
|
$
|
1.34
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
$
|
1.92
|
|
$
|
1.55
|
|
|
$
|
1.33
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Basic
|
20,744
|
|
20,603
|
|
|
20,520
|
|
||||
|
Diluted
|
21,159
|
|
20,925
|
|
|
20,715
|
|
||||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
84
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
Retained
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Shares
|
|
Amount
|
|
Capital
|
|
Earnings
|
|
Shares
|
|
Amount
|
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Balance - January 1, 2008
|
20,480
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
62,142
|
|
|
$
|
72,119
|
|
|
716
|
|
|
$
|
(4,605
|
)
|
|
$
|
129,677
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock to employees and directors resulting from the exercise of stock options
|
84
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
179
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
258
|
|
|
437
|
|
||||||
|
Dividends declared
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3,391
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3,391
|
)
|
||||||
|
Employee stock award compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,682
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,682
|
|
||||||
|
Excess tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
107
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
27,509
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
27,509
|
|
||||||
|
Balance - December 31, 2008
|
20,564
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
64,110
|
|
|
96,237
|
|
|
672
|
|
|
(4,347
|
)
|
|
156,021
|
|
||||||
|
Issuance of common stock to employees and directors resulting from the exercise of stock options and grant of stock awards
|
78
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
253
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
210
|
|
|
463
|
|
||||||
|
Dividends declared
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3,813
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(3,813
|
)
|
||||||
|
Employee stock award compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,330
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,330
|
|
||||||
|
Excess tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
72
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
32,486
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
32,486
|
|
||||||
|
Balance - December 31, 2009
|
20,642
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
66,765
|
|
|
124,910
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
(4,137
|
)
|
|
187,559
|
|
||||||
|
Issuance of common stock to employees and directors resulting from the exercise of stock options and grant of stock awards
|
173
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
626
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
337
|
|
|
963
|
|
||||||
|
Dividends declared
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(4,268
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(4,268
|
)
|
||||||
|
Employee stock award compensation
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,904
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,904
|
|
||||||
|
Excess tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
519
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
519
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
40,526
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
40,526
|
|
||||||
|
Balance - December 31, 2010
|
20,815
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
70,814
|
|
|
$
|
161,168
|
|
|
582
|
|
|
$
|
(3,800
|
)
|
|
$
|
228,203
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
85
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
|
(In thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
16,633
|
|
13,276
|
|
|
9,041
|
|
||||
|
Goodwill impairment (Note 9)
|
185
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees
|
644
|
|
278
|
|
|
95
|
|
||||
|
Deferred income taxes
|
(2,574
|
)
|
(711
|
)
|
|
(79
|
)
|
||||
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
6,312
|
|
4,556
|
|
|
3,213
|
|
||||
|
Stock-based compensation
|
2,904
|
|
2,330
|
|
|
1,682
|
|
||||
|
Excess tax benefit from share based compensation
|
(519
|
)
|
(72
|
)
|
|
(107
|
)
|
||||
|
Impairment of software development costs
|
188
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
Loss on disposition of property and equipment
|
403
|
|
71
|
|
|
476
|
|
||||
|
Change in operating assets and liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Accounts receivable
|
(13,143
|
)
|
(17,974
|
)
|
|
(1,786
|
)
|
||||
|
Prepaid income taxes
|
(91
|
)
|
(1,242
|
)
|
|
5,942
|
|
||||
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
(677
|
)
|
(1,806
|
)
|
|
627
|
|
||||
|
Insurance subsidiary deposits and investments
|
(2,548
|
)
|
(2,065
|
)
|
|
(2,935
|
)
|
||||
|
Accounts payable
|
(310
|
)
|
2,816
|
|
|
(2,017
|
)
|
||||
|
Accrued wages and related liabilities
|
8,621
|
|
3,367
|
|
|
4,248
|
|
||||
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
(1,440
|
)
|
4,439
|
|
|
(283
|
)
|
||||
|
Accrued self-insurance liabilities
|
5,230
|
|
5,852
|
|
|
1,658
|
|
||||
|
Deferred rent liability
|
157
|
|
670
|
|
|
(613
|
)
|
||||
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
60,501
|
|
46,271
|
|
|
46,671
|
|
||||
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Purchase of property and equipment
|
(28,722
|
)
|
(21,877
|
)
|
|
(19,822
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash payment for business acquisitions
|
(21,100
|
)
|
(61,301
|
)
|
|
(2,005
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash payment for asset acquisitions
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|
(18,518
|
)
|
||||
|
Escrow deposits for acquisitions
|
(14,422
|
)
|
(7,595
|
)
|
|
(10,090
|
)
|
||||
|
Escrow deposits used to fund business acquisitions
|
7,595
|
|
10,090
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Restricted assets
|
(649
|
)
|
111
|
|
|
(622
|
)
|
||||
|
Other assets
|
112
|
|
103
|
|
|
127
|
|
||||
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
(57,186
|
)
|
(80,469
|
)
|
|
(50,930
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Proceeds from issuance of debt
|
35,000
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Payments on long term debt
|
(2,082
|
)
|
(1,161
|
)
|
|
(3,019
|
)
|
||||
|
Issuance of treasury stock upon exercise of options
|
337
|
|
210
|
|
|
258
|
|
||||
|
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of options
|
626
|
|
254
|
|
|
179
|
|
||||
|
Dividends paid
|
(4,149
|
)
|
(3,707
|
)
|
|
(3,285
|
)
|
||||
|
Principal payments under capital lease obligation
|
—
|
|
(2,971
|
)
|
|
(2
|
)
|
||||
|
Excess tax benefit from share based compensation
|
519
|
|
72
|
|
|
107
|
|
||||
|
Payments of deferred financing costs
|
(333
|
)
|
(970
|
)
|
|
(385
|
)
|
||||
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
29,918
|
|
31,727
|
|
|
(6,147
|
)
|
||||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
33,233
|
|
(2,471
|
)
|
|
(10,406
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents beginning of year
|
38,855
|
|
41,326
|
|
|
51,732
|
|
||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents end of year
|
$
|
72,088
|
|
$
|
38,855
|
|
|
$
|
41,326
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Cash paid during the period for:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Interest
|
$
|
9,136
|
|
$
|
5,278
|
|
|
$
|
4,788
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
$
|
28,540
|
|
$
|
24,976
|
|
|
$
|
11,415
|
|
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Capital lease obligation
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
197
|
|
|
$
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
Accrued capital expenditures
|
$
|
2,819
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
||
|
In conjunction with acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Fair value of assets acquired
|
$
|
21,100
|
|
$
|
71,346
|
|
|
$
|
2,005
|
|
|
|
Less: debt assumed in connection with acquisitions
|
—
|
|
(10,045
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Cash paid for acquisitions
|
$
|
21,100
|
|
$
|
61,301
|
|
|
$
|
2,005
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
86
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars and shares in thousands, except per share data)
1. Description of Business
The Company -
The Ensign Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries (collectively, Ensign or the Company), provides skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of
82
facilities and one home health and hospice operation as of
December 31, 2010
, located in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. All of these facilities are skilled nursing facilities, other than three stand-alone assisted living facilities in Arizona, Texas and Colorado and five campuses that offer both skilled nursing and assisted living, independent living or hospice care services located in California, Arizona and Texas. The Company's facilities, each of which strives to be the facility of choice in the community it serves, provide a broad spectrum of skilled nursing and assisted living services, physical, occupational and speech therapies, and other rehabilitative and healthcare services, for both long-term residents and short-stay rehabilitation patients. The Company's facilities have a collective capacity of approximately
9,500
operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds. As of
December 31, 2010
, the Company owned
52
of its
82
facilities and operated an additional
30
facilities through long-term lease arrangements, and had options to purchase eight of those
30
facilities.
The Ensign Group, Inc. is a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenue. All of the Company's facilities are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries, each of which has its own management, employees and assets. One of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, referred to as the Service Center, provides centralized accounting, payroll, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management and other centralized services to the other operating subsidiaries through contractual relationships with such subsidiaries. The Company also has a wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary (the Captive) that provides some claims-made coverage to the Company's operating subsidiaries for general and professional liability, as well as coverage for certain workers' compensation insurance liabilities.
Like the Company's facilities, the Service Center and the Captive are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries that have their own management, employees and assets. References herein to the consolidated “Company” and “its” assets and activities and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that The Ensign Group, Inc. has direct operating assets, employees or revenue, or that any of the facilities, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Presentation —
The accompanying consolidated financial statements (Financial Statements) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). The Company is the sole member or shareholder of various consolidated limited liability companies and corporations; each established to operate various acquired skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, home health and hospice care services. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
Estimates and Assumptions —
The preparation of Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. The most significant estimates in the Company’s Financial Statements relate to revenue, allowance for doubtful accounts, intangible assets and goodwill, impairment of long-lived assets, general and professional liability, worker’s compensation, and healthcare claims included in accrued self-insurance liabilities and income taxes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Business Segments —
The Company has a single reportable segment — long-term care services, which includes the operation of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and related ancillary services. The Company’s single reportable segment is made up of several individual operating segments grouped together principally based on their geographical locations within the United States. Based on the similar economic and other characteristics of each of the operating segments, management believes the Company meets the criteria for aggregating its operating segments into a single reporting segment.
Comprehensive Income —
For the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
there were no differences between comprehensive income and net income. Therefore, statements of comprehensive income have not been presented.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments —
The Company’s financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash
87
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
equivalents, debt security investments, accounts receivable, insurance subsidiary deposits, accounts payable and borrowings. The Company believes all of the financial instruments’ recorded values approximate fair values because of their nature or respective short durations. The Company’s fixed-rate debt instruments do not actively trade in an established market. The fair values of this debt are estimated by discounting the principal and interest payments at rates available to the Company for debt with similar terms and maturities. See further discussion of debt security investments at Note 4.
Revenue Recognition —
The Company recognizes revenue when the following four conditions have been met: (i) there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists; (ii) delivery has occurred or service has been rendered; (iii) the price is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is reasonably assured.
The Company's revenue is derived primarily from providing long-term healthcare services to residents and is recognized on the date services are provided at amounts billable to individual residents. For residents under reimbursement arrangements with third-party payors, including Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers, revenue is recorded based on contractually agreed-upon amounts on a per patient, daily basis.
Revenue from the Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for
76.4%
,
75.0
% and
74.8
% of the Company’s revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Company records revenue from these governmental and managed care programs as services are performed at their expected net realizable amounts under these programs. The Company’s revenue from governmental and managed care programs is subject to audit and retroactive adjustment by governmental and third-party agencies. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, any changes to these governmental revenue estimates are recorded in the period the change or adjustment becomes known based on final settlements. The Company recorded retroactive adjustments that increased (decreased) revenue by
$(55)
, $241 and $522 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The decrease in revenue from retroactive revenue adjustments in 2010 is attributable to the item disclosed under “Other Matters” in Note 17. Retroactive revenue adjustments increased revenue by
$299
for the year ended December 31, 2010 prior to the item disclosed in Note 17. Based on Management's assessment, liabilities of approximately $1,100 have been accrued for retroactive revenue adjustments as of December 31, 2010.
The Company’s service specific revenue recognition policies are as follows:
Skilled Nursing Revenue
The Company’s revenue is derived primarily from providing long-term healthcare services to residents and is recognized on the date services are provided at amounts billable to individual residents. For residents under reimbursement arrangements with third-party payors, including Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers, revenue is recorded based on contractually agreed-upon amounts on a per patient, daily basis. The Company records revenue from private pay patients, at the agreed upon rate, as services are performed.
Home Health and Hospice Revenue Recognition
Episodic Based Revenue —
Net service revenue is typically recorded on a 60-day episode payment rate. The Company makes adjustments to revenue on completed episodes to reflect differences between estimated and actual payment amounts, an inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or authorizations acceptable to the payor and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. The Company records an estimate for the impact of such payment adjustments based on its historical experience. In addition to revenue recognized on completed episodes, the Company also recognizes a portion of revenue associated with episodes in progress. Episodes in progress are 60-day episodes of care that begin during the reporting period, but were not completed as of the end of the period. The Company estimates this revenue on a monthly basis based upon historical trends. The primary factors underlying this estimate are the number of episodes in progress at the end of the reporting period, expected Medicare revenue per episode and our estimate of the average percentage complete based on days completed of the episode of care.
Non-episodic Based Revenue —
Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to our established or estimated per-visit rates, as applicable.
Hospice Revenue —
Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to the estimated payment rates. The estimated payment rates are daily rates for each of the levels of care we deliver. The Company makes adjustments to revenue for an inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or authorizations acceptable to the payor and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. The Company estimates the impact of these adjustments
88
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
based on its historical experience, which primarily includes historical collection rates on Medicare claims, and records it during the period services are rendered as an estimated revenue adjustment and as a reduction to its outstanding patient accounts receivable. Additionally, as Medicare hospice revenue is subject to an inpatient cap limit and an overall payment cap, the Company monitors its provider numbers and estimate amounts due back to Medicare if a cap has been exceeded. The Company records these adjustments as a reduction to revenue and increases in other accrued liabilities.
Accounts Receivable —
Accounts receivable consist primarily of amounts due from Medicare and Medicaid programs, other government programs, managed care health plans and private payor sources. Estimated provisions for doubtful accounts are recorded to the extent it is probable that a portion or all of a particular account will not be collected.
In evaluating the collectability of accounts receivable, the Company considers a number of factors, including the age of the accounts, changes in collection patterns, the composition of patient accounts by payor type and the status of ongoing disputes with third-party payors. The percentages applied to the aged receivable balances are based on the Company’s historical experience and time limits, if any, for managed care, Medicare and Medicaid. The Company periodically refines its procedures for estimating the allowance for doubtful accounts based on experience with the estimation process and changes in circumstances.
Cash and Cash Equivalents —
Cash and cash equivalents consist of bank term deposits, money market funds and treasury bill related investments with original maturities of three months or less at time of purchase and therefore approximate fair value. The fair value of money market funds is determined based on “Level 1” inputs, which consist of unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets. The Company places its cash and short-term investments with high credit quality financial institutions.
Insurance Subsidiary Deposits and Investments —
The Company's captive insurance subsidiary cash and cash equivalents, deposits and investments are designated to support long-term insurance subsidiary liabilities and have been classified as long-term assets. Insurance subsidiary deposits and investments classified as long-term were $
16,358
and $13,810 as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
, respectively. The majority of these deposits and investments are currently held in three separate AAA rated debt security investments and the remainder is held in a bank account with a high credit quality financial institution.
Property and Equipment —
Property and equipment are initially recorded at their historical cost. Repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the depreciable assets (ranging from three to 50 years). Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their estimated useful lives or the remaining lease term.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets —
The Company reviews the carrying value of long-lived assets that are held and used in the Company’s operations for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of these assets is determined based upon expected undiscounted future net cash flows from the operations to which the assets relate, utilizing management’s best estimate, appropriate assumptions, and projections at the time. If the carrying value is determined to be unrecoverable from future operating cash flows, the asset is deemed impaired and an impairment loss would be recognized to the extent the carrying value exceeded the estimated fair value of the asset. The Company estimates the fair value of assets based on the estimated future discounted cash flows of the asset. Management has evaluated its long-lived assets and has not identified any impairment during the years ended
December 31, 2010
, 2009 or 2008.
Intangible Assets and Goodwill —
Intangible assets consist primarily of favorable lease, lease acquisition costs, patient base, trade names and other indefinite-lived intangibles. Favorable leases and lease acquisition costs are amortized over the life of the lease of the facility, typically ranging from ten to 20 years. Patient base is amortized over a period of four to eight months, depending on the classification of the patients and the level of occupancy in a new acquisition on the acquisition date. Trade names at facilities are amortized over 30 years.
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired in business combinations. Goodwill is subject to annual testing for impairment. In addition, goodwill is tested for impairment if events occur or circumstances change that would reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. The Company defines reporting units as the individual facilities. The Company performs its annual test for impairment during the fourth quarter of each year. The Company recorded an impairment charge on one facility of $185 during the year ended
December 31, 2010
. Although the facility is profitable, improvements in operations and related forecasted cash flows were slower than anticipated at the time of acquisition, resulting in the impairment of goodwill. The Company had not recorded
89
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
any charges to goodwill impairment prior to the current year. Except for the reporting unit noted above, the fair value of the Company's reporting units substantially exceeds the carrying value.
Deferred Rent —
Deferred rent represents rental expense determined on a straight-line basis over the life of the related lease; in excess of actual rent payments.
Self-Insurance —
The Company is partially self-insured for general and professional liability up to a base amount per claim (the self-insured retention) with an aggregate, one time deductible above this limit. Losses beyond these amounts are insured through third-party policies with coverage limits per occurrence, per location and on an aggregate basis for the Company. For claims made after April 1, 2010, the combined self-insured retention was $500 per claim with an aggregate $1,736 deductible limit. For all facilities, except for four located in Colorado, the third-party coverage above these limits was $1,000 per occurrence, $3,000 per facility, with a $10,000 blanket aggregate and an additional state-specific aggregate where required by state law. In Colorado, the third-party coverage above these limits was $1,000 per occurrence and $3,000 per facility, which is independent of the $10,000 blanket aggregate applicable to our other 78 facilities.
The self-insured retention and deductible limits for general and professional liability and worker’s compensation are self-insured through the Captive, the related assets and liabilities of which are included in the accompanying Financial Statements. The Captive is subject to certain statutory requirements as an insurance provider. These requirements include, but are not limited to, maintaining statutory capital. The Company’s policy is to accrue amounts equal to the actuarially estimated costs to settle open claims of insureds, as well as an estimate of the cost of insured claims that have been incurred but not reported. The Company develops information about the size of the ultimate claims based on historical experience, current industry information and actuarial analysis, and evaluates the estimates for claim loss exposure on a quarterly basis.
The Company’s operating subsidiaries are self-insured for workers’ compensation liability in California. To protect itself against loss exposure in California with this policy, the Company has purchased individual stop-loss insurance coverage that insures individual claims that exceed $500 for each claim. In Texas, the operating subsidiaries have elected non-subscriber status for workers’ compensation claims. The Company’s operating subsidiaries in other states have third party guaranteed cost coverage. In California and Texas, the Company accrues amounts equal to the estimated costs to settle open claims, as well as an estimate of the cost of claims that have been incurred but not reported. The Company uses actuarial valuations to estimate the liability based on historical experience and industry information.
The Company provides self-insured medical (including prescription drugs) and dental healthcare benefits to the majority of its employees. The Company is fully liable for all financial and legal aspects of these benefit plans. To protect itself against loss exposure with this policy, the Company has purchased individual stop-loss insurance coverage that insures individual claims that exceed $250 for each covered person with an aggregate individual stop loss deductible of $75. These limits reset every plan year subject to a lifetime maximum of $5,000 per each covered person on the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) plans and an unlimited lifetime plan maximum on the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan. The aforementioned coverage only applies to claims paid during the plan year.
The Company believes that adequate provision has been made in the Financial Statements for liabilities that may arise out of patient care, workers’ compensation, healthcare benefits and related services provided to date. The amount of the Company’s reserves was determined based on an estimation process that uses information obtained from both company-specific and industry data. This estimation process requires the Company to continuously monitor and evaluate the life cycle of the claims. Using data obtained from this monitoring and the Company’s assumptions about emerging trends, the Company, with the assistance of an independent actuary, develops information about the size of ultimate claims based on the Company’s historical experience and other available industry information. The most significant assumptions used in the estimation process include determining the trend in costs, the expected cost of claims incurred but not reported and the expected costs to settle or pay damage awards with respect to unpaid claims. The self-insured liabilities are based upon estimates, and while management believes that the estimates of loss are reasonable, the ultimate liability may be in excess of or less than the recorded amounts. Due to the inherent volatility of actuarially determined loss estimates, it is reasonably possible that the Company could experience changes in estimated losses that could be material to net income. If the Company’s actual liability exceeds its estimates of loss, its future earnings, cash flows and financial condition would be adversely affected.
Income Taxes —
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are established for temporary differences between the financial reporting basis and the tax basis of the Company’s assets and liabilities at tax rates in effect when such temporary differences are expected to reverse. The Company generally expects to fully utilize its deferred tax assets; however, when necessary, the Company records a valuation allowance to reduce its net deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be
90
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
realized.
In determining the annual income tax rate for financial statements, the Company must consider expected annual income, permanent differences between financial reporting and tax recognition of income or expense and other factors. When the Company takes uncertain income tax positions that do not meet the recognition criteria, it records a liability for underpayment of income taxes and related interest and penalties, if any. In considering the need for and magnitude of a liability for such positions, the Company must consider the potential outcomes from a review of the positions by the taxing authorities.
In determining the need for a valuation allowance, the annual income tax rate, or the need for and magnitude of liabilities for uncertain tax positions, the Company makes certain estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions are based on, among other things, knowledge of operations, markets, historical trends and likely future changes and, when appropriate, the opinions of advisors with knowledge and expertise in certain fields. Due to certain risks associated with the Company’s estimates and assumptions, actual results could differ.
Stock-Based Compensation —
The Company measures and recognizes compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors including employee stock options based on estimated fair values, ratably over the requisite service period of the award. Net income has been reduced as a result of the recognition of the fair value of all stock options and restricted stock awards issued on and subsequent to January 1, 2006, the amount of which is contingent upon the number of future grants and other variables.
Acquisition Policy —
The Company periodically enters into agreements to acquire assets and/or businesses. The consideration involved in each of these agreements may include cash, financing and/or long-term lease arrangements for real properties. The Company evaluates each transaction to determine whether the acquired interests are assets or businesses. A business is defined as a self-sustaining integrated set of activities and assets conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a return to investors. A business consists of (a) inputs, (b) processes applied to those inputs, and (c) resulting outputs that are used to generate revenues. In order for an acquired set of activities and assets to be a business, it must contain all of the inputs and processes necessary for it to continue to conduct normal operations after the acquired entity is separated from the seller, including the ability to sustain a revenue stream by providing its outputs to customers. An acquired set of activities and assets fail the definition of a business if it excludes one or more of the above items such that it is not possible to continue normal operations and sustain a revenue stream by providing its products and/or services to customers.
Leases and Leasehold Improvements —
At the inception of each lease, the Company performs an evaluation to determine whether the lease should be classified as an operating or capital lease. The Company records rent expense for leases that contain scheduled rent increases on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The lease term used for straight-line rent expense is calculated from the date the Company is given control of the leased premises through the end of the lease term. The lease term used for this evaluation also provides the basis for establishing depreciable lives for buildings subject to lease and leasehold improvements, as well as the period over which the Company records straight-line rent expense.
New Accounting Pronouncements —
In August 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) clarified that health care entities should not net insurance recoveries against related claim liability unless otherwise allowed under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Further, such entities should determine the claim liability without considering insurance recoveries. It was determined a cumulative-effect adjustment should be recognized in opening retained earnings in the period of adoption if a difference exists between any liabilities and insurance receivables recorded as a result of applying these amendments. These amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The Company evaluated the potential impact of adopting these amendments and determined the impact to be an increase to the Company's insurance receivables and liabilities of approximately $2,000 as of December 31, 2010.
In November 2010, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of the FASB reached a final consensus that if comparative financial statements are presented, an entity should present the pro forma disclosures as if the business combination occurred at the beginning of the prior annual period when preparing the pro forma financial information. The EITF also reached a final consensus that entities must provide additional disclosures describing the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. This final consensus will be effective for business combinations consummated in periods beginning after December 15, 2010, and should be applied prospectively as of the date of adoption.
The Company does not believe the adoption of these amendments will have a material effect on its financial statements.
In December, 2010, the FASB amended its view on performing step two of a goodwill impairment analysis. The
91
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
amendment does not prescribe a specific method of calculating the carrying value of a reporting unit in the performance of step one of the goodwill impairment test and requires entities with a zero or negative carrying value to assess, considering qualitative factors such as those listed in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 350-20-35-30 Intangibles - Goodwill and Other, whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. If an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, the entity must perform step two of the goodwill impairment test. For public entities, these amendments are effective for impairment tests performed during entities' fiscal years that begin after December 15, 2010. The Company does not believe the adoption of this amendment will have a material effect on its financial statements.
3. Computation of Net Income Per Common Share
Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to common shares by the weighted average number of outstanding common shares for the period. The computation of diluted net income per share is similar to the computation of basic net income per share except that the denominator is increased to include contingently returnable shares and the number of additional common shares that would have been outstanding if the dilutive potential common shares had been issued.
A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic net income per common share follows:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Weighted average shares outstanding for basic net income per share
|
20,744
|
|
|
20,603
|
|
|
20,520
|
|
|||
|
Basic net income per common share
|
$
|
1.95
|
|
|
$
|
1.58
|
|
|
$
|
1.34
|
|
A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of diluted net income per common share follows:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
40,526
|
|
|
$
|
32,486
|
|
|
$
|
27,509
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
20,744
|
|
|
20,603
|
|
|
20,520
|
|
|||
|
Plus: incremental shares from assumed conversions(1)
|
415
|
|
|
322
|
|
|
195
|
|
|||
|
Adjusted weighted average common shares outstanding
|
21,159
|
|
|
20,925
|
|
|
20,715
|
|
|||
|
Diluted net income per common share
|
$
|
1.92
|
|
|
$
|
1.55
|
|
|
$
|
1.33
|
|
|
(1)
|
In addition, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 the Company had 635, 869 and 515 options outstanding which are anti-dilutive, or would reduce the amount of incremental shares from assumed conversion, and are therefore not factored into the weighted average common shares amount above.
|
4. Insurance Subsidiary Deposits and Investments
On February 10, 2009, the Company purchased three separate AAA rated debt security investments for an aggregate purchase price of $12,183 with insurance subsidiary deposits and cash from the Captive. The debt securities mature in December 2010, July 2011 and December 2011 and are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program upon maturity. The Company has the intent and the ability to hold these debt securities to maturity.
On December 1, 2010, the first of the three debt security investments matured and the funds of $4,000 were reinvested in a new debt security which matures on June 8, 2012. The new debt security investment is also AAA rated, and is backed by the FDIC.
At
December 31, 2010
, the Company had approximately
$12,116
in debt security investments, which are held to
92
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
maturity and carried at amortized cost. The fair value of the investments is determined based on “Level 1” inputs, which consist of unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets. The carrying value of the debt securities approximates fair value.
5. Revenue and Accounts Receivable
Revenue for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
is summarized in the following tables:
|
|
December 31,
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
%
|
|
||||||||
|
Medicaid - custodial
|
$
|
259,711
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
$
|
219,188
|
|
|
40.4
|
|
%
|
$
|
187,499
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
%
|
|
|
Medicare
|
219,217
|
|
33.7
|
|
174,769
|
|
|
32.3
|
|
|
154,852
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
||||
|
Medicaid - skilled
|
17,573
|
|
2.7
|
|
12,449
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
8,537
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
||||
|
Total Medicaid and Medicare
|
496,501
|
|
76.4
|
|
406,406
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
|
350,888
|
|
|
74.8
|
|
|
||||
|
Managed care
|
84,364
|
|
13.0
|
|
72,544
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
64,361
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
||||
|
Private and other payors
|
68,667
|
|
10.6
|
|
63,052
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
54,123
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
649,532
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
$
|
542,002
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
$
|
469,372
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
|
Accounts receivable as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
is summarized in the following table:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Medicaid
|
$
|
20,712
|
|
|
$
|
23,902
|
|
|
Managed care
|
22,764
|
|
|
17,919
|
|
||
|
Medicare
|
22,826
|
|
|
17,481
|
|
||
|
Private and other payors
|
12,928
|
|
|
10,879
|
|
||
|
|
79,230
|
|
|
70,181
|
|
||
|
Less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
(9,793
|
)
|
|
(7,575
|
)
|
||
|
Accounts receivable
|
$
|
69,437
|
|
|
$
|
62,606
|
|
6. Acquisitions
The Company’s acquisition policy is generally to purchase or lease facilities to complement the Company’s existing portfolio of long-term care facilities. The results of all the Company’s operations are included in the accompanying Financial Statements subsequent to the date of acquisition. Acquisitions are typically paid for in cash and are accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting. Where the Company enters into facility lease agreements, the Company typically does not pay any material amount to the prior facility operator nor does the Company acquire any assets or assume any liabilities, other than rights and obligations under the lease and operations transfer agreement, as part of the transaction. Some leases include options to purchase the facilities. As a result, from time to time, the Company will acquire facilities that the Company has been operating under third-party leases.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company acquired four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility and one home health and hospice operation. The aggregate purchase price of the six acquisitions was approximately $21,170, which was paid in cash. The facilities acquired during the year ended December 31, 2010 are as follows:
|
•
|
On January 1, 2010, the Company purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Idaho for $7,617, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 158 operational skilled nursing beds to the Company's operations. The Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as a part of this transaction.
|
|
•
|
On May 1, 2010, the Company purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Texas for approximately $8,491, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added approximately 277 operational skilled nursing beds to the Company's operations. The Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1,542 was recognized in goodwill as a part of this transaction.
|
|
•
|
On May 1, 2010, the Company purchased a home health and hospice operation in Idaho for approximately $2,701, which was paid in cash. The acquisition did not have an impact on the Company's operational bed count. The
|
93
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1,550 and $672 was recognized as goodwill and other indefinite lived intangibles, respectively, as a part of this transaction.
|
•
|
On November 1, 2010, the Company purchased an assisted living facility in Colorado for approximately $2,361, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 215 assisted living beds to the Company's operational bed count. The Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction.
|
The Company expensed $150 in acquisition related costs during the year ended December 31, 2010.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company acquired twelve skilled nursing facilities, one skilled nursing facility which also offers independent living and hospice services, one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one assisted living facility. The aggregate purchase price of fourteen of the fifteen acquisitions was approximately $69,721, which was primarily paid in cash. The Company acquired the remaining facility pursuant to a long-term lease arrangement between the Company and the real property owner of the facility. In this transaction, the Company assumed ownership of the skilled nursing operating business at this facility for $1,626, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added a total of 1,777 operational beds to the Company's operations
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company acquired two skilled nursing facilities pursuant to long-term lease arrangements between the Company and the real property owners of the facility. In these transactions, the Company assumed ownership of the skilled nursing operating businesses. These acquisitions added a total of 219 operational beds to the Company's operations.
The table below presents the allocation of the purchase price for the facilities acquired in business combinations during the years ended
December 31, 2010
and
2009
:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Land
|
$
|
3,279
|
|
|
$
|
12,836
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
12,721
|
|
|
49,423
|
|
||
|
Equipment, furniture, and fixtures
|
1,063
|
|
|
1,981
|
|
||
|
Patient base intangible asset
|
343
|
|
|
960
|
|
||
|
Goodwill
|
3,092
|
|
4,550
|
|
|||
|
Other intangible assets
|
672
|
|
|
1,597
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
21,170
|
|
|
$
|
71,347
|
|
On January 1, 2011, the Company purchased one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14,580, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 123 operational skilled nursing beds, 77 assisted living units, 72 independent living units and 20 independent living cottages to the Company's operations. The Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction. As of December 31, 2010, the cash paid for this acquisition was held in escrow deposits.
The table below presents the preliminary allocation of the purchase price for the above noted facility:
|
|
January 1,
|
||
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
Land
|
990
|
|
|
|
Building and improvements
|
13,144
|
|
|
|
Equipment, furniture, and fixtures
|
266
|
|
|
|
Patient base intangible asset
|
180
|
|
|
|
|
14,580
|
|
|
In February 2011, the Company purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services for approximately $16,550 which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 221
94
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
operational skilled nursing beds, 48 operational assisted living units and 60 independent living apartments to the Company's operations. The Company also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction. As of the date of this filing, the preliminary allocation of the purchase price for this campus in Utah was not completed as necessary valuation information was not yet available.
7. Acquisitions
—
Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Information
The Company’s acquisition strategy has been focused on identifying both opportunistic and strategic acquisitions within its target markets that offer strong opportunities for return on invested capital. The facilities acquired by the Company are frequently underperforming financially and can have regulatory and clinical challenges to overcome. Financial information, especially with underperforming facilities, is often inadequate, inaccurate or unavailable. Consequently, the Company believes that prior operating results are not meaningful, representative of the Company’s current operating results or indicative of the integration potential of its newly acquired facilities. The six businesses acquired during the year ended December 31, 2010 were not material acquisitions to the Company individually or in the aggregate. Accordingly, pro forma financial information is not presented. These acquisitions have been included in the December 31, 2010 condensed consolidated balance sheet of the Company, and the operating results have been included in the consolidated statement of income of the Company since the dates the Company gained effective control.
The following table represents pro forma results of consolidated operations as if the 2009 acquisitions had occurred at the beginning of each fiscal year, after giving effect to certain adjustments.
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
583,468
|
|
$
|
552,192
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
31,076
|
|
26,992
|
|
|||
|
Diluted net income per common share
|
$
|
1.49
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
Our pro forma assumptions are as follows:
|
•
|
Revenues and operating costs were based on actual results from the prior operator or from regulatory filings where available. If actual results were not available, revenues and operating costs were estimated based on available partial operating results of the prior operator of the facility, or if no information was available, estimates were derived from the Company’s operating results for that particular facility. Prior year results for the 2009 acquisitions were obtained from available cost reports filed by the prior operators.
|
|
•
|
Interest expense is based upon the purchase price and average cost of debt borrowed during each respective year when applicable and depreciation is calculated using the actual allocated purchase price.
|
The foregoing pro forma information is not indicative of what the results of operations would have been if the acquisitions had actually occurred at the beginning of the periods presented, and is not intended as a projection of future results or trends.
8. Property and Equipment
Property and equipment consists of the following:
95
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Land
|
$
|
46,900
|
|
$
|
43,621
|
|
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
179,189
|
|
158,803
|
|
|||
|
Equipment
|
47,983
|
|
35,136
|
|
|||
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
8,271
|
|
8,301
|
|
|||
|
Leasehold improvements
|
24,147
|
|
17,978
|
|
|||
|
Construction in progress
|
7,587
|
|
3,036
|
|
|||
|
|
314,077
|
|
266,875
|
|
|||
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
(51,550
|
)
|
(36,101
|
)
|
|||
|
Property and equipment, net
|
$
|
262,527
|
|
$
|
230,774
|
|
|
9. Goodwill and Intangible Assets, Net
Intangible assets, net as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 consists of the following:
|
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Average
|
Gross
|
Gross
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Life
|
Carrying
|
Accumulated
|
Carrying
|
Accumulated
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Intangible Assets
|
(Years)
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amortization
|
|
Net
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amortization
|
|
Net
|
|||||||||||||
|
Lease acquisition costs
|
15.5
|
|
|
$
|
910
|
|
|
$
|
(592
|
)
|
|
$
|
318
|
|
|
$
|
1,071
|
|
|
$
|
(694
|
)
|
|
$
|
377
|
|
|
Favorable lease
|
20.0
|
|
|
3,573
|
|
|
(482
|
)
|
|
3,091
|
|
|
3,573
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
3,299
|
|
||||||
|
Patient base
|
0.3
|
|
|
778
|
|
|
(728
|
)
|
|
50
|
|
|
1,202
|
|
|
(1,015
|
)
|
|
187
|
|
||||||
|
Tradename
|
30.0
|
|
|
733
|
|
|
(122
|
)
|
|
611
|
|
|
733
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
|
635
|
|
||||||
|
Total
|
|
|
$
|
5,994
|
|
|
$
|
(1,924
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,070
|
|
|
$
|
6,579
|
|
|
$
|
(2,081
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,498
|
|
|
Amortization expense for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
was
$771
, $1,070 and $425, respectively. Of the
$771
in amortization expense incurred during the year ended
December 31, 2010
, approximately
$481
related to the amortization of patient base intangible assets at recently acquired facilities, which is typically amortized over a period of four to eight months, depending on the classification of the patients and the level of occupancy in a new acquisition on the acquisition date. See additional discussion on leases at Note 13.
Estimated amortization expense for each of the years ending December 31 is as follows:
|
Year
|
Amount
|
|||
|
2011
|
$
|
344
|
|
|
|
2012
|
291
|
|
||
|
2013
|
290
|
|
||
|
2014
|
290
|
|
||
|
2015
|
267
|
|
||
|
Thereafter
|
2,588
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
4,070
|
|
|
Goodwill
The Company performed its annual goodwill impairment analysis during the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2010
for each reporting unit that constitutes a business for which discrete financial information is produced and reviewed by operating segment management and provides services that are distinct from the other components of the operating segment. The Company tests for impairment by comparing the net assets of each reporting unit to their respective fair values. The Company determines the estimated fair value of each reporting unit using a discounted cash flow analysis. In the event a unit's net assets
96
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
exceed its fair value, an implied fair value of goodwill must be determined by assigning the unit's fair value to each asset and liability of the unit. The excess of the fair value of the reporting unit over the amounts assigned to its assets and liabilities is the implied fair value of goodwill. An impairment loss is measured by the difference between the goodwill carrying value and the implied fair value. The Company recorded an impairment charge to goodwill on one facility of $185 for the year ended
December 31, 2010
. Although the facility is profitable, improvements in operations and related forecasted cash flows were slower than anticipated at the time of acquisition, resulting in the impairment to goodwill. The Company had not recorded a goodwill impairment charge prior to the current year.
The following table represents activity in our goodwill balance as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2010
and
2009
:
|
|
|
||
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2009
|
2,882
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
4,550
|
|
|
|
Impairments
|
—
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
7,432
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
3,092
|
|
|
|
Impairments
|
(185
|
)
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
10,339
|
|
|
10. Restricted and Other Assets
Restricted and other assets consist primarily of capital reserves and deposits. Capital reserves are maintained as part of the mortgage agreements of the Company and certain of its landlords with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These capital reserves are restricted for capital improvements and repairs to the related facilities.
Restricted and other assets consist of the following:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Deposits with landlords
|
$
|
736
|
|
|
$
|
725
|
|
|
Capital improvement reserves with landlords and lenders
|
3,477
|
|
|
2,840
|
|
||
|
Debt issuance costs, net
|
2,296
|
|
|
2,085
|
|
||
|
Restricted and other assets
|
$
|
6,509
|
|
|
$
|
5,650
|
|
11. Other Accrued Liabilities
Other accrued liabilities consist of the following:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Quality assurance fee
|
$
|
1,706
|
|
|
$
|
5,071
|
|
|
Resident refunds payable
|
3,122
|
|
|
2,347
|
|
||
|
Deferred resident revenue
|
1,313
|
|
|
1,073
|
|
||
|
Cash held in trust for residents
|
1,523
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
||
|
Dividends payable
|
1,152
|
|
|
1,032
|
|
||
|
Property taxes
|
1,325
|
|
|
—
|
|
||
|
Income taxes payable
|
—
|
|
|
1,194
|
|
||
|
Other
|
3,416
|
|
|
2,910
|
|
||
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
$
|
13,557
|
|
|
$
|
15,375
|
|
97
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
Quality assurance fee represents amounts payable to the State of California in respect of a mandated fee based on resident days. Resident refunds payable includes amounts due to residents for overpayments and duplicate payments. Deferred resident revenue occurs when the Company receives payments in advance of services provided. Cash held in trust for residents reflects monies received from, or on behalf of, residents. Maintaining a trust account for residents is a regulatory requirement and, while the trust assets offset the liability, the Company assumes a fiduciary responsibility for these funds. The cash balance related to this liability is included in other current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
12.
Income Taxes
The provision for income taxes for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
is summarized as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Federal
|
$
|
23,808
|
|
|
$
|
18,074
|
|
|
$
|
14,901
|
|
|
State
|
4,550
|
|
|
3,573
|
|
|
3,117
|
|
|||
|
|
28,358
|
|
|
21,647
|
|
|
18,018
|
|
|||
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Federal
|
(2,192
|
)
|
|
(349
|
)
|
|
87
|
|
|||
|
State
|
(382
|
)
|
|
(362
|
)
|
|
(103
|
)
|
|||
|
|
(2,574
|
)
|
|
(711
|
)
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|||
|
Benefit (provision) for FIN 48 uncertainties
|
(3
|
)
|
|
45
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|||
|
Interest income, gross of related tax effects
|
(78
|
)
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
(418
|
)
|
|||
|
Interest expense, gross of related tax effects
|
31
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
131
|
|
|||
|
Tax benefits credited to paid-in capital
|
519
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
107
|
|
|||
|
Total
|
$
|
26,253
|
|
|
$
|
21,040
|
|
|
$
|
17,736
|
|
A reconciliation of the federal statutory rate to the effective tax rate for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, respectively, is comprised as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|||||
|
Income tax expense at statutory rate
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
35.0
|
|
%
|
|
35.0
|
|
%
|
|
State income taxes - net of federal benefit
|
4.1
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
Non-deductible expenses
|
0.2
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
FIN 48 uncertainties
|
—
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
Net interest expense
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
Total income tax provision
|
39.3
|
%
|
|
39.3
|
|
%
|
|
39.2
|
|
%
|
The Company's deferred tax assets and liabilities as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
are summarized as follows:
98
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Deferred tax assets (liabilities):
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Accrued expenses
|
$
|
15,968
|
|
|
$
|
12,498
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
4,082
|
|
|
3,166
|
|
||
|
State taxes
|
533
|
|
|
324
|
|
||
|
Tax credits
|
1,063
|
|
|
1,180
|
|
||
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
21,646
|
|
|
17,168
|
|
||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
(4,973
|
)
|
|
(3,293
|
)
|
||
|
Prepaid expenses
|
(1,711
|
)
|
|
(1,487
|
)
|
||
|
Total deferred tax liabilities
|
(6,684
|
)
|
|
(4,780
|
)
|
||
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
$
|
14,962
|
|
|
$
|
12,388
|
|
The Company had state credit carryforwards as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 of $1,063 and $1,180, respectively. These carryforwards almost entirely relate to state limitations on the application of Enterprise Zone employment-related tax credits. These Enterprise Zone credits are currently expected to carryforward indefinitely to offset future state income tax. However, in January 2011, the governor of California proposed legislative changes that would result in the Company losing the entire balance of its carryforward as of December 31, 2010. The remainder of these carryforwards relate to credits against the Texas margin tax and is expected to carryforward until 2027.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amounts of unrecognized tax benefits at
December 31, 2010
and
2009
is as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Unrecognized tax benefit (detriment) at January 1,
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
(19
|
)
|
|
Gross increases for tax positions taken in prior years
|
—
|
|
|
107
|
|
||
|
Gross decreases for tax positions taken in the current year
|
—
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
||
|
Reductions due to statute lapse
|
(4
|
)
|
|
(25
|
)
|
||
|
Unrecognized tax benefit at December 31,
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the amount of unrecognized tax benefits, net of their state benefits, that would affect the Company's effective tax rate were $0 and $4, respectively.
The Federal statutes of limitations on the Company's 2005 and 2006 income tax years lapsed during the third quarter of 2009 and 2010, respectively. During the fourth quarter of each year, various state statutes of limitations also lapsed. The net decreases in unrecognized tax benefits as a result of these lapses for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $4 and $25, respectively.
The Company is not currently under examination by any major income tax jurisdiction. In 2011, the statute of limitations will lapse on the Company's 2006 and 2007 income tax years for state and Federal purposes, respectively; however, the Company does not believe this lapse will significantly impact unrecognized tax benefits for any uncertain tax positions. The Company is not aware of any other event that might significantly impact the balance of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.
The Company classifies interest and/or penalties on income tax liabilities or refunds as additional income tax expense or income. For 2010, the Company reported $78 of interest income and $31 of interest expense, gross of related tax benefits, in the statement of income. For 2009, the Company reported $13 of interest income, gross of related tax benefits. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the net amounts of accrued interest expense and penalties in the Company's consolidated balance sheet were $2 and $42, respectively.
13. Leases
99
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
The Company leases certain facilities and its administrative offices under non-cancelable operating leases, most of which have initial lease terms ranging from five to 20 years. The Company also leases certain of its equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms ranging from three to five years. Most of these leases contain renewal options, certain of which involve rent increases. Total rent expense, inclusive of straight-line rent adjustments, was
$14,903
, $15,195 and $15,368 for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments for all leases as of
December 31, 2010
are as follows:
|
Year
|
Amount
|
||
|
2011
|
$
|
15,306
|
|
|
2012
|
15,455
|
|
|
|
2013
|
15,236
|
|
|
|
2014
|
15,022
|
|
|
|
2015
|
13,477
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
67,015
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
141,511
|
|
Six of the Company's facilities are operated under master lease arrangements and a breach at a single facility could subject multiple facilities covered by the same master lease to the same default risk. Under a master lease, the Company may lease a large number of geographically dispersed properties through an indivisible lease. Failure to comply with Medicare and Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of the Company's master lease agreements and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in the Company's outstanding debt arrangements and other leases. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord. In addition, a number of the Company's individual facility leases are held by the same or related landlords, and some of these leases include cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to others, potentially subjecting certain leases and facilities to the various remedies available to the landlords under separate but cross-defaulted leases. The Company is not aware of any defaults as of
December 31, 2010
.
14. Self Insurance Reserves
The following table represents activity in our insurance reserves as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2010
and
2009
:
|
|
General and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Professional
|
|
Worker's
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Liability
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Health
|
|
Total
|
||||||||
|
Balance January 1, 2009
|
$
|
17,938
|
|
|
$
|
6,511
|
|
|
$
|
1,869
|
|
|
$
|
26,318
|
|
|
Current year provisions
|
10,732
|
|
|
3,811
|
|
|
10,522
|
|
|
25,065
|
|
||||
|
Claims paid and direct expenses
|
(6,391
|
)
|
|
(2,698
|
)
|
|
(10,124
|
)
|
|
(19,213
|
)
|
||||
|
Balance December 31, 2009
|
22,279
|
|
|
7,624
|
|
|
2,267
|
|
|
32,170
|
|
||||
|
Current year provisions
|
10,737
|
|
|
4,281
|
|
|
10,700
|
|
|
25,718
|
|
||||
|
Claims paid and direct expenses
|
(6,979
|
)
|
|
(2,702
|
)
|
|
(10,807
|
)
|
|
(20,488
|
)
|
||||
|
Balance December 31, 2010
|
$
|
26,037
|
|
|
$
|
9,203
|
|
|
$
|
2,160
|
|
|
$
|
37,400
|
|
15. Debt
On December 31, 2010, four of the Company's real estate holding subsidiaries executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35,000 (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan was secured by Commercial Deeds of Trust, Security Agreements, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Fillings on the four properties and other related instruments and agreements, including without limitation a promissory note and a Company guaranty. The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to prepayment fees of 5.0% of the principal balance on the date of prepayment. These prepayment fees are reduced by 1.0% a year for years three through seven of the loan. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018.
Among other things, under the RBS Loan, the Company must maintain compliance with specified financial covenants
100
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
measured on a quarterly basis, including a minimum debt service coverage ratio, an average occupancy rate and a minimum project yield. The Loan Documents also includes certain additional affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on the disposition of the Borrowers and the collateral.
On November 6, 2009, the Company finalized the Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (Amended Term Loan) with General Electric Capital Corporation (the Lender) which increased the borrowing capacity of the Amended Term Loan by $40,000, further referred to as the Six Project Loan. The Six Project Loan (as described below) will mature on September 30, 2014 and is secured by, among other things, a perfected first priority mortgage/deed of trust on the fee simple interest in six of the Company’s skilled nursing facilities (the Property). The Amended Term Loan, which includes both the Ten Project Note (as described below) and the Six Project Loan, is cross collateralized and cross defaulted with the existing Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the Revolver). The interest rate on the loan is calculated at the current five year swap rate on the date of closing plus 585 basis points for half of the loan balance and the three year swap rate on the date of closing plus 585 basis points and therefore floating at 90-day LIBOR plus 575 basis points, reset monthly and subject to a LIBOR floor of 2.0% for the remaining half of the loan balance. The Amended Term Loan did not modify any of the existing terms of the Ten Project Note.
On October 1, 2009, four subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. entered into four separate promissory notes with Johnson Land Enterprises, LLC (the Seller), for an aggregate of $10,000, as a part of the Company’s acquisition of three skilled nursing facilities in Utah. The unpaid balance of principal and accrued interest from these notes is due on September 30, 2019. The notes bear interest at a rate of 6.0% per annum. As a part of this transaction, the Company recorded a discount to the debt balance in the form of imputed interest of $1,218. This amount will be amortized over the term of the promissory notes, or ten years.
In addition, on October 1, 2009, a subsidiary of The Ensign Group, Inc. in West Jordan, Utah assumed the obligation to pay the remaining principal and interest on bonds which were originally sold to finance the construction of the facility. These bonds were assumed as a part of the Company’s acquisition of three skilled nursing facilities in Utah. The unpaid balance of principal and accrued interest from these bonds is due on July 1, 2015. The bonds bear interest at an annual rate equal to sixty percent of the rate announced from time to time by Bank of America as its prime rate (Prime Rate), which was 2.1% on December 31, 2010.
The Company has the Revolver with the Lender under which the Company may borrow up to the lesser of $50,000 or 85% of the eligible accounts receivable. The Revolver will expire on February 21, 2013. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, there were no outstanding borrowings under the Revolver. As of December 31, 2010, the amount of borrowing capacity pledged to secure outstanding letters of credit and reserves against collateral for actual and contingent liabilities was $2,412 and $6,000, respectively. In addition, in the event of the Company’s default under the Amended Term Loan, the Lender has the right to take control of the Company’s facilities encumbered by the loan to the extent necessary to make such payments and perform such acts that are required under the loan.
Long-term debt consists of the following:
101
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
||||
|
Ten Project Note with the Lender, multiple-advance term loan, principal and interest payable monthly; interest is fixed at time of draw at 10-year treasury note rate plus 2.25% (rates in effect at December 31, 2010 range from 6.95% to 7.50%), balance due June 2016, collateralized by deeds of trust on real property, assignments of rents, security agreements and fixture financing statements.
|
$
|
52,229
|
|
|
$
|
53,200
|
|
|
Six Project Loan with the Lender, principal and interest payable monthly, interest defined above, balance due September 30, 2014, collateralized by deeds of trust on real property, assignments of rents, security agreements and fixture financing statements.
|
39,495
|
|
|
39,970
|
|
||
|
Promissory note with RBS, principal and interest payable monthly and continuing through January 2018, interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%, collateralized by real property, assignment of rents and Company guaranty.
|
35,000
|
|
—
|
|
|||
|
Promissory notes, principal, and interest payable monthly and continuing through October 2019, interest at fixed rate of 6.0%, collateralized by deed of trust on real property, assignment of rents and security agreement.
|
9,724
|
|
|
9,962
|
|
||
|
Bond, principal and interest payable monthly and continuing through July 2015, interest at a fixed rate of 60% of the Prime Rate (as defined by the agreement).
|
1,038
|
|
|
1,232
|
|
||
|
Mortgage note, principal, and interest payable monthly and continuing through February 2027, interest at fixed rate of 7.5%, collateralized by deed of trust on real property, assignment of rents and security agreement.
|
6,086
|
|
|
6,290
|
|
||
|
|
143,572
|
|
|
110,654
|
|
||
|
Less current maturities
|
(3,055
|
)
|
|
(2,065
|
)
|
||
|
Less debt discount
|
(1,066
|
)
|
|
(1,188
|
)
|
||
|
|
$
|
139,451
|
|
|
$
|
107,401
|
|
Under the Term Loan, the Company is subject to standard reporting requirements and additional affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on the disposition of the Borrowers and collateral. As of
December 31, 2010
the Company was in compliance with such loan covenants.
Long-term debt matures in fiscal years ending after
December 31, 2010
as follows:
|
Years Ending
|
|
||
|
December 31,
|
Amount
|
||
|
2011
|
$
|
3,055
|
|
|
2012
|
3,351
|
|
|
|
2013
|
3,610
|
|
|
|
2014
|
41,033
|
|
|
|
2015
|
3,301
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
89,222
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
143,572
|
|
16. Options and Warrants
Stock-based compensation expense consists of share-based payment awards made to employees and directors including employee stock options based on estimated fair values. Stock-based compensation expense recognized in the Company's consolidated statements of income for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
does not include compensation expense for share-based payment awards granted prior to, but not yet vested as of January 1, 2006, but does include compensation expense for the share-based payment awards granted on or subsequent to January 1, 2006 based on the grant date fair value. As stock-based compensation expense recognized in the Company's consolidated statements of income for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
was based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for estimated forfeitures. The Company estimates forfeitures at the time of grant and, if necessary, revises the estimate in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ.
The Company has three option plans, the 2001 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan (2001 Plan), the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (2005 Plan) and the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (2007 Plan) all of which have been approved by
102
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
the stockholders. In the 2001 Plan and the 2005 Plan, options may be exercised for unvested shares of common stock, which have full stockholder rights including voting, dividend and liquidation rights. The Company retains the right to repurchase any or all unvested shares at the exercise price paid per share of any or all unvested shares should the optionee cease to remain in service while holding such unvested shares. The total number of shares available under all of the Company's stock incentive plans was 1,285 as of December 31, 2010.
2001 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan
- The 2001 Plan authorizes the sale of up to 1,980 shares of common stock to officers, employees, directors, and consultants of the Company. Granted non-employee director options vest and become exercisable immediately. Generally, all other granted options and restricted stock vest over five years at 20% per year on the anniversary of the grant date. Options expire ten years from the date of grant. The exercise price of the stock is determined by the board of directors, but shall not be less than 100% of the fair value on the date of grant. Shares issued upon early exercise of options granted prior to 2006 vested in full upon the consummation of the Company's initial public offering (IPO). At
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, there were 313, 298 and 279, respectively, unissued shares of common stock available for issuance under this plan, including shares that have been forfeited and are available for reissue.
2005 Stock Incentive Plan
- The 2005 Plan authorizes the sale of up to 1,000 shares of treasury stock of which only 800 shares were repurchased and therefore eligible for reissuance as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, to officers, employees, directors and consultants of the Company. Options granted to non-employee directors vest and become exercisable immediately. All other granted options vest over five years at 20% per year on the anniversary of the grant date. Options expire ten years from the date of grant. At
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, there were 144, 124 and 117, respectively, unissued shares of common stock available for issuance under this plan, including shares that have been forfeited and are available for reissue.
2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan
- The 2007 Plan authorizes the sale of up to 1,000 shares of common stock to officers, employees, directors and consultants of the Company. In addition, the number of shares of common stock reserved under the 2007 Plan will automatically increase on the first day of each fiscal year, beginning on January 1, 2008, in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 1,000 shares of common stock, or (ii) 2% of the number of shares outstanding as of the last day of the immediately preceding fiscal year, or (iii) such lesser number as determined by the Company's board of directors. Granted non-employee director options vest and become exercisable in three equal annual installments, or the length of the term if less than three years, on the completion of each year of service measured from the grant date. All other granted options vest over five years at 20% per year on the anniversary of the grant date. Options expire ten years from the date of grant. At
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, there were 828, 593 and 609 unissued shares of common stock available for issuance under this plan.
The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to recognize the value of stock-based compensation expense for all share-based payment awards. Determining the appropriate fair-value model and calculating the fair value of stock-based awards at the grant date requires considerable judgment, including estimating stock price volatility, expected option life and forfeiture rates. The Company develops estimates based on historical data and market information, which can change significantly over time. The Black-Scholes model required the Company to make several key judgments including:
|
•
|
The expected option term reflects the application of the simplified method set out in Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 107 Share-Based Payment (SAB 107), which was issued in March 2005. In December 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 110 (SAB 110), which extends the use of the “simplified” method, under certain circumstances, in developing an estimate of expected term of “plain vanilla” share options. Accordingly, the Company has utilized the average of the contractual term of the options and the weighted average vesting period for all options to calculate the expected option term.
|
|
•
|
Estimated volatility also reflects the application of SAB 107 interpretive guidance and, accordingly, incorporates historical volatility of similar public entities until sufficient information regarding the volatility of the Company's share price becomes available.
|
|
•
|
The dividend yield is based on the Company's historical pattern of dividends as well as expected dividend patterns.
|
|
•
|
The risk-free rate is based on the implied yield of U.S. Treasury notes as of the grant date with a remaining term approximately equal to the expected term.
|
|
•
|
Estimated forfeiture rate of approximately 8.45% per year is based on the Company's historical forfeiture activity of unvested stock options.
|
103
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
The Company used the following assumptions for stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
Average
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
Risk-Free
|
|
Expected
|
|
Average
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|||
|
Grant Year
|
Plan
|
|
Granted
|
|
Rate
|
|
Life
|
|
Volatility
|
|
Yield
|
|
|||
|
2010
|
2007
|
|
138
|
|
|
1.58 - 2.82
|
%
|
6.5 years
|
|
55
|
|
%
|
1.08
|
|
%
|
|
2009
|
2007
|
|
516
|
|
|
2.17 - 2.94
|
%
|
6.5 years
|
|
55
|
|
%
|
1.08
|
|
%
|
|
2008
|
2007
|
836
|
|
2.88 - 3.47
|
%
|
6.5 years
|
45 - 50
|
|
%
|
1.45
|
|
%
|
|||
In addition to the above, during the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company granted 102 restricted stock awards at an exercise price of $0, which vest over five years. The fair value of restricted stock awards ranged from $17.97 to $18.16 based on the market price on the grant date. As of December 31, 2010, no restricted stock awards had vested or been forfeited. The Company had not previously granted restricted stock awards to employees.
In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company granted 13 automatic quarterly stock awards to non-employee directors for their service on the Company’s board of directors. The fair value of these stock awards ranged from $17.29 to $18.25 based on the market price on the grant date. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company expensed $225 in stock based compensation related to the quarterly stock awards to non-employee directors.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the following represent the Company's weighted average exercise price and weighted average fair value displayed by grant year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
Average Fair
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Value of
|
||||||
|
Grant Year
|
Granted
|
|
of Options
|
|
Options
|
||||||
|
2010
|
138
|
|
$
|
17.60
|
|
$
|
8.88
|
|
|||
|
2009
|
516
|
|
|
$
|
15.78
|
|
|
$
|
7.92
|
|
|
|
2008
|
836
|
|
|
$
|
12.00
|
|
|
$
|
5.33
|
|
|
The following table represents the employee stock option activity during the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
:
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
Number of
|
|
Weighted
|
||||||
|
|
Number of
|
|
Average
|
|
Shares Vested
|
|
Average
|
||||||
|
|
Shares
|
|
Exercise
|
|
and
|
|
Exercise
|
||||||
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Price
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
Price
|
||||||
|
January 1, 2008
|
1,023
|
|
|
$
|
6.19
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
$
|
5.25
|
|
|
Granted
|
836
|
|
|
$
|
12.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeitures
|
(72
|
)
|
|
$
|
8.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
(84
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
1,703
|
|
|
$
|
9.01
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
$
|
5.74
|
|
|
Granted
|
516
|
|
|
$
|
15.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeitures
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
11.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
(73
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
2,025
|
|
|
$
|
10.68
|
|
|
709
|
|
|
$
|
7.29
|
|
|
Granted
|
138
|
|
|
$
|
17.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeitures
|
(98
|
)
|
|
$
|
11.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
(161
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
1,904
|
|
|
$
|
11.55
|
|
|
921
|
|
|
$
|
9.07
|
|
104
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
The following summary information reflects stock options outstanding, vesting and related details as of
December 31, 2010
:
|
|
|
Stock Options
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
Stock Options Outstanding
|
|
Vested
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Black-Scholes
|
|
Remaining Contractual
|
|
Number Vested and
|
||||||||
|
Year of Grant
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Life (Years)
|
|
Exercisable
|
||||||||
|
2003
|
$
|
0.67 - 0.81
|
|
9
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
9
|
|
|||
|
2004
|
1.96 - 2.46
|
|
37
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
37
|
|
||||
|
2005
|
4.99 - 5.75
|
|
168
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
168
|
|
||||
|
2006
|
7.05 - 7.50
|
|
426
|
|
|
4,089
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
345
|
|
||||
|
2008
|
9.38 - 14.87
|
|
661
|
|
|
3,556
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
267
|
|
||||
|
2009
|
14.88 - 16.70
|
|
469
|
|
|
3,706
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
95
|
|
||||
|
2010
|
$
|
17.47 - 18.16
|
134
|
|
1,194
|
|
10
|
|
—
|
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
|
|
1,904
|
|
|
$
|
12,545
|
|
|
|
|
921
|
|
||||
* The Company will not recognize the Black-Scholes fair value for awards granted prior to January 1, 2006 unless such awards are modified.
Total share-based compensation expense recognized for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was as follows:
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|||||||||||
|
2010
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||
|
Stock-based compensation expense related to stock options
|
$
|
2,559
|
|
$
|
2,330
|
|
$
|
1,682
|
|
||
|
Share-based compensation expense related to restricted stock awards
|
345
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
Total
|
$
|
2,904
|
|
$
|
2,330
|
|
$
|
1,682
|
|
||
In future periods, the Company expects to recognize approximately $6,160 and $1,721 in stock-based compensation expense for unvested options and restricted awards, respectively, that were outstanding as of December 31, 2010. Future share-based compensation expense will be recognized over 3.0 and 4.6 weighted average years for unvested options and restricted stock awards, respectively. There were 984 unvested and outstanding options at
December 31, 2010
, of which 915 are expected to vest. The weighted average contractual life for options vested at
December 31, 2010
was 7.0 years.
The aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding, vested, expected to vest and exercised as of
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
is as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
||||||
|
Outstanding
|
$
|
25,366
|
|
|
$
|
9,779
|
|
|
$
|
13,778
|
|
|
Vested
|
14,545
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
7,513
|
|
|||
|
Expected to vest
|
9,630
|
|
|
3,806
|
|
|
2,353
|
|
|||
|
Exercised
|
1,955
|
|
|
625
|
|
|
996
|
|
|||
17. Commitments and Contingencies
Regulatory Matters -
Laws and regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation, as well as significant regulatory action including fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. The Company believes that it is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
A significant portion of the Company's revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare, for which reimbursement rates
105
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
are subject to regulatory changes and government funding restrictions. Although the Company is not aware of any significant future rate changes, significant changes to the reimbursement rates could have a material effect on the Company's operations and cash flows.
Cost-Containment Measures -
Both government and private pay sources have instituted cost-containment measures designed to limit payments made to providers of healthcare services, and there can be no assurance that future measures designed to limit payments made to providers will not adversely affect the Company.
Indemnities -
From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from the Company's use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which the Company agrees to indemnify past operators of facilities the Company acquires against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which the Company may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, (iv) agreements with certain lenders under which the Company may be required to indemnify such lenders against various claims and liabilities, and (v) certain agreements with the Company's officers, directors and employees, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationships. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, a specific or maximum dollar amount is not explicitly stated therein. The Company performs its analysis of amounts under these contracts at the time the indemnification is granted. Consequently, because no claims have been asserted, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations on the Company's balance sheets for any of the periods presented.
Litigation -
The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of the Company's patients and residents and the services the Company provides. The Company and others in the industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The defense of these lawsuits may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards.
In addition to the potential lawsuits and claims described above, the Company is also subject to potential lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act and comparable state laws alleging submission of fraudulent claims for services to any healthcare program (such as Medicare) or payor. A violation may provide the basis for exclusion from federally-funded healthcare programs. Such exclusions could have a correlative negative impact on the Company's financial performance. Some states, including California, Arizona and Texas, have enacted similar whistleblower and false claims laws and regulations. In addition, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created incentives for states to enact anti-fraud legislation modeled on the Federal False Claims Act. As such, the Company could face increased scrutiny, potential liability and legal expenses and costs based on claims under state false claims acts in markets in which it does business.
In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is generally no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000 in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”
The State of California has established minimum staffing requirements for facilities operating in the state. Failure to
106
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
meet these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility’s compliance with the conditions of participation as established under relevant state and federal healthcare programs; it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a citation, civil money penalty, or the possibility of litigation.
For example, a class action suit was previously filed against us in the State of California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company’s California facilities. In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court. The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to similar claims and legal actions, which could possibly result in large damage awards and settlements. In the wake of the substantial judgment awarded to a group of plaintiffs in a recent case against one of the Company’s competitors, the Company expects that plaintiff’s attorneys will become increasingly more aggressive in their pursuit of claims alleging non-compliance with such minimum staffing requirements. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of any known such action will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. However, if there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business including potential claims related to care and treatment provided at its facilities, as well as employment related claims. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial business, financial condition or, results of operations. A significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims beyond amounts accrued in the reserve for general and professional liability claims, could materially adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Medicare Revenue Recoupments -
The Company is subject to reviews relating to Medicare services, billings and potential overpayments. One facility was subject to probe review as of
December 31, 2010
, which did not result in any Medicare revenue recoupments in 2010. The Company anticipates that these probe reviews will increase in frequency in the future. In addition, none of the Company's facilities are currently on prepayment review, and others may be placed on prepayment review in the future. If a facility fails prepayment review, the facility could then be subject to undergo targeted review, which is a review that targets perceived claims deficiencies. The Company has no facilities that are currently undergoing targeted review.
Other Matters -
In March 2007, the Company and certain of its officers received a series of notices from its bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to the Company’s bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from the Company’s bank related to financial transactions involving the Company, ten of its operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of the Company’s current and former officers. Subsequently, in June 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of the Company’s current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both the Company and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
On December 17, 2007, the Company was informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, its independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of its operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed the Company’s previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of the Company’s 82 facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. Based on these events, the Company believes that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of its skilled nursing facilities.
Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) served search warrants on the Company’s Service Center and six of its Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney
107
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. The Company has worked with the U.S. Attorney’s office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. The Company and its regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney’s office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
The Company is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s office and intends to continue working with them to the extent they will allow the Company to help move their inquiry forward. To the Company’s knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of its operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. The Company cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any
qui tam
litigation that may follow, nor can the Company estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, the Company has not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney’s office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a
qui tam
relator who elects to pursue the matter, and the Company is subjected to or alleged to be liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected and its stock price could decline.
The Company initiated an internal investigation in November 2006 when it became aware of an allegation of possible reimbursement irregularities at one or more of the Company’s facilities. This investigation focused on 12 facilities, and included all six of the facilities which were covered by the warrants served in December 2008. The Company retained outside counsel to assist in looking into these matters. The Company and its outside counsel concluded this investigation in February 2008 without identifying any systemic or patterns and practices of fraudulent or intentional misconduct. The Company made observations at certain facilities regarding areas of potential improvement in some of its recordkeeping and billing practices and has implemented measures, some of which were already underway before the investigation began, that the Company believes will strengthen its recordkeeping and billing processes. None of these additional findings or observations appears to be rooted in fraudulent or intentional misconduct. The Company continues to evaluate the measures it has implemented for effectiveness, and is continuing to seek ways to improve these processes.
As a byproduct of its investigation, the Company identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located or for which other billing deficiencies existed. The Company, with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing, completed a billing review on these claims. To the extent missing documentation was not located, the Company treated the claims as overpayments. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, the Company records any charge for refunded payments against revenue in the period in which the claim adjustment becomes known.
From time to time our systems and controls highlight potential compliance issues, which the Company investigates as they arise. As a result of the detection by management at one of the Company’s facilities, and its Service Center support personnel, of possible recordkeeping and related irregularities at that facility, the Company initiated an internal inquiry in the second quarter of 2010.
The Company concluded the investigatory phase of this inquiry and completed a billing review of potentially affected claims in the third quarter of 2010. As a result of its billing reviews, the Company identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located, or for which other billing deficiencies existed. Where accepted procedures and necessary data for reviewing and calculating potential overpayments were available, the Company followed such procedures and completed a billing review. Where such procedures and/or data were not available the Company developed a methodology for making a good faith estimate of potential overpayments with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing. During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, the Company remitted a payment of approximately $514, plus interest, for estimated overpayments described above, with a resulting impact to net income of approximately $250.
In addition, the Company made observations at the facility regarding areas of potential improvement in some of its historical recordkeeping and billing practices and have identified measures, some of which had already been implemented before the inquiry began, that the Company believes have strengthened, and can strengthen further, its recordkeeping and billing processes. The issues detected appear to be isolated to one facility and one department within that facility. The Company continues to evaluate the measures it has implemented for effectiveness, and are continuing to seek ways to improve these processes.
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as
108
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
—
(Continued)
such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of the Company’s board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the stockholders' interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring the Company’s response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
Concentrations
Credit Risk
- The Company has significant accounts receivable balances, the collectability of which is dependent on the availability of funds from certain governmental programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. These receivables represent the only significant concentration of credit risk for the Company. The Company does not believe there are significant credit risks associated with these governmental programs. The Company believes that an appropriate allowance has been recorded for the possibility of these receivables proving uncollectible, and continually monitors and adjusts these allowances as necessary. The Company's receivables from Medicare and Medicaid payor programs accounted for approximately
55.0%
of its total accounts receivable as of
December 31, 2010
and
2009
. Revenue from reimbursements under the Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for approximately
76.4%
,
75.0
% and
74.8
% of the Company's revenue for the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, respectively.
Cash in Excess of FDIC and CDIC Limits
- The Company currently has bank deposits with financial institutions in the U.S. that exceed FDIC insurance limits. FDIC insurance provides protection for bank deposits up to $250. In addition, the Company has uninsured bank deposits with a financial institution outside the U.S. As of the date of this filing, the Company had approximately $6,000 in uninsured cash deposits. All uninsured bank deposits are held at high quality credit institutions.
18. Defined Contribution Plan
The Company has a 401(k) defined contribution plan (the 401(k) Plan), whereby eligible employees may contribute up to 15% of their annual basic earnings. Additionally, the 401(k) Plan provides for discretionary matching contributions (as defined) by the Company. The Company contributed,
$301
, $290 and $290 to the 401(k) Plan during the years ended
December 31, 2010
,
2009
and
2008
, respectively. Beginning in 2007, the Company's plan allowed eligible employees to contribute up to 90% of their eligible compensation, subject to applicable annual Internal Revenue Code limits.
109
(b) Financial Statement Schedules
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES
Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Balance at
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
Balances at
|
||||||||||
|
|
Beginning
|
|
Costs and
|
|
|
End of
|
||||||||||
|
|
of Year
|
|
Expenses
|
Deductions
|
|
Year
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
$
|
(7,454
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,213
|
)
|
$
|
3,401
|
|
|
$
|
(7,266
|
)
|
||
|
Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
$
|
(7,266
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,556
|
)
|
$
|
4,247
|
|
|
$
|
(7,575
|
)
|
||
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
$
|
(7,575
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,312
|
)
|
$
|
4,094
|
|
|
$
|
(9,793
|
)
|
||
All other schedules have been omitted because the information required to be set forth therein is not applicable or is shown in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto.
110
|
(c)
|
Exhibit Index
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
|||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|||
|
3.1
|
|
Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of The Ensign Group, Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on November 15, 2007
|
|
10-Q
|
|
001-33757
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
12/21/2007
|
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of The Ensign Group, Inc.
|
|
10-Q
|
|
001-33757
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
12/21/2007
|
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Specimen common stock certificate
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Stock Position Management Agreement, dated October 16, 2008, between The Ensign Group, Inc. and Terri M. Christensen
|
|
10-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
2/18/2009
|
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
+
|
The Ensign Group, Inc. 2001 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan, form of Stock Option Grant Notice for Executive Officers and Directors, stock option agreement and form of restricted stock agreement for Executive Officers and Directors
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
+
|
The Ensign Group, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, form of Nonqualified Stock Option Award for Executive Officers and Directors, and form of restricted stock agreement for Executive Officers and Directors
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
99.2
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
+
|
The Ensign Group, Inc. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
+
|
Amendment to The Ensign Group, Inc. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
7/28/2009
|
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
+
|
Form of 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan Notice of Grant of Stock Options; and form of Non-Incentive Stock Option Award Terms and Conditions
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142797
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
+
|
Form of 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan Restricted Stock Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
+
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement entered into between The Ensign Group, Inc. and its directors, officers and certain key employees
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of November 10, 2009, by and among certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. as Borrowers, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Agent and Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
11/17/2009
|
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
Consolidated, Amended and Restated Promissory Note, dated as of December 29, 2006, in the original principal amount of $64,692,111.67, by certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. in favor of General Electric Capital Corporation
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
Third Amended and Restated Guaranty of Payment and Performance, dated as of December 29, 2006, by The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and General Electric Capital Corporation as Agent and Lender, under which Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of the obligations of certain of Guarantor's subsidiaries under the Third Amended and Restated Loan Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of June 30, 2006 (filed against Desert Terrace Nursing Center, Desert Sky Nursing Home, Highland Manor Health and Rehabilitation Center and North Mountain Medical and Rehabilitation Center), by and among Terrace Holdings AZ LLC, Sky Holdings AZ LLC, Ensign Highland LLC and Valley Health Holdings LLC as Grantors, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary and Schedule of Material Differences therein
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.10
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
111
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
|||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|||
|
10.12
|
|
Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of June 30, 2006 (filed against Park Manor), by and among Plaza Health Holdings LLC as Grantor, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.11
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.13
|
|
Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of June 30, 2006 (filed against Catalina Care and Rehabilitation Center), by and among Rillito Holdings LLC as Grantor, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.12
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.14
|
|
Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of October 16, 2006 (filed against Park View Gardens at Montgomery), by and among Mountainview Communitycare LLC as Grantor, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.13
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.15
|
|
Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of October 16, 2006 (filed against Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation and Care Center), by and among Meadowbrook Health Associates LLC as Grantor, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.14
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.16
|
|
Form of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of December 29, 2006 (filed against Upland Care and Rehabilitation Center and Camarillo Care Center), by and among Cedar Avenue Holdings LLC and Granada Investments LLC as Grantors, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary and Schedule of Material Differences therein
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.15
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.17
|
|
Form of First Amendment to (Amended and Restated) Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement, dated as of December 29, 2006 (filed against Desert Terrace Nursing Center, Desert Sky Nursing Home, Highland Manor Health and Rehabilitation Center, North Mountain Medical and Rehabilitation Center, Catalina Care and Rehabilitation Center, Park Manor, Park View Gardens at Montgomery, Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation and Care Center), by and among Terrace Holdings AZ LLC, Sky Holdings AZ LLC, Ensign Highland LLC, Valley Health Holdings LLC, Rillito Holdings LLC, Plaza Health Holdings LLC, Mountainview Communitycare LLC and Meadowbrook Health Associates LLC as Grantors, Chicago Title Insurance Company as Trustee, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Beneficiary and Schedule of Material Differences therein
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.16
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.18
|
|
Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of March 25, 2004, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrower, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Agent and Lender
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.19
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.19
|
|
Amendment No. 1, dated as of December 3, 2004, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrower, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.20
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.20
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Note, dated as of December 3, 2004, in the original principal amount of $20,000,000, by The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in favor of General Electric Capital Corporation
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.19
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
|
10.21
|
|
Amendment No. 2, dated as of March 25, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrower, and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
112
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
||
|
10.22
|
|
Amendment No. 3, dated as of June 22, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrower and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.21
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.23
|
|
Amendment No. 4, dated as of August 1, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.42
|
|
|
8/17/2007
|
|
|
|
10.24
|
|
Amendment No. 5, dated September 13, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.43
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.25
|
|
Revolving Credit Note, dated as of September 13, 2007, in the original principal amount of $5,000,000 by The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in favor of General Electric Capital Corporation
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.44
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.26
|
|
Commitment Letter, dated October 3, 2007, from General Electric Capital Corporation to The Ensign Group, Inc., setting forth the general terms and conditions of the proposed amendment to the revolving credit facility, which will increase the available credit thereunder to $50.0 million
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.46
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.27
|
|
Amendment No. 6, dated November 19, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
11/21/2007
|
|
|
|
10.28
|
|
Amendment No. 7, dated December 21, 2007, to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
12/27/2007
|
|
|
|
10.29
|
|
Amendment No. 1 and Joinder Agreement to Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, by certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. as Borrower and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
2/9/2009
|
|
|
|
10.30
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Note, dated February 4, 2009, by certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. as Borrowers for the benefit of General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
2/9/2009
|
|
|
|
10.31
|
|
Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Note, dated February 21, 2008, by certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. as Borrowers for the benefit of General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
2/27/2008
|
|
|
|
10.32
|
|
Ensign Guaranty, dated February 21, 2008, between The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
2/27/2008
|
|
|
|
10.33
|
|
Holding Company Guaranty, dated February 21, 2008, by and among The Ensign Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as Guarantors and General Electric Capital Corporation as Lender
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
2/27/2008
|
|
|
|
10.34
|
|
Pacific Care Center Loan Agreement, dated as of August 6, 1998, by and between G&L Hoquiam, LLC as Borrower and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as Lender (later assumed by Cherry Health Holdings, Inc. as Borrower and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Lender)
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.23
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.35
|
|
Deed of Trust and Security Agreement, dated as of August 6, 1998, by and among G&L Hoquiam, LLC as Grantor, Ticor Title Insurance Company as Trustee and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as Beneficiary
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.24
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
113
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
||
|
10.36
|
|
Promissory Note, dated as of August 6, 1998, in the original principal amount of $2,475,000, by G&L Hoquiam, LLC in favor of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.25
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.37
|
|
Loan Assumption Agreement, by and among G&L Hoquiam, LLC as Prior Owner; G&L Realty Partnership, L.P. as Prior Guarantor; Cherry Health Holdings, Inc. as Borrower; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Trustee for GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Lender
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.26
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.38
|
|
Exceptions to Nonrecourse Guaranty, dated as of October 2006, by The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., under which Guarantor guarantees full and prompt payment of all amounts due and owing by Cherry Health Holdings, Inc. under the Promissory Note
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.39
|
|
Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents, dated as of January 30, 2001, by and among Ensign Southland LLC as Trustor, Brian E. Callahan as Trustee and Continental Wingate Associates, Inc. as Beneficiary
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.27
|
|
|
7/26/2007
|
|
|
|
10.40
|
|
Deed of Trust Note, dated as of January 30, 2001, in the original principal amount of $7,455,100, by Ensign Southland, LLC in favor of Continental Wingate Associates, Inc.
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.28
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.41
|
|
Security Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2001, by and between Ensign Southland, LLC and Continental Wingate Associates, Inc.
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.29
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.42
|
|
Master Lease Agreement, dated July 3, 2003, between Adipiscor LLC as Lessee and LTC Partners VI, L.P., Coronado Corporation and Park Villa Corporation collectively as Lessor
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.30
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.43
|
|
Lease Guaranty, dated July 3, 2003, between The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and LTC Partners VI, L.P., Coronado Corporation and Park Villa Corporation collectively as Lessor, under which Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of Adipiscor LLC's obligations under the Master Lease Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.31
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.44
|
|
Master Lease Agreement, dated September 30, 2003, between Permunitum LLC as Lessee, Vista Woods Health Associates LLC, City Heights Health Associates LLC, and Claremont Foothills Health Associates LLC as Sublessees, and OHI Asset (CA), LLC as Lessor
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.32
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.45
|
|
Lease Guaranty, dated September 30, 2003, between The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and OHI Asset (CA), LLC as Lessor, under which Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of Permunitum LLC's obligations under the Master Lease Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.33
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.46
|
|
Lease Guaranty, dated September 30, 2003, between Vista Woods Health Associates LLC, City Heights Health Associates LLC and Claremont Foothills Health Associates LLC as Guarantors and OHI Asset (CA), LLC as Lessor, under which Guarantors guarantee the payment and performance of Permunitum LLC's obligations under the Master Lease Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.34
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.47
|
|
Master Lease Agreement, dated January 31, 2003, between Moenium Holdings LLC as Lessee and Healthcare Property Investors, Inc., d/b/a in the State of Arizona as HC Properties, Inc., and Healthcare Investors III collectively as Lessor
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.35
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.48
|
|
Lease Guaranty, between The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor and Healthcare Property Investors, Inc. as Owner, under which Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of Moenium Holdings LLC's obligations under the Master Lease Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.36
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
114
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
||
|
10.49
|
|
First Amendment to Master Lease Agreement, dated May 27, 2003, between Moenium Holdings LLC as Lessee and Healthcare Property Investors, Inc., d/b/a in the State of Arizona as HC Properties, Inc., and Healthcare Investors III collectively as Lessor
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.37
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.50
|
|
Second Amendment to Master Lease Agreement, dated October 31. 2004, between Moenium Holdings LLC as Lessee and Healthcare Property Investors, Inc., d/b/a in the State of Arizona as HC Properties, Inc., and Healthcare Investors III collectively as Lessor
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.38
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.51
|
|
Lease Agreement, by and between Mission Ridge Associates LLC as Landlord and Ensign Facility Services, Inc. as Tenant; and Guaranty of Lease, dated August 2, 2003, by The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor in favor of Landlord, under which Guarantor guarantees Tenant's obligations under the Lease Agreement
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.39
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.52
|
|
First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated January 15, 2004, by and between Mission Ridge Associates LLC as Landlord and Ensign Facility Services, Inc. as Tenant
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.40
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.53
|
|
Second Amendment to Lease Agreement dated December 13, 2007, by and between Mission Ridge Associates LLC as Landlord and Ensign Facility Services, Inc. as Tenant; and Reaffirmation of Guaranty of Lease, dated December 13, 2007, by The Ensign Group, Inc. as Guarantor in favor of Landlord, under which Guarantor reaffirms its guaranty of Tenants obligations under the Lease Agreement
|
|
10-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.52
|
|
|
3/6/2008
|
|
|
|
10.54
|
|
Third Amendment to Lease Agreement dated February 21, 2008, by and between Mission Ridge Associates LLC as Landlord and Ensign Facility Services, Inc. as Tenant
|
|
10-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.54
|
|
|
2/17/2010
|
|
|
|
10.55
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Lease Agreement dated July 15, 2009, by and between Mission Ridge Associates LLC as Landlord and Ensign Facility Services, Inc. as Tenant
|
|
10-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.55
|
|
|
2/17/2010
|
|
|
|
10.56
|
|
Form of Independent Consulting and Centralized Services Agreement between Ensign Facility Services, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.41
|
|
|
5/14/2007
|
|
|
|
10.57
|
|
Agreement of Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions, dated August 31, 2007, as amended on September 6, 2007
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.45
|
|
|
10/5/2007
|
|
|
|
10.58
|
|
Form of Health Insurance Benefit Agreement pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the Medicare program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.48
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.59
|
|
Form of Medi-Cal Provider Agreement pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the California Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.49
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.60
|
|
Form of Provider Participation Agreement pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the Arizona Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.50
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.61
|
|
Form of Contract to Provide Nursing Facility Services under the Texas Medical Assistance Program pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the Texas Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.51
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.62
|
|
Form of Client Service Contract pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the Washington Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.52
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.63
|
|
Form of Provider Agreement for Medicaid and UMAP pursuant to which certain subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc. participate in the Utah Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.53
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
|
10.64
|
|
Form of Medicaid Provider Agreement pursuant to which a subsidiary of The Ensign Group, Inc. participates in the Idaho Medicaid program
|
|
S-1
|
|
333-142897
|
|
10.54
|
|
|
10/19/2007
|
|
|
115
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
File
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Filing
|
|
Filed
|
||
|
No.
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
No.
|
|
No.
|
|
Date
|
|
Herewith
|
||
|
10.65
|
|
Six Project Promissory Note dated as of November 10, 2009, in the original principal amount of $40,000,000, by certain subsidiaries of the Ensign Group, Inc. in favor of General Electric Capital Corporation
|
|
8-K
|
|
001-33757
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
11/17/2009
|
|
|
|
10.66
|
|
Commercial Deeds of Trust, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Filing, dated as of December 31, 2010, made by certain subsidiaries of the Company for the benefit of RBS Asset Finance, Inc.
|
8-K
|
001-33757
|
10.1
|
|
1/6/2011
|
||||||
|
10.67
|
|
Note, dated December 31, 2010 by certain subsidiaries of the Company.
|
8-K
|
001-33757
|
10.1
|
|
1/6/2011
|
||||||
|
21.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of The Ensign Group, Inc., as amended
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|||||
|
23.1
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
32.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
+
|
|
Indicates management contract or compensatory plan.
|
|||||||||||
116
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part IItem 1. BusinessItem 1A. Risk FactorsItem 1B. Unresolved Staff CommentsItem 2. PropertiesItem 3. Legal ProceedingsItem 4. (removed and Reserved)Part IIItem 5. Market For Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases Of Equity SecuritiesItem 6. Selected Financial DataItem 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis Of Financial Condition and Results Of OperationsItem 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market RiskItem 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary DataItem 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants and Financial DisclosuresItem 9A. Controls and ProceduresItem 9B. Other InformationPart IIIItem 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate GovernanceItem 11. Executive CompensationItem 12. Security Ownership Of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder MattersItem 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director IndependenceItem 14. Principal Accountant Fees and ServicesPart IVItem 15. Exhibits, Financial Statements and Schedules