ehc-20251231
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549
_________________________________________
FORM 10-K
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025
OR
Commission File Number 001-10315
________________________________________________________
Encompass Health Corporation
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
9001 Liberty Parkway
Birmingham, Alabama35242
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(205) 967-7116
(Registrant’s telephone number)
_____________________________________________________
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class Trading Symbol Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.01 par value EHC New York Stock Exchange
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. Yes☒ 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. Yes ☐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. Yes☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer☒Accelerated filer ☐Emerging growth company ☐
Non-Accelerated filer ☐Smaller reporting company ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management's assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $12.2 billion. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, executive officers and directors of the registrant have been deemed to be affiliates. There were 99,416,162 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding, net of treasury shares, as of February 12, 2026.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The definitive proxy statement relating to the registrant’s 2026 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated by reference in Part III to the extent described therein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I
Item 1. Business 1
Item 1A. Risk Factors 18
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 41
Item 1C. Cybersecurity 42
Item 2. Properties 44
Item 3. Legal Proceedings 46
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 46
PART II
Item 6. Reserved 49
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 68
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 69
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 69
Item 9B. Other Information 69
Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 70
PART III
Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant 71
Item 11. Executive Compensation 71
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 71
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 72
NOTE TO READERS
As used in this report, the terms “Encompass Health,” “we,” “us,” “our,” and the “Company” refer to Encompass Health Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless otherwise stated or indicated by context. This drafting style is suggested by the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not meant to imply that Encompass Health Corporation, the publicly traded parent company, owns or operates any specific asset, business, or property. The hospitals, operations, and businesses described in this filing are primarily owned and operated by subsidiaries of the parent company. In addition, we use the term “Encompass Health Corporation” to refer to Encompass Health Corporation alone wherever a distinction between Encompass Health Corporation and its subsidiaries is required or aids in the understanding of this filing.
i
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
AND SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS
This annual report contains historical information, as well as forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and relate to, among other things, future events, the spread and impact of an infectious disease outbreak, changes to Medicare reimbursement and other healthcare laws and regulations from time to time, our business strategy, dividend and stock repurchase strategies, our financial plans, our growth plans, our future financial performance, our projected business results, or our projected capital expenditures. In some cases, the reader can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “targets,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. Any forward-looking statement is based on information current as of the date of this report and speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made. Actual events or results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors. While it is impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could cause, and in some cases have previously caused, actual results to differ materially from those estimated by us include, but are not limited to, each of the factors discussed in Item 1A, Risk Factors, summarized in the list below, as well as uncertainties and factors, if any, discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K, in our other SEC filings from time to time, or in materials incorporated therein by reference.
Reimbursement Risks
•Reductions or delays in, or suspension of, reimbursement for our services by governmental or private payors, including our inability to obtain and retain favorable arrangements with third-party payors, could decrease our revenues and adversely affect other operating results.
•Restrictive interpretations of the regulations governing the claims that are reimbursable by Medicare could decrease our revenues and adversely affect other operating results.
•Reimbursement claims are subject to various audits and such audits may lead to assertions that we have been overpaid or have submitted improper claims, and these assertions may require us to incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and defend the validity of payments and may ultimately require us to refund any amounts determined to have been overpaid.
•Substantive and procedural deficiencies in the administrative appeals process associated with denied Medicare reimbursement claims, including from various Medicare audit programs, could delay or reduce our reimbursement for services previously provided, including through recoupment from other claims due to us from Medicare.
•Efforts to reduce payments to healthcare providers undertaken by third-party payors and conveners, including restrictive coverage determinations by Medicare Advantage plans during the pre-authorization process, could adversely affect our revenues or profitability.
•Medicare quality reporting requirements could adversely affect our operating costs or Medicare reimbursement.
•Changes in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients could reduce our revenues or profitability.
Other Regulatory Risks
•Changes in the rules and regulations of the healthcare industry at the federal, state or local levels, including those contemplated now and in the future as part of national healthcare reform and deficit reduction (such as the re-basing of payment systems, the introduction of value-based payment models, and other payment system reforms) could decrease revenues and increase the costs of complying with the rules and regulations.
•Compliance with the extensive and frequently changing laws and regulations applicable to healthcare providers, including those related to patient care, coding and billing, data privacy and security, consumer protection, anti-trust, and employment practices, requires substantial time, effort and expense, and if we fail to comply, we could incur penalties and significant costs of investigating and defending asserted claims, whether meritorious or not, or be required to make significant changes to our operations.
•Our inability to maintain proper local, state and federal licensing, including compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation and provider enrollment requirements could decrease our revenues.
ii
Other Operational Risks
•Incidents affecting the proper operation, availability, or security of our or our vendors’ or partners’ information systems, including the patient information stored there, or business continuity could cause substantial losses and adversely affect our operations, and governmental mandates to increase use of electronic records and interoperability exacerbate that risk.
•Any adverse outcome of various lawsuits, claims, and legal or regulatory proceedings, including disclosed and undisclosed qui tam suits, could be difficult to predict and could adversely affect our financial results or condition or our operations, and we could experience increased costs of defending and insuring against alleged professional liability and other claims.
•Our inability to successfully complete and integrate de novo developments, acquisitions, investments, and joint ventures consistent with our growth strategy, including realization of anticipated revenues, cost savings, productivity improvements arising from the related operations and avoidance of unanticipated difficulties, costs or liabilities that could arise from acquisitions or integrations could adversely affect our financial results or condition.
•Our inability to attract and retain nurses, therapists, and other healthcare professionals in a highly competitive environment with often severe staffing shortages and potential union activity could increase staffing costs and adversely affect other financial and operating results.
•Competitive pressures in the healthcare industry, including from large acute-care hospitals that would typically serve as a referral source for us, and our response to those pressures could adversely affect our revenues or other financial results.
•Our inability to provide a consistently high quality of care, including as represented in metrics published by Medicare, could decrease our revenues.
•Our inability to maintain or develop relationships with patient referral sources, including our joint venture hospitals could decrease our revenues.
•Acute-care hospitals that participate in joint ventures with us may experience, and in the past some have experienced, operational or financial challenges that, in turn, affect our joint venture inpatient rehabilitation hospitals.
•A pandemic, epidemic, or other widespread outbreak of an infectious disease or other public health crisis, and governmental responses to those events, could decrease our patient volumes, pricing, and revenues, lead to staffing and supply shortages and associated cost increases, otherwise interrupt operations, or lead to increased litigation risk and, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, has already done so in many instances.
•A regional or global socio-political, weather, or other catastrophic event could severely disrupt our business, particularly in areas such as Texas or Florida where we have a concentration of hospitals and other coastal areas susceptible to tropical storms and in western states susceptible to wildfires.
•Regulatory and other efforts to promote a transition to a lower-carbon economy may result in operational and financial challenges for us.
Financial Risks
•General conditions in the economy and capital markets, including any disruption, instability, or uncertainty related to armed conflict or an act of terrorism, a governmental impasse over approval of the United States federal budget or an increase to the debt ceiling, rising interest rates, an international trade war, or a sovereign debt crisis could adversely affect our financial results or condition, including access to the capital markets and interest expense on new or existing debt.
•Our debt and the associated restrictive covenants could have negative consequences for our business and limit our ability to execute aspects of our business plan successfully.
•The price of our common stock could adversely affect our willingness and ability to repurchase shares.
•We may be unable or unwilling to continue to declare and pay dividends on our common stock.
The cautionary statements referred to in this section also should be considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that may be issued by us or persons acting on our behalf. We undertake no duty to update these forward-looking statements, even though our situation may change in the future. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee future results, events, levels of activity, performance, or achievements.
iii
PART I
Item 1.Business
Overview of the Company
General
We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in terms of patients treated, revenues, and number of hospitals. We provide specialized rehabilitative treatment, using advanced technology and intensive therapy, on an inpatient basis for patients recovering from a major injury or illness and seeking to regain functional ability, independence and quality of life. We operate hospitals in 39 states and Puerto Rico, with concentrations in Florida and Texas. As of December 31, 2025, we operated 173 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. We are committed to delivering high-quality, cost-effective patient care. For 2025, we were named America’s Most Awarded Leader in Inpatient Rehabilitation by Newsweek and Statista and ranked among Fortune’s World’s Most Admired CompaniesTM and Forbes’ Most Trusted Companies in America.
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol “EHC”). Our principal executive offices are located at 9001 Liberty Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35242, and the telephone number of the principal executive offices is (205) 967-7116. Our website address is www.encompasshealth.com.
In addition to the discussion here, we encourage the reader to review Item 1A, Risk Factors, Item 2, Properties, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which highlight additional considerations about our Company.
The table below provides selected operating and financial data.
As of or for the Year Ended December 31,
Consolidated data: (Actual Amounts)
Inpatient rehabilitation:
Net operating revenues: (In Millions)
Our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals offer specialized rehabilitative care across an array of diagnoses and deliver comprehensive, high-quality, cost-effective patient care services. As participants in the Medicare program, our hospitals must be licensed and certified and otherwise comply with various requirements that are discussed below in the “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement” section. Substantially all (92%) of the patients we serve are admitted from acute-care hospitals following physician referrals for specific acute inpatient rehabilitative care. Most of those patients have experienced significant physical or cognitive disabilities or injuries due to medical conditions, such as strokes, hip fractures, and a variety of debilitating neurological conditions, that are generally nondiscretionary in nature and require rehabilitative healthcare services in a facility-based setting. Our teams of highly skilled nurses and physical, occupational, and speech therapists utilize proven technology and clinical protocols with the objective of restoring our patients’ physical and cognitive abilities. Patient care is provided by nursing and therapy staff as directed by physician orders while case managers and other clinical staff monitor each patient’s progress and provide documentation and oversight of patient status, achievement of goals, discharge planning, and functional outcomes. Our hospitals provide a comprehensive interdisciplinary clinical approach to treatment that leverages innovative technologies and advanced therapies and achieves superior outcomes.
Strategy and Strategic Priorities
Our strategy is to expand our network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, add capacity to existing hospitals, further strengthen our relationships with healthcare systems, provider networks, and payors in order to connect patient care across the healthcare continuum, and to deliver superior patient outcomes in a cost-effective manner. We believe this strategy, along with
1
our demonstrated ability to adapt to changes in healthcare, positions us for success in the evolving healthcare delivery system. In pursuit of our strategy, we established the following priorities.
•Growth. We actively pursue capacity expansions through the development of new inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and additions to existing hospitals each year. In addition, our same store hospitals have other organic growth opportunities, including secular shifts in aging demographic populations, the ability to capture market share, and the maturation of newly opened locations.
•Operational Initiatives. Our priorities include operational initiatives that build on momentum from recent years and further our goal of superior patient outcomes. We have pursued and will continue to pursue initiatives to lower our rate of transfers to acute-care hospitals, improve our rate of discharges to community, and improve the patient experience.
We will continue to demonstrate our value proposition to Medicare Advantage payors by providing superior patient outcomes, including higher discharge to community rates and lower lengths of stay, compared to alternative sites of care. We believe our outcomes and quality of care data have helped drive significant improvement in the payments we receive from Medicare Advantage payors.
Given the significant number of stroke patients in need of post-acute care, we will continue working to build our stroke market share. As of December 31, 2025, 148 of our 173 hospitals held stroke-specific certifications that required us to demonstrate effective use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to manage and optimize stroke care and an organized approach to performance measurement and evaluation of clinical outcomes.
We will continue to develop and implement post-acute solutions that allow us to apply our clinical expertise, large post-acute datasets, electronic medical record technologies, and strategic partnerships to drive improved patient outcomes and lower the cost of care across the entire post-acute episode. The evolution of artificial intelligence capabilities has the potential to amplify the impact and efficiency of these solutions.
We will seek to expand efforts and initiatives to recruit and retain a qualified clinical workforce. For additional discussion of some of these initiatives, see the “Human Capital Management” section below.
•Capital Structure. We seek to maintain balance sheet flexibility, consider opportunistic refinancings and augment returns from investments in operations with shareholder distributions via common stock dividends and repurchases of our common stock. Our debt portfolio is concentrated in long-dated fixed-rate debt. Our free cash flow is the primary source of funding for the considerable investment in our de novo and bed addition growth plans. As an additional source of liquidity, we can access our $1 billion revolving credit facility of which $824 million was available for borrowing as of December 31, 2025. Our strong balance sheet as well as our leverage and liquidity profiles mitigate exposure to interest rate volatility and near-term refinancing risks.
For additional discussion of our strategic priorities as well as progress toward our priorities in 2025, including operating results, growth, and shareholder distributions, and our business outlook, see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview,” “Results of Operations,” and “Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
Competitive Strengths
We believe we differentiate ourselves from our competitors based on, among other things, the quality of our clinical outcomes, our cost-effectiveness, our financial strength, and our extensive application of technology. We also believe our competitive strengths discussed below give us the ability to adapt and succeed in a healthcare industry facing regulatory uncertainty around attempts to improve outcomes and reduce costs.
•People. We believe our employees share a steadfast commitment to providing outstanding care to our patients. We undertake significant efforts to ensure our clinical and support staff receive the education and training necessary to provide the highest quality care in the most cost-effective manner. We embrace the Encompass Health Way, our core set of values developed through input from a broad cross section of our employees. The Encompass Health Way calls on each of our employees to set the standard, lead with empathy, do what’s right, focus on the positive, and ensure we are stronger together. We believe our culture is essential to attracting and retaining talent. For further discussion of our human capital management and our award-winning culture, see the section titled “Human Capital Management” below.
2
•Change Agility. We have a demonstrated ability to adapt in the face of numerous and significant regulatory, legislative, and operating environment changes. We believe our consistent and disciplined operating model allows us to be nimble and responsive to change as we have shown following a number of significant changes to our Medicare payment system.
•Strategic Relationships. We have a long and successful history of building strategic relationships with major healthcare systems. More than a third of our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals currently operate as joint ventures with acute-care hospitals or systems. Joint ventures with market leading acute-care hospitals establish a solid foundation for providing integrated patient care that can improve the quality of outcomes and reduce the total cost of care.
The post-acute innovation tools we have developed, and will continue to develop, support our strategic relationship initiatives by enhancing the effective and efficient management of patients across multiple post-acute care settings and facilitating high-quality patient care, improved care coordination, and network provider performance and cost management.
Additionally, we have a strategic sponsorship with the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association on a nationwide basis to increase patient independence after a stroke and reduce stroke mortality through community outreach and information campaigns.
•Clinical Expertise and High-Quality Outcomes. We have extensive clinical experience from which we have developed standardized best practices and protocols. We believe these clinical best practices and protocols, particularly as leveraged with our well-trained clinicians and industry-leading technology, help ensure the delivery of consistently high-quality healthcare services, reduced inefficiencies, and improved performance across a spectrum of operational areas. Currently, we operate 149 hospitals that hold one or more Joint Commission Disease-Specific Care Certifications, such as stroke rehabilitation, hip fracture rehabilitation, brain injury rehabilitation, amputee rehabilitation, Parkinson’s Disease rehabilitation, and spinal cord injury rehabilitation certification.
•Cost Effectiveness. Our scale, data-driven business practices, consistent and disciplined operating model, and culture help us provide healthcare services on a cost-effective basis. We leverage centralized administrative functions, use data analytics to identify trends and respond on a timely basis, and identify best practices and implement them across our platform of hospitals. Our de novo and bed addition strategies incorporate pre-fabrication construction technology to create efficiencies by reducing reliance on subcontractors, improving supply chain efficiencies, providing a consistent construction quality, and realizing a speed-to-market benefit.
•Financial Resources. We have a proven track record of generating strong cash flows from operations that have allowed us to successfully pursue our growth strategy, manage our financial leverage, and make complementary shareholder distributions. As of December 31, 2025, we have a strong, well-capitalized balance sheet, including ownership of approximately 79% of our hospital real estate, no significant debt maturities until 2028, and ample availability under our revolving credit facility, which along with the cash flows generated from operations should, we believe, provide sufficient support for our business strategy.
•Advanced Technology and Innovation. We are focused on developing technology-enabled strategies to further improve our effectiveness at providing post-acute healthcare. Our post-acute innovation strategy is based on using our clinical expertise, our large post-acute datasets, and our proven capabilities in enterprise-level electronic medical record technologies, data analytics, data integration, and predictive analytics to drive value-based performance for our patients, our partners, and our payors. We believe our information systems and post-acute innovation solutions, in addition to improving patient care and operating efficiencies, allow us to collect, analyze, and share information on a timely basis making us an ideal partner for other healthcare providers in a coordinated care delivery environment. Our systems also emphasize interoperability with referral sources and other providers coordinating care. We have devoted substantial resources, effort and expertise to leveraging technology to create post-acute solutions that improve patient care and operating efficiencies.
Competition
The inpatient rehabilitation industry, outside of our leading position, is highly fragmented. Our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals compete primarily with rehabilitation units, most of which are within acute-care hospitals, in the markets we serve. An acute-care hospital operating its own unit, particularly one owned or operated by a large public company or not-for-profit that has a dominant position in the local market, can be a formidable competitor because 92% of our patients come from acute-care
3
hospitals. There are several privately held companies offering post-acute rehabilitation services that compete with us in select geographic markets. In addition, there is a public company that is primarily focused on other post-acute care services but also operates 38 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals across the country. Other providers of post-acute care services compete for some rehabilitation patients. For example, nursing homes may market themselves as offering certain rehabilitation services, particularly to patients not in need of intensive rehabilitation therapy, even though those nursing homes are not required to offer the same level of care and are not licensed as hospitals. The competitive factors in any given market include the quality of care and service provided, the treatment outcomes achieved, the relationship and reputation with managed care and other private payors and the acute-care hospitals, physicians, or other referral sources in the market, and the regulatory barriers to entry in certificate of need states. The ability to work as part of an integrated delivery payment model with other providers, including the ability to deliver quality patient outcomes and cost-effective care, could become an increasingly important factor in competition if a significant number of people in a market are participants in one or more of these models. See the “Regulation—Relationships with Physicians and Other Providers” and “Regulation—Certificates of Need” sections below for further discussion of some of these factors. For a list of our inpatient rehabilitation markets by state, see the table in Item 2, Properties.
Patients and Demographic Trends
Demographic trends, such as population aging, should continue to increase long-term demand for the services we provide. While we treat patients of all ages, most of our patients are 65 and older, and the number of Medicare enrollees is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. More specifically, the average age of our Medicare patients is approximately 77, and the population group of age 75 and over is expected to grow at approximately 4% per year through 2030. We believe the demand for the services we provide will continue to increase as the U.S. population ages. We believe these factors align with our strengths in, and focus on, inpatient rehabilitation services.
Despite the growing demand for inpatient rehabilitation services, the number of inpatient rehabilitation facilities (“IRFs”) has remained relatively stable — decreasing slightly from 1,179 in 2010 to 1,170 in 2024. This supply-demand imbalance is partly responsible for a relatively low conversion rate of inpatient rehabilitation eligible patients. Within our markets, we believe the percentage of patients who are discharged from acute-care hospitals with one or more of 13 specified medical conditions that The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) ties to IRF eligibility and subsequently admitted to an IRF is approximately 15% based on Medicare fee-for-service data, which is the only publicly available data on the subject. To respond to the strong demand for our services, we continue to develop our current markets through bed additions and construct or acquire hospitals in new markets. Since 2012, we have opened or acquired 78 new hospitals and increased the number of licensed beds we operate by approximately 72%, or 4,809 beds.
Human Capital Management
Workforce Composition
As of December 31, 2025, we employed over 42,000 individuals. In the healthcare services sector, many professionals, such as nurses, desire flexible work arrangements. Accordingly, part-time and per diem employees represent a large percentage of our employee population. Except for 50 employees at one hospital (approximately 14% of that hospital’s workforce), none of our employees are represented by a labor union as of December 31, 2025. The chart below includes a breakdown of our employees.
Type Employees
Full-time Employees 24,611
Part-time Employees 3,322
Pool/Per-diem Employees 14,367
In some markets, the shortage of clinical personnel is a significant operating issue facing healthcare providers. Shortages of nurses and other clinical personnel, including therapists, may, from time to time, require us to increase use of more costly temporary personnel, which we refer to as “contract labor,” and other types of premium pay programs. To recruit and retain those clinical employees, we maintain a total rewards program that we view as a combination of the tangible components of pay and benefits with the intangible components of a culture that encourages learning, development, and a supportive work environment. We believe our outstanding employee engagement scores, discussed below, evidence that our human capital management efforts have been successful. We focus on the following strategic human capital imperatives:
•Emphasizing talent acquisition, development, and retention;
•Maintaining competitive compensation and benefit programs that reward and recognize employee performance; and
4
•Fostering a strong culture that values inclusion and diversity.
Emphasizing Talent Acquisition, Development, and Retention
Talent Acquisition
Our Company is focused on attracting and hiring qualified talent through a disciplined, enterprise-wide talent acquisition strategy and a streamlined recruitment process. Talent acquisition efforts are centrally coordinated and aligned to support the organization’s growth, operational needs, and long-term workforce sustainability across all markets.
Our recruitment model is organized across five primary areas: hospital leadership recruitment, regional hospital recruitment, de novo hospital openings, corporate recruitment, and talent attraction and recruitment marketing. This structure allows for both specialization and consistency, ensuring clinical and non-clinical roles are supported with dedicated expertise while maintaining standardized processes and compliance across the organization.
To strengthen the clinical hiring pipelines, we actively invest in national and local talent engagement efforts. We participate in multiple large, discipline-specific national conferences focused on the therapy and nursing professions. These conferences enhance our visibility among experienced clinicians, support employer brand awareness, and provide opportunities to engage with prospective candidates aligned with inpatient rehabilitative care delivery.
In addition to hiring experienced clinicians and professionals, we maintain a strong focus on early-career talent development. We actively recruit therapy and nursing students through structured relationships with academic institutions and training programs. These efforts include engagement with students completing clinical rotations and fieldwork at our hospitals, as well as outreach to local schools within the communities we serve. This approach allows candidates to gain exposure to inpatient rehabilitation while creating a sustainable pipeline of future clinical talent.
We maintain a dedicated recruitment team focused exclusively on staffing new hospital openings. For de novo hospitals, we utilize a centralized and repeatable talent attraction and hiring process, including coordinated marketing across multiple digital media channels and close collaboration with hospital leadership teams. This approach supports timely hiring, onboarding, and workforce readiness in advance of opening timelines and has been successfully deployed across multiple new hospital launches.
This year, we expanded our corporate relationships with universities to include schools outside of the state of Alabama. We hosted the Florida A&M School of Allied Health Sciences Research Day Reception which allowed us to connect with over 100 physical therapy and occupational therapy students and career professionals. Through these combined strategies, our talent acquisition function supports operational excellence, growth initiatives, and workforce stability while reinforcing our commitment to attracting and developing high-quality talent across the organization.
Training and Development
We support the long-term career aspirations of our employees through education and personal development.
•Education Opportunities. We offer our nurses an opportunity to advance their academic degrees at a reduced tuition rate of 30% to 50% of the total program cost. Educational webinars and system-wide group starts are offered to promote participation. Additionally, our full-time inpatient nursing and therapy staff have unlimited access to online education and training to ensure continuing education units are available at no cost.
•Tuition Reimbursement/Scholarship Programs. Employees also have the opportunity to advance their education through our tuition reimbursement and scholarship programs. We reimbursed over $4.6 million in tuition and paid over $1.1 million toward employees’ student loan debt in 2025.
•Academic Endowments. We fund several scholarships for deserving students pursuing degrees in nursing and allied health fields.
•Therapy Grants. We fund research projects to investigate the impact and effectiveness of therapy in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. In recent years, we have funded studies and research on topics ranging from caregiver education to the effectiveness of occupation-centered interventions. The program is open to qualified candidates, including employees.
5
•Other Employee Development Programs:
–career ladders, discussed further below, that offer paths to develop, demonstrate, and be rewarded for expanded responsibility in nursing, therapy, case management, and information technology support;
–national certification program that provides preparation courses, test reimbursement, and additional compensation for nurses who obtain the certified rehabilitation registered nurse certification through the American Nurses Credentialing Center;
–nurse leadership academy workshops offered for mid-level nursing leadership positions to grow and empower the next generation of nursing leaders;
–online development library that provides access to a wide range of readily available internal and external content on many topics important for success in current or desired jobs;
–developing future leaders program that develops nurses and therapists for supervisory positions and develops nurse and therapy supervisors for higher level positions;
–leadership precepting that provides new leaders 6-12 months of structured mentoring from experienced, high-performing peers;
–leadership coaching that provides six months of executive coaching to high performing leaders; and
–developing future CEO program that provides 18-24 months of intensive on-the-job experience to develop participants for future hospital chief executive officer openings; and
–executive mentorship program that offers structured executive mentorship opportunities to support leadership development, knowledge sharing, and employee engagement and to strengthen leadership capability, reinforce organizational values, and support retention through professional growth and development.
To further aid in employee development, we have invested in best-in-class technology to offer on-demand learning and development programs.
Retention
We track and measure therapist and nurse turnover for our full-time employees on a quarterly and annual basis to identify significant trends and outliers, but we do not believe comparisons of our data to external turnover benchmarks are a valid representation, as they do not account for the variations in survey data across markets, hospital sizes, practice settings, and practice specialties. The table below shows those turnover rates for 2025 and 2024.
We support employee retention and foster long‐term professional growth through well‐defined career ladder programs for key roles, such as nurse and therapist, across the organization. These programs outline clear pathways for building skills, expanding responsibilities, and advancing internally. Employees who participate in these programs consistently demonstrate significantly higher retention rates, underscoring the value of structured development in sustaining a committed workforce. By investing in transparent growth opportunities, we promote higher employee engagement, support internal mobility, and cultivate a workforce of individuals who can grow with us over the course of their careers.
Succession Planning
We maintain succession plans for key leadership roles across the organization, including executive leadership positions. Our succession planning approach is designed to support leadership continuity and long-term organizational stability through regular talent reviews, assessment of leadership readiness, and identification of internal development opportunities. These efforts are supported by ongoing leadership development, targeted learning experiences, and executive-level oversight to ensure we are prepared to meet future leadership needs.
6
Maintaining Competitive Compensation and Benefits
Maintaining competitive compensation and benefit programs that reward and recognize employee performance furthers our goal to attract, retain, and motivate employees who will help us deliver high-quality patient care. We are also committed to providing comprehensive benefit options that will allow our employees and their families to live healthier and more secure lives. In our compensation and benefit programs:
•weprovide employee wages that are competitive and consistent with employee positions, skill levels, experience, knowledge and geographic location;
•we engage nationally recognized outside compensation and benefits consulting firms to independently evaluate the effectiveness of our compensation and benefit programs, to provide benchmarking against our peers within the industry and by specific market, and to recommend design elements for those programs;
•we base annual increases and incentive compensation on merit, which is communicated to employees through our talent management process as part of our annual review procedures;
•all full-time and most part-time employees are eligible for health insurance (including mental health coverage), paid and unpaid leaves, a retirement plan, a wellness program, telemedicine, tuition reimbursement, an employee assistance program, and life and disability/accident coverage;
•we provide an employer match on retirement plan contributions;
•we also offer a wide variety of voluntary benefits that allow employees to select the options that meet their needs, including pre-paid legal services, dental insurance, vision insurance, hospital indemnity insurance, accident insurance, critical illness insurance, supplemental life insurance, disability insurance, health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, auto/home insurance, and identity theft insurance;
•we have various year-long, quarterly, and short-term incentive plans for field leadership, most marketing/sales employees, and executives; and
•we make annual grants of restricted stock to employees at various levels, including non-executive management, to foster a strong sense of ownership and align the interests of management with those of our stockholders.
Fostering a Strong Culture
Inclusion and Cultural Education
For 2025, we focused on centralizing inclusion and cultural programming and providing education our employees need to care for our patients. Our cultural awareness programs are centered around quality and clinical excellence to ensure our employees are supported and trained to meet the culturally unique needs of our patients. As a result of this training and other initiatives, the organization improved on the employee engagement survey score relating to culturally competent patient care. This engagement measure is significant from a company perspective because we see a positive correlation around the question of “Our company equips me/staff with the resources to deliver Culturally Competent Care to our patients” and our net promotor score which measures patient satisfaction.
We believe training our managers and supervisors to lead diverse teams is another important component of ensuring our employees feel supported and valued. Our “People Managers” training series is a structured training program that allows our leaders to gain skills needed to navigate common workplace situations that have an impact on culture and engagement. The topics covered in over 90% of our hospitals in 2025 included managing change among cultural differences and navigating staff and patient conflicts related to courtesy and respect.
7
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a key driver of retention. We conduct an annual employee engagement survey open to all our employees, helping us to gauge employee satisfaction with and commitment to their jobs. In 2025, 85% of our eligible permanent employees participated in the survey, which measures perceptions based on 38 questions from the categories listed below. The overall Company engagement score was 84.2% favorable, representing a small increase over 2024. In 2025, we exceeded the healthcare benchmark in all of the 10 categories (by an average 12.1%):
•ethics and compliance •teamwork
•culture of safety •engagement
•inclusion and diversity •culture of trust
•work environment •individual value
•leadership •communication
Furthermore, some hospitals participate in a 5-item pulse engagement survey mid-year to gain feedback on their engagement action plans. Pulse surveys allow us to target and achieve improved engagement scores at the hospital level.
Our shared values provide the foundation for how we engage, develop, and support employees across the organization. Those values are reinforced through leadership development, training, and ongoing communication and guide leadership expectations, collaboration, accountability, and a commitment to patient-centered care. Employee engagement surveys and pulse surveys are used as tools to assess alignment of employee experience with our shared values and to inform action planning at both the local and enterprise levels.
Regulatory and Reimbursement Challenges
Healthcare is a highly regulated industry facing many well-publicized regulatory and reimbursement challenges. The Medicare reimbursement system for inpatient rehabilitation has changed significantly over the years. The future of many aspects of healthcare regulation remains uncertain. Any regulatory or legislative changes impacting the healthcare industry ultimately may affect, among other things, reimbursement of healthcare providers, consumers’ access to coverage of health services, including among non-Medicare aged population segments within commercial insurance markets and Medicaid enrollees, and competition among providers. Changes may also affect the delivery of healthcare services to patients by providers and the regulatory compliance obligations associated with those services.
Successful healthcare providers are those able to adapt to changes in the regulatory and operating environments, build strategic relationships across the healthcare continuum, and consistently provide high-quality, cost-effective care. We believe we have the necessary capabilities—change agility, strategic relationships, quality of patient outcomes, cost effectiveness, and ability to capitalize on growth opportunities—to adapt to and succeed in a dynamic, highly regulated industry, and we have a proven track record of doing so. For more in-depth discussion of the primary challenges and risks related to our business, particularly the changes in Medicare reimbursement, increased compliance and enforcement burdens, and other changes to our operating environment resulting from healthcare regulatory changes, see “Sources of Revenues—Medicare Reimbursement” and “Regulation” below in this section as well as Item 1A, Risk Factors, and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”
Sources of Revenues
We receive payment for patient care services from the federal government (primarily under the Medicare program), managed care plans and private insurers, and, to a considerably lesser degree, state governments (under their respective Medicaid or similar programs) and directly from patients. Revenues and receivables from Medicare are significant to our operations. Federal and state governments establish payment rates as described in more detail below. We negotiate the payment rates with non-governmental group purchasers of healthcare services that are included in “Managed care” in the table below, including private insurance companies, employers, health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”), preferred provider organizations (“PPOs”), and other managed care plans. Patients are generally not responsible for the difference between established gross charges and amounts reimbursed for such services under Medicare, Medicaid, and other private insurance plans, HMOs, or PPOs but are responsible to the extent of any exclusions, deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance features of their coverage. Medicare, through its Medicare Advantage program, offers Medicare-eligible individuals an opportunity to
8
participate in managed care plans. Revenues from Medicare and Medicare Advantage represent approximately 82% of total revenues.
The sources and relative mix of our revenues for the last three years are:
For the Year Ended December 31,
Other third-party payors 0.7 % 0.8 % 0.9 %
Workers' compensation 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 %
Medicare Reimbursement
Medicare is a federal program that provides hospital and medical insurance benefits to persons aged 65 and over, qualified disabled persons, and persons with end-stage renal disease. Medicare, through statutes and regulations, establishes reimbursement methodologies and rates for various types of healthcare providers, facilities, and services. Each year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”), an independent agency that advises the United States Congress on issues affecting Medicare, makes payment policy recommendations to Congress for a variety of Medicare payment systems including, among others, the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (the “IRF-PPS”). MedPAC also makes recommendations on regulatory actions to CMS. Neither Congress nor CMS is obligated to adopt MedPAC recommendations, and, based on outcomes in previous years, there can be no assurance either will adopt MedPAC’s recommendations in a given year. However, MedPAC’s recommendations have, and could in the future, become the basis for subsequent legislative or, as discussed below, regulatory action affecting us.
The Medicare statutes are subject to change from time to time. With respect to Medicare reimbursement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) provided for specific reductions to healthcare providers’ annual market basket updates and other payment policy changes. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 providing for an automatic 2% reduction, or “sequestration,” of Medicare program payments for all healthcare providers to reduce deficit spending. Sequestration took effect April 1, 2013 and, as a result of subsequent legislation, will continue through the first five months of fiscal year 2033 unless Congress and the President take further action. Additional Medicare payment reductions are also possible under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (“Statutory PAYGO”). Statutory PAYGO requires, among other things, that mandatory spending and revenue legislation not increase the federal budget deficit over a 5- or 10-year period. If the Office of Management and Budget (the “OMB”) finds there is a deficit in the federal budget, Statutory PAYGO requires OMB to order sequestration of Medicare, which could result in Medicare program payments reductions of up to four percent. In the future, concerns about the federal deficit, national debt levels and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund could result in enactment of further federal spending reductions, further entitlement reform legislation affecting the Medicare program, or both. Healthcare will be the subject of significant regulatory and legislative changes regardless of the party in control of the executive and legislative branches of state and federal governments.
CMS regularly modifies Medicare regulations, including reimbursement methodologies and rates. In accordance with Medicare laws and statutes, CMS makes annual adjustments to Medicare payment rates for prospective payment systems, including the IRF-PPS, by what is commonly known as a “market basket update.” CMS may take other regulatory action affecting rates as well. For example, under the ACA, CMS requires IRFs to submit data on certain quality of care measures for the IRF quality reporting program. A facility’s failure to submit the required quality data results in a two percentage point reduction to that facility’s annual market basket increase factor for payments made for discharges in a subsequent Medicare fiscal year. IRFs began submitting quality data to CMS in October 2012. Subject to its statutory authority, CMS may also make non-rate changes to the prospective payment system. For example, CMS changed the IRF-PPS, effective October 1, 2019, to replace the FIMTM assessment instrument with new patient assessment measures, which we refer to as “Section GG functional measures” or “Section GG” based on the designation CMS assigned to them. Section GG affects patients’ classification into
9
case-mix groupings, relative weights, and length-of-stay values under the IRF-PPS, which in turn affect our reimbursement amounts. In some instances, CMS’s modifications can have a substantial impact on healthcare providers.
We cannot predict the adjustments to Medicare payment systems Congress or CMS may make in the future. Congress, MedPAC, and CMS will continue to address reimbursement rates for a variety of healthcare settings. Any additional downward adjustment to rates or limitations on reimbursement for the types of facilities we operate and services we provide could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional discussion of the risks associated with our concentration of revenues from the federal government or with potential changes to the statutes or regulations governing Medicare reimbursement, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Reimbursement Risks” and “Other Regulatory Risks” and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”
Although reductions or changes in reimbursement from governmental or third-party payors and regulatory changes affecting our business represent one of the most significant challenges to our business, our operations are also affected by other rules and regulations that indirectly affect reimbursement for our services, such as data coding rules and patient coverage rules and determinations. For example, Medicare providers like us can be negatively affected by the adoption of coverage policies, either at the national or local level, that determine whether an item or service is covered and under what clinical circumstances it is considered to be reasonable and necessary. Current CMS coverage rules require inpatient rehabilitation services to be ordered by a physician and coordinated by an interdisciplinary team and the admission to the IRF must be reviewed and approved by a specialized rehabilitation physician. The interdisciplinary team must meet weekly to review patient status and make any needed adjustments to the individualized plan of care. Qualified personnel must provide the rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, social services, psychological services, and prosthetic and orthotic services that may be needed. Medicare contractors processing claims for CMS make coverage determinations regarding medical necessity that can represent novel, restrictive, or incorrect interpretations of the CMS coverage rules. Those interpretations are not made through a notice and comment review process. We cannot predict how future CMS coverage rule interpretations or any new local coverage determinations will affect us. However, more restrictive coverage interpretations can limit or delay our reimbursement for services provided to potentially large pools of patients with similar medical conditions.
In the ordinary course, Medicare reimbursement claims made by healthcare providers, including inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, are subject to audit by governmental payors and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) that act as fiscal intermediaries for all Medicare billings, as well as the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”), CMS, and state Medicaid programs. In addition to those audits conducted by existing MACs, CMS has developed and instituted various Medicare audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. Some contractors are paid a percentage of the overpayments recovered. Recovery Audit Contractors (“RACs”) conduct payment reviews of claims, which can examine coding, overall billing accuracy, and medical necessity. When conducting an audit, the RACs receive claims data directly from MACs on a monthly or quarterly basis.
CMS has also established Unified Program Integrity Contractors (“UPICs”) to perform fraud, waste, and abuse detection, deterrence and prevention activities for Medicare and Medicaid claims. Like the RACs, the UPICs conduct audits and have the ability to refer matters to the HHS-OIG or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Unlike RACs, UPICs do not receive a specific financial incentive based on the amount of the payment errors they identify.
As a matter of course, we undertake significant efforts through training, education, and documentation to ensure compliance with coding and medical necessity coverage rules. Despite our efforts to ensure accurate coding and assessment of patients, past audits have led, and future audits may lead, to assertions that we have been underpaid or overpaid by Medicare or that we have submitted improper claims in some instances. Ultimately, audits may require us to refund any amounts determined to have been overpaid. Audits also require us to incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and defend the validity of payments and claims. We cannot predict when or how these audit programs will affect us. Any denial of a claim for payment, either as a result of an audit or ordinary course payment review by the MAC, is subject to an appeals process that can take years to complete. For additional discussion of these audits and the risks associated with them, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Reimbursement Risks” and “Other Regulatory Risks” and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”
10
As noted above, our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals receive a fixed payment reimbursement amount per discharge under the IRF-PPS based on the patient’s rehabilitation impairment category and other characteristics and conditions identified by the attending clinicians. To qualify for reimbursement under the IRF-PPS, our hospitals must comply with various Medicare rules and regulations including documentation and coverage requirements, or specifications as to what conditions must be met to qualify for reimbursement. These requirements relate to, among other things, pre-admission screening and individual treatment planning, which delineate the role of physicians in ordering and overseeing patient care. For example, physicians must approve patient admissions and, in doing so, determine that the treatment of the patients in an IRF setting is reasonable and medically necessary. A rehabilitation physician must then conduct face-to-face visits with the patients at least three days per week throughout the IRF stay. Also, patients admitted to IRFs must be able to tolerate a minimum of three hours of therapy per day for five days per week, and IRFs must have a registered nurse available 24 hours, each day of the week.
In addition, to qualify as an IRF under Medicare rules, a facility must be primarily focused on treating patients with one of 13 specified medical conditions that typically require intensive therapy and supervision, such as stroke, brain injury, hip fracture, certain neurological conditions, and spinal cord injury. Specifically, at least 60% of a facility’s patients must have a diagnosis or qualifying comorbidity from at least one of these 13 conditions, which requirement is known as the “60% Rule.” If an IRF does not demonstrate compliance with the 60% Rule by either the presumptive method or through a review of medical records, then its classification as an IRF may be terminated by CMS causing the facility to be paid under the acute-care payment system which would result in reduced total reimbursement per patient. If some of our hospitals fail to demonstrate compliance with the 60% Rule and CMS re-classifies them as acute-care hospitals, our revenue and profitability may be materially and adversely affected.
Under the IRF-PPS, CMS is required to adjust the payment rates based on an IRF-specific market basket index. The annual market basket update is designed to reflect changes over time in the prices of a mix of goods and services used by IRFs. In setting annual market basket updates, CMS uses data furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for price proxy purposes, primarily in three categories: Producer Price Indexes, Consumer Price Indexes, and Employment Cost Indexes. With IRF-PPS, our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals retain the difference, if any, between the fixed payment from Medicare and their operating costs. Accordingly, our hospitals benefit from being cost-effective providers.
On July 31, 2024, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2025 IRF-PPS (the “2025 IRF Rule”). The 2025 IRF Rule implemented a net 3.0% market basket increase (market basket update of 3.5% reduced by a productivity adjustment of 0.5%) effective for discharges between October 1, 2024 and September 30, 2025. The 2025 IRF Rule also included changes that impacted our hospital-by-hospital base rate for Medicare reimbursement. Such changes included, but were not limited to, revisions to the wage index and labor-related share values, updates to outlier payments, and updates to the case-mix group relative weights and average lengths of stay values.
On August 1, 2025, CMS released its notice of final rulemaking for fiscal year 2026 IRF-PPS (the “2026 IRF Rule”). The 2026 IRF Rule implemented a net 2.6% market basket increase (market basket update of 3.3% reduced by a productivity adjustment of 0.7%) effective for discharges between October 1, 2025 and September 30, 2026. The 2026 IRF Rule also includes changes that impact our hospital-by-hospital base rate for Medicare reimbursement. Such changes include, but are not limited to, revisions to the wage index, updates to outlier payments, and updates to the case-mix group relative weights and average lengths of stay values. Based on our analysis which utilizes the acuity of our patients annualized over the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2025, our experience with outlier payments over that same time frame, and other factors, we believe the 2026 IRF Rule will result in a net increase to our Medicare payment rates of approximately 2.9% effective October 1, 2025.
Unlike our inpatient services, our outpatient services are primarily reimbursed under the Medicare Part B physician fee schedule. On October 31, 2025, CMS released its final notice of rulemaking for the payment policies under the physician fee schedule and other revisions to Part B policies for calendar year 2025. The updates to the fee schedule are not expected to be material to us.
For additional discussion of the Medicare payment rules and other regulatory and legislative initiatives affecting Medicare reimbursement that could impact our businesses, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Reimbursement Risks” and “Other Regulatory Risks” and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Executive Overview—Key Challenges.”
Medicare Advantage, Managed Care and Other Discount Plans
We negotiate payment rates with certain large group purchasers of healthcare services, including Medicare Advantage plans, managed care plans, private insurance companies, and third-party administrators. Managed care contracts typically have terms between one and three years, although we have a number of managed care contracts that automatically renew each year (with pre-defined rate increases) unless a party elects to terminate the contract. In 2025, typical rate increases for our contracts
11
ranged from 2-4%. We cannot provide any assurance we will continue to receive increases in the future. Our managed care staff focuses on establishing and re-negotiating contracts that provide equitable reimbursement for the services provided.
As the percentage of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries choosing Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare has grown, we have seen the percentage of our revenue derived from Medicare Advantage payors grow. In 2025, approximately 54% of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. This percentage has steadily increased over time since 2003. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the share of all Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans will rise to about 64% by 2034. We expect the percentage of our total revenues attributable to Medicare Advantage plans to continue to grow over time as well. Typically, Medicare Advantage and other managed care plans reimburse us less than traditional Medicare for the same type of care and patient, but that differential has been shrinking in recent years.
Medicaid Reimbursement
Medicaid is a jointly administered and funded federal and state program that provides hospital and medical benefits to qualifying individuals who are deemed unable to afford healthcare. As the Medicaid program is administered by the individual states under the oversight of CMS in accordance with certain regulatory and statutory guidelines, there are substantial differences in reimbursement methodologies and coverage policies from state to state. Some states pay providers additional amounts to supplement Medicaid reimbursement related to the care of individual Medicaid beneficiaries. These additional payments, which vary by state, may be in the form of directed payments made through Medicaid managed care plans or other supplemental payment programs. Some states impose provider taxes in the form of licensing fees, assessments, or other mandatory payments related to the provision of healthcare services in those states, which are used to fund a portion of the non-federal share of payments to providers. We record state directed and supplemental payments in the othercomponentof Net operating revenues and provider tax expenses in Other operating expenses.
State Medicaid programs are subject to various federal regulations governing any provider tax and related directed and supplemental payment programs. In May 2024, CMS issued a final rule related to Medicaid managed care programs that addressed state directed payment programs and imposed new requirements for these programs. The various elements of the rule take effect between its issuance and early 2028. Ultimately, this rule could result in significant changes to state directed and supplemental payment programs from which we receive payments. However, a federal district court recently vacated portions of this rule following a legal challenge by the state of Texas. CMS appealed the decision, but the court enjoined enforcement of this rule while the appeal is pending.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”). The OBBBA contains a range of healthcare-related provisions impacting coverage, financing, and provider reimbursement in state Medicaid programs. These provisions include enrollee work requirements, limitations on states’ ability to assess provider taxes to increase federal matching Medicaid funds, and limitations on states’ directed payments to providers. Most of these provisions take effect in 2027 or later and likely require additional federal and state regulatory action to implement.
It is possible that additional rulemaking could result in significant restructurings of existing state Medicaid programs, including provider tax and related directed and supplemental payment programs. State authorities design the structures and operations of these programs to promote access to acute-care hospitals for Medicaid patients by supplementing acute-care reimbursement. Historically, we are not aware of any IRFs playing a role in the design given the limited number of IRF Medicaid patients, so we are uncertain what attention state authorities will give to the effects of additional rulemaking on IRFs. We are unable to estimate the financial impact that structural modifications and other program changes, if any, may have on our Medicaid provider tax expenses or directed and supplemental payments. CMS periodically assesses the compliance of these programs, and CMS’s determination that a state’s program fails to comply may result in a decrease in state directed and supplemental payments and recoupment of prior payments under that state’s noncompliant program.
Historically, states experiencing shortfalls in their Medicaid budgets have implemented cuts in Medicaid reimbursement rates. Additionally, certain states control Medicaid expenditures by restricting or eliminating coverage of some services. On average, our reimbursement per discharge from Medicaid is lower than that from traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage and other managed care payors. For the year ended December 31, 2025, Medicaid payments for specific discharges represented only 3.1% of our consolidated Net operating revenues, and Medicaid discharges represented 5.4% of our total inpatient discharges. For additional discussion of risks associated with Medicaid, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Reimbursement Risks.”
12
Cost Reports
Because of our participation in Medicare and Medicaid, we are required to meet certain financial reporting requirements. Federal and, where applicable, state regulations require the submission of annual cost reports covering the revenue, costs, and expenses associated with the services provided by healthcare providers to Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients. These annual cost reports are subject to routine audits which may result in adjustments to the amounts ultimately determined to be due to us under these reimbursement programs. These audits are used to determine if any under- or over-payments were made by these programs and to set payment levels for future years. Medicare also makes retroactive adjustments to payments for certain low-income patients after comparing subsequently published statistical data from CMS to the cost report data. We cannot predict what retroactive adjustments, if any, will be made, but we do not anticipate these adjustments will have a material impact on us.
Regulation
The healthcare industry is subject to significant federal, state, and local regulation that affects our business activities by controlling the reimbursement we receive for services provided, requiring licensure or certification of our operations, regulating our relationships with physicians and other referral sources, regulating the use of our properties, and controlling our growth. State and local healthcare regulation may cover additional matters such as nurse staffing ratios, healthcare worker safety, disclosure of charges for services provided, marijuana legalization, and assisted suicide. We are also subject to broader federal and state regulations that prohibit fraud and abuse in the delivery of healthcare services. Congress, HHS-OIG, and the DOJ have historically focused on fraud and abuse in healthcare. Since the 1980s, a steady stream of changes have stiffened criminal and civil penalties or made it easier for the DOJ to impose liability on companies and individuals. As a healthcare provider, we are subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, government investigative and oversight agencies. Failure to comply with applicable federal and state healthcare regulations can result in a provider’s exclusion from participation in government reimbursement programs as well as subject a provider to substantial civil and criminal penalties.
We undertake significant effort and expense to provide the medical, nursing, therapy, and ancillary services required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations as well as applicable accreditation standards, which for most of our hospitals are those of The Joint Commission. Accredited hospitals are subject to periodic resurvey to ensure the standards are being met.
Beyond healthcare specific regulations, we face increasing state and local regulation in areas, such as labor and employment, energy efficiency, and data privacy. In addition to the risk and burden of new, additional, or more stringent regulatory standards, these state and local regulations often conflict with federal regulation, and with each other. Given the number of locations in which we operate, increasing state and local regulation, which may be more stringent than federal regulation and may even conflict with federal or other state or local regulation, represents a significant burden and risk to us.
We maintain a comprehensive ethics and compliance program to promote conduct and business practices that meet or exceed requirements under laws, regulations, and industry standards. The program monitors the Company’s performance on, and raises awareness of, various regulatory requirements among employees and emphasizes the importance of complying with governmental laws and regulations. As part of the compliance program, we provide annual compliance training to our employees, Board members, medical directors, vendors, and other non-employees that operate within our hospitals. We require all employees to report any violations to their supervisor or another person of authority or through a toll-free telephone hotline. Another integral part of our compliance program is a policy of non-retaliation against employees who report compliance concerns.
Licensure and Certification
Healthcare facility construction and operation are subject to numerous federal, state, and local regulations relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, acquisition and dispensing of pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, infection control, maintenance of adequate records and patient privacy, fire prevention, and compliance with building codes and environmental protection laws. Our inpatient rehabilitation hospitals are subject to periodic inspection and other reviews by governmental and non-governmental certification authorities to ensure continued compliance with the various standards necessary for facility licensure. All of our hospitals are required to be licensed.
In addition, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals must be certified by CMS to participate in the Medicare program and generally must be certified by state Medicaid agencies to participate in Medicaid programs. Certification and participation in these programs involve numerous regulatory obligations. For example, hospitals must treat at least 20 patients without reimbursement prior to certification and eligibility for Medicare reimbursement. Once certified by Medicare, hospitals undergo
13
periodic on-site surveys and revalidations in order to maintain their certification. All of our inpatient hospitals participate in the Medicare program.
Failure to comply with applicable certification requirements may make our hospitals ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement. In addition, Medicare or Medicaid may seek retroactive reimbursement from noncompliant hospitals or otherwise impose sanctions for noncompliance. Non-governmental payors often have the right to terminate provider contracts if the provider loses its Medicare or Medicaid certification.
All Medicare providers are subject to employee screening requirements and associated fees. The screening of employees with patient access must include a licensure check and may include other procedures such as fingerprinting, criminal background checks, unscheduled and unannounced site visits, database checks, and other screening procedures prescribed by CMS. If a healthcare provider arranges or contracts with an individual or entity who is excluded by HHS-OIG from participation in a federal healthcare program, the provider may be subject to civil monetary penalties if the excluded person renders services reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by a program.
We have developed operational systems to facilitate compliance with the various standards and requirements of the Medicare program and have established ongoing quality assurance activities; however, given the complex nature of governmental healthcare regulations, there can be no assurance Medicare, Medicaid, or other regulatory authorities will not allege instances of noncompliance. A determination by a regulatory authority that a hospital is not in compliance with applicable requirements could also lead to the assessment of fines or other penalties, loss of licensure, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and the imposition of requirements that the offending hospital must take corrective action.
Certificates of Need
In some states and U.S. territories where we operate, the construction or expansion of facilities, the acquisition of existing facilities, or the introduction of new beds or inpatient services may be subject to review by and prior approval of state regulatory bodies under a “certificate of need,” or “CON,” law. As of December 31, 2025, approximately 36% of our licensed beds are in states or U.S. territories that have CON laws. CON laws require a reviewing authority or agency to determine the public need for additional or expanded healthcare facilities and services. These laws also generally require approvals for capital expenditures involving inpatient rehabilitation hospitals if such capital expenditures exceed certain thresholds. In addition, CON laws in some states require us to abide by certain charity care commitments as a condition for approving a CON. Where we are subject to a CON law, we must obtain the CON before acquiring, opening, reclassifying, or expanding a healthcare facility or starting a new healthcare program.
We potentially face opposition any time we initiate a project requiring a new or amended CON or seek to acquire an existing CON. This opposition may arise either from competing national or regional companies or from local hospitals or other providers which file competing applications or oppose the proposed CON project. Opposition to our applications may delay or prevent our future addition of beds or hospitals in given markets or increase our costs in seeking those additions. The necessity for these approvals serves as a barrier to entry and has the potential to limit competition for us (in markets where we hold a CON) and for other providers (in markets where we are seeking a CON). We have generally been successful in obtaining CONs or similar approvals, although there can be no assurance we will achieve similar success in the future, and the likelihood of success varies by locality and state.
In an attempt to reduce regulation and increase competition, lawmakers in several states have recently proposed modification or even full repeal of CON laws. In 2019, Florida enacted legislation to repeal CON laws for several provider types, including IRFs. Similarly, in 2023, South Carolina enacted legislation to repeal CON laws for several provider types, including IRFs. We believe CON-related legislation and regulation changes, including both repeal and expansion of CON requirements, will continue to be proposed in various states for the foreseeable future.
False Claims
The federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”) imposes liability for the knowing presentation of a false claim to the United States government and provides for penalties equal to three times the actual amount of any overpayments plus up to approximately $28,000 per claim. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. In addition, the FCA allows private persons, known as “relators,” to file complaints under seal and provides a period of time for the government to investigate such complaints and determine whether to intervene in them and take over the handling of all or part of such complaints. The FCA allows relators to share in monetary recoveries in order to incentivize complaints. The government and relators may also allege violations of the FCA for the knowing and improper failure to report and refund amounts owed to the government in a timely manner following identification of an overpayment. This is known as a “reverse false claim.” The
14
government deems identification of the overpayment to occur when a person has, or should have through reasonable diligence, determined that an overpayment was received and quantified the overpayment.
Because we have hundreds of thousands of claims a year for which we are reimbursed by Medicare and other federal payors and there is a relatively long statute of limitations, a billing error, cost reporting error or disagreement over physician medical judgment could result in significant damages and civil and criminal penalties under the FCA. Many states have also adopted similar laws relating to state government payments for healthcare services. The ACA amended the FCA to expand the definition of false claim, to make it easier for the government to initiate and conduct investigations, to enhance the monetary reward to relators where prosecutions are ultimately successful, and to extend the statute of limitations on claims by the government. The federal government and individual relators have become increasingly aggressive in asserting that incidents of erroneous billing or record keeping represent FCA violations and in challenging the medical judgment of independent physicians as the basis for FCA allegations. In addition, the federal government has increasingly asserted that violations of laws not directly related to Medicare billing, such as anti-kickback and anti-discrimination laws, may give rise to FCA claims. Furthermore, well-publicized enforcement actions indicate that the federal government has increasingly sought to use statistical sampling to extrapolate allegations to larger pools of claims or to infer liability without proving knowledge of falsity of individual claims. A violation of the FCA by us could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation could have an adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation. For additional discussion, see Item 1A, Risk Factors, “Reimbursement Risks” and “Other Regulatory Risks” and Note 16, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Relationships with Physicians and Other Providers
Anti-Kickback Law. Various state and federal laws regulate relationships between providers of healthcare services, including management or service contracts and investment relationships. Among the most important of these restrictions is a federal law prohibiting the offer, payment, solicitation, or receipt of remuneration by individuals or entities to induce referrals of patients for services reimbursed under the Medicare or Medicaid programs (the “Anti-Kickback Law”). The ACA amended the federal Anti-Kickback Law to provide that proving violations of this law does not require proving actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation. Another amendment made it clear that Anti-Kickback Law violations can be the basis for claims under the FCA. These changes and those described above related to the FCA, when combined with other recent federal initiatives, are likely to increase investigation and enforcement efforts in the healthcare industry generally. In addition to standard federal criminal and civil sanctions, including imprisonment and penalties of up to a $100,000 criminal fine and an approximately $128,000 civil penalty for each violation plus tripled damages for associated improper claims under the FCA, violators of the Anti-Kickback Law may be subject to exclusion from the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. HHS-OIG regulations itemize compensation arrangements that are not viewed as illegal remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Law. Those regulations provide for certain safe harbors for identified types of compensation arrangements that, if fully complied with, assure participants in the particular arrangement that HHS-OIG will not treat that participation as a criminal offense under the Anti-Kickback Law or as the basis for an exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs or the imposition of civil sanctions.
On November 20, 2020, HHS-OIG finalized a rule to modernize the Anti-Kickback Law by reducing regulatory barriers to care coordination and accelerating adoption of value-based delivery and payment models (the “2020 AKL Rule”). The 2020 AKL Rule adds several new safe harbors for value-based arrangements and modifies several existing safe harbors with the goal of encouraging innovations that are beneficial to patients while maintaining necessary safeguards to protect against fraud and abuse. The 2020 AKL Rule also expands the safe harbor for cybersecurity technology by covering remuneration in the form of cybersecurity technology and services. The new and modified value-based safe harbors are available to inpatient rehabilitation providers if the applicable conditions are met.
Failure to fall within a safe harbor does not constitute a violation of the Anti-Kickback Law, but HHS-OIG has indicated failure to fall within a safe harbor may subject an arrangement to increased scrutiny. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Law by us or one or more of our joint ventures could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation could have an adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation.
We operate a number of our rehabilitation hospitals through joint ventures with institutional healthcare providers that may be in a position to make or influence referrals to us. In addition, we have a number of relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, including management or service contracts. Some of these investment relationships and contractual relationships may not fall within the protection offered by a safe harbor. Despite our compliance and monitoring efforts, there can be no assurance violations of the Anti-Kickback Law will not be asserted in the future, nor can there be any assurance our defense against any such assertion would be successful.
15
For example, we have entered into agreements to manage our hospitals that are owned by joint ventures. Most of these agreements incorporate a percentage-based management fee. Although there is a safe harbor for personal services and management contracts, this safe harbor requires, among other things, the aggregate compensation paid to the manager over the term of the agreement be set in advance. Because our management fee may be based on a percentage of revenues, the fee arrangement may not meet this requirement. However, we believe our management arrangements satisfy the other requirements of the safe harbor for personal services and management contracts and comply with the Anti-Kickback Law.
Physician Self-Referral Law. The federal law commonly known as the “Stark law” and CMS regulations promulgated under the Stark law prohibit physicians from making referrals for “designated health services” including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, radiology services, and home health services, to an entity in which the physician (or an immediate family member) has an investment interest or other financial relationship, subject to certain exceptions. The Stark law also prohibits those entities from filing claims or billing Medicare for those referred services. Violators of the Stark law and regulations may be subject to recoupments, civil monetary sanctions (up to approximately $32,000 for each violation and assessments up to three times the amount claimed for each prohibited service) and exclusion from any federal, state, or other governmental healthcare programs. The statute also provides a penalty of up to approximately $211,000 for a circumvention scheme. Federal civil penalties will be adjusted to account for inflation each year. There are statutory exceptions to the Stark law for many of the customary financial arrangements between physicians and providers, including personal services contracts and leases. However, in order to be afforded protection by a Stark law exception, the financial arrangement must comply with every requirement of the applicable exception.
On November 20, 2020, CMS finalized a rule implementing various changes to the Stark law to provide better access and outcomes for patients by creating clearer paths for providers to serve patients through enhanced coordinated care agreements (the “2020 Stark Rule”). Notably, the 2020 Stark Rule creates permanent exceptions for value-based compensation arrangements that provide at least one value-based activity, which arrangements must further one value-based purpose, which may include: (1) coordinating and managing patient care; (2) improving quality of care for a target population; (3) reducing costs or expenditure growth without reducing quality of care; and (4) transitioning from health care delivery and payment mechanisms that are based on volume to outcome-based delivery and payment systems. In addition, the 2020 Stark Rule adopts a new exception regarding the provision of cybersecurity items to physicians and makes permanent the electronic health record exception under the Stark law.
The complexity of the Stark law and the associated regulations and their associated strict liability provisions are a challenge for healthcare providers, who do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of these laws and regulations. We attempt to structure our relationships to meet one or more exceptions to the Stark law, but the regulations implementing the exceptions are detailed and complex. Accordingly, we cannot assure that every relationship complies fully with the Stark law.
Additionally, no assurances can be given that any agency charged with enforcement of the Stark law and regulations might not assert a violation under the Stark law, nor can there be any assurance our defense against any such assertion would be successful or that new federal or state laws governing physician relationships, or new interpretations of existing laws governing such relationships, might not adversely affect relationships we have established with physicians or result in the imposition of penalties on us. A violation of the Stark law by us could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even the assertion of a violation could have an adverse effect upon our stock price or reputation.
HIPAA
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, commonly known as “HIPAA,” broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several criminal provisions for healthcare fraud offenses that apply to all health benefit programs. HIPAA also added a prohibition against incentives intended to influence decisions by Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries as to the provider from which they will receive services. In addition, HIPAA created new enforcement mechanisms to combat fraud and abuse, including the Medicare Integrity Program, and an incentive program under which individuals can receive a monetary reward for providing information on Medicare fraud and abuse that leads to the recovery of Medicare funds. Penalties for violations of HIPAA include civil and criminal monetary penalties. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“HHS-OCR”) implemented a permanent HIPAA audit program for healthcare providers nationwide in 2016. As of December 31, 2025, we have not been selected for audit.
HIPAA and related regulations contain certain administrative simplification provisions that require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for certain healthcare claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. HIPAA regulations also regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health-related information, whether communicated electronically, on paper, or orally. The regulations provide patients with significant rights related to
16
understanding and controlling how their health information is used or disclosed and require healthcare providers to implement administrative, physical, and technical practices to protect the security of individually identifiable health information.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act modifies and expands the privacy and security requirements of HIPAA. The HITECH Act applies certain of the HIPAA privacy and security requirements directly to business associates of covered entities. The modifications to existing HIPAA requirements include: expanded accounting requirements for electronic health records, tighter restrictions on marketing and fundraising, and heightened penalties and enforcement associated with noncompliance. Significantly, the HITECH Act also establishes new mandatory federal requirements for notification of breaches of security involving protected health information. HHS-OCR rules implementing the HITECH Act expand the potential liability for a breach involving protected health information to cover some instances where a subcontractor is responsible for the breaches and that individual or entity was acting within the scope of delegated authority under the related contract or engagement. These rules generally define “breach” to mean the acquisition, access, use or disclosure of protected health information in a manner not permitted by the HIPAA privacy standards, which compromises the security or privacy of protected health information. Under these rules, improper acquisition, access, use, or disclosure is presumed to be a reportable breach, unless the potentially breaching party can demonstrate a low probability that protected health information has been compromised.
HHS-OCR is responsible for enforcing the requirement that covered entities notify the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and any individual whose protected health information has been improperly acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed. In certain cases, notice of a breach is required to be made to media outlets. The penalties for noncompliance may be up to approximately $73,000 per violation for most violations. In the event of violations due to willful neglect that are not corrected within 30 days, penalties start at approximately $73,000 per violation and are not subject to a per violation statutory maximum. Penalties are also subject to an annual cap of approximately $2,190,000 for multiple identical violations in a single calendar year depending on an entity’s level of culpability. Importantly, HHS-OCR has indicated that the failure to conduct a security risk assessment or adequately implement HIPAA compliance policies could qualify as willful neglect.
In addition, there are numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing patient privacy concerns. Healthcare providers will continue to remain subject to many federal and state privacy-related laws, including but not limited to the California Consumer Privacy Act, that may be more restrictive than, or impose additional obligations beyond, the privacy regulations issued under HIPAA. These laws vary and could impose additional penalties. HHS-OIG and other regulators have also increasingly interpreted laws and regulations in a manner as to increase exposure of healthcare providers to allegations of noncompliance. Similarly, plaintiffs’ attorneys have taken expansive views of privacy laws and regulations to support private causes of action. Any actual or perceived violation of privacy-related laws and regulations, including HIPAA and the HITECH Act, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
Civil Monetary Penalties Law
Under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, HHS may impose substantial civil monetary penalties on healthcare providers for a wide variety of fraudulent and improper conduct, including presenting, or causing to be presented, ineligible reimbursement claims. In some instances, violations of this law may include treble damages for the amount of the reimbursement at issue and may include exclusion from federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The penalties are adjusted annually to account for inflation. Sanctions under this law are in addition to the other statutory remedies discussed above.
Available Information
We make available through our website, www.encompasshealth.com, the following documents, free of charge: our annual reports (Form 10-K), our quarterly reports (Form 10-Q), our current reports (Form 8-K), and any amendments to those reports promptly after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
17
Item 1A.Risk Factors
Our business, operations, and financial position are subject to various risks. Some of these risks are described below, and the reader should take such risks into account in evaluating Encompass Health or any investment decision involving Encompass Health. This section does not describe all risks that may be applicable to us, our industry, or our business, and it is intended only as a summary of material risk factors. More detailed information concerning other risks and uncertainties as well as those described below is contained in other sections of this annual report. Still other risks and uncertainties we have not or cannot foresee as material to us may also adversely affect us in the future. If any of the risks below or other risks or uncertainties discussed elsewhere in this annual report are actually realized, our business and financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. In the event the impact is materially adverse, the trading price of our common stock could decline.
Reimbursement Risks
Reductions or changes in reimbursement from government or third-party payors could adversely affect our Net operating revenues and other operating results.
We derive a substantial portion of our Net operating revenues from the Medicare program. See Item 1, Business, “Sources of Revenues,” for a table identifying the sources and relative payor mix of our revenues. In addition to many ordinary course reimbursement rate changes that The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) adopts each year as part of its annual rulemaking process for various healthcare provider categories, Congress and some state legislatures have periodically proposed significant changes in laws and regulations governing the healthcare system. Many of these changes have resulted in limitations on the increases in and, in some cases, significant roll-backs or reductions in the levels of payments to healthcare providers for services under many government reimbursement programs. There can be no assurance that future governmental initiatives will not result in reimbursement freezes and reductions, or reimbursement increases that are less than the increases we experience in our costs of operation.
In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “ACA”) as a significant healthcare reform. Many provisions within the ACA have impacted or could in the future impact our business, including Medicare reimbursement reductions and promotion of alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations (“ACOs”) and bundled payment initiatives. The nature and substance of state and federal healthcare laws are subject to change frequently, by means of both broad-based healthcare reform legislation, like the ACA, and targeted legislative and regulatory action.
In accordance with federal statutes, CMS makes an annual adjustment to Medicare reimbursement rates, commonly known as a “market basket update,” by provider type in an effort to compensate providers for rising operating costs. The ACA requires the market basket updates for hospital providers to be reduced by a productivity adjustment on an annual basis. The productivity adjustment equals the trailing 10-year average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity. To date, the productivity adjustments have typically resulted in decreases to the market basket updates ranging from 20 to 100 basis points.
Other federal legislation can also have a significant impact on our Medicare reimbursement. For example, on August 2, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which provided for an automatic 2% reduction of Medicare program payments to reduce deficit spending. This automatic reduction, known as “sequestration,” began affecting payments received after April 1, 2013. Under current law, for each year through the first five months of fiscal year 2033, the reimbursement we receive from Medicare, after first taking into account all annual payment adjustments including the market basket update, will be reduced by sequestration unless it is repealed or modified before then. On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”). The OBBBA contains a range of healthcare-related provisions impacting coverage, financing, and provider reimbursement in state Medicaid programs. Most of these provisions take effect in 2027 or later and likely require additional federal and state regulatory action to implement.
Additional Medicare payment reductions are also possible under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (“Statutory PAYGO”). Statutory PAYGO requires, among other things, that mandatory spending and revenue legislation not increase the federal budget deficit over a 5- or 10-year period. If the Office of Management and Budget (the “OMB”) finds there is a deficit in the federal budget, Statutory PAYGO requires OMB to order sequestration of government programs, including Medicare, which could result in Medicare program payments reductions of up to four percent.
Concerns held by federal policymakers about the federal deficit, national debt levels, or healthcare spending specifically, including solvency of the Medicare trust fund, could result in enactment of further federal spending reductions, including by means of significant staffing reductions at HHS, further entitlement reform legislation affecting the Medicare and
18
Medicaid programs, and further reductions to provider payments. In October 2014, President Obama signed into law the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (the “IMPACT Act”). The IMPACT Act directs HHS, in consultation with healthcare stakeholders, to collect standardized data for post-acute quality and outcome measures. Although the IMPACT Act did not specifically call for the implementation of a new post-acute payment system, this act laid the foundation for possible future post-acute payment policies in which Medicare payments are driven primarily by patients’ medical conditions and other clinical factors rather than the costs of the setting where the care is provided. CMS has made changes to existing current post-acute payment systems to improve comparability of patient assessment and clinical characteristic data across settings, which could make it easier to develop payment system reforms for post-acute providers in the future. For example, in 2019, CMS implemented new patient assessment measures for the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (the “IRF-PPS”) as discussed below. The IMPACT Act also created additional data reporting requirements for our hospitals in the domains of functional and cognitive status, skin integrity, medication reconciliation, incidence of major falls, and transfer of health information. The precise details of these new reporting requirements, including timing and content, were developed and implemented by CMS through the regulatory process over several years, and CMS may continue to make changes to these quality measures and standardized patient assessment data elements in the future. We cannot quantify the potential future effects, if any, of the IMPACT Act on us.
Each year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”), an independent agency, advises Congress on issues affecting Medicare and makes payment policy recommendations to Congress for a variety of Medicare payment systems including, among others, the IRF-PPS. MedPAC also provides comments to CMS on proposed rules, including the prospective payment system rules. Neither Congress nor CMS is obligated to adopt MedPAC recommendations, and, based on outcomes in previous years, there can be no assurance MedPAC’s recommendations will be adopted in a given year. However, MedPAC’s recommendations have, and could in the future, become the basis for legislative or regulatory action.
In connection with CMS’s final rulemaking for the IRF-PPS in each year since 2008, MedPAC has recommended either no updates to payments or reductions to payments. For example, at its January 2026 meeting, MedPAC approved recommending to Congress, among other things, legislative changes to reduce by 7% the base payment rate under IRF-PPS. MedPAC has also previously called on the HHS Secretary to conduct focused medical record reviews on IRFs.
In a June 2023 report mandated by the IMPACT Act, MedPAC reviewed the considerations associated with Congress designing and adopting a unified payment system for all Medicare post-acute care (a “PAC-PPS”) in lieu of separate systems for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (“IRFs”), skilled nursing facilities, long-term acute-care hospitals, and home health agencies. A PAC-PPS would reimburse providers for care based primarily on patients’ medical conditions and other clinical factors rather than the costs associated with care settings. MedPAC found a PAC-PPS to be feasible and desirable but also suggested policymakers may want to consider other “smaller scale site-neutral policies” given the considerable resources required to develop and implement a PAC-PPS. MedPAC previously estimated, although we cannot verify the methodology or the accuracy of that estimate, a PAC-PPS would result in a 15% reduction in IRF reimbursements and shift aggregate reimbursements from for-profit and freestanding IRFs to non-profit and hospital-based IRFs.
We cannot predict what alternative or additional deficit reduction initiatives, including significant staffing reductions at HHS, Medicare payment reductions, or post-acute care reforms, if any, will be adopted or enacted into law, or the timing or effect of any initiatives or reductions. However, given the uncertainty in the funding of Medicare and Medicaid spending in the future, there will almost certainly be new proposals for healthcare reforms and other changes to the laws, regulations, or the operations of governmental agencies that will affect our government reimbursement or business. There can be no assurance future governmental action will not result in substantial changes to, or material reductions in, our reimbursements, including through Medicaid and related state directed and supplemental payment programs.
We receive state directed and supplemental payments in connection with several state Medicaid programs. In 2025, those payments totaled approximately $148 million. We also pay provider taxes to fund, in part, state Medicaid programs, and in 2025 those payments totaled approximately $127 million. In May 2024, CMS issued a final rule related to Medicaid managed care programs that addresses state directed payment programs and imposes new requirements for these programs. The various elements of the rule take effect between its issuance and early 2028. Ultimately, this rule could result in significant changes to state directed and supplemental payment programs from which we receive payments. However, a federal district court recently vacated portions of this rule following a legal challenge by the state of Texas. CMS appealed the decision, but the court enjoined enforcement of this rule while the appeal is pending. The OBBBA also contains provisions limiting states’ ability to assess provider taxes to increase federal matching Medicaid funds and make directed payments to providers. Most of these provisions take effect in 2027 or later and likely require additional federal and state regulatory action to implement.
It is possible that additional rulemaking could result in significant restructurings of existing state Medicaid programs, including provider tax and related directed and supplemental payment programs. State authorities design the structures and operations of these programs to promote access to acute-care hospitals for Medicaid patients by supplementing acute-care
19
reimbursement. Historically, we are not aware of any IRFs playing a significant role in the design given the limited number of IRF Medicaid patients, so we are uncertain what attention state authorities will give to the effects of additional rulemaking on IRFs. We are unable to estimate the financial impact that structural modifications and other program changes, if any, may have on our Medicaid provider tax expenses or directed and supplemental payments. We cannot be certain that changes to state directed and supplemental payment programs will directly correspond to changes in the related provider taxes. CMS periodically assesses the compliance of these programs, and CMS’s determination that a state’s program fails to comply may result in a decrease in state directed and supplemental payments and recoupment of prior payments under that state’s noncompliant program.
In any given year, the net effect of statutory and regulatory changes may result in a decreases in our reimbursement rates and amounts, and those decreases may occur at times when our expenses are increasing. For example, in some recent years, our wage and benefit costs increased at a rate in excess of our aggregate Medicare reimbursement rate increases. Similar changes in our revenues and expenses could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional discussion of how we are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid, see Item 1, Business, “Regulatory and Reimbursement Challenges” and “Sources of Revenues.”
In addition, there are increasing pressures from managed care, including Medicare Advantage, and other third-party payors to control healthcare costs and to reduce or limit increases in reimbursement rates for medical services. For example, each year CMS adopts updates to the payments to, and the payment policies for, Medicare Advantage payors, and those updates may result in a net decrease in payments to those payors. Our relationships with managed care and nongovernmental third-party payors, such as health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations, are generally governed by negotiated agreements. These agreements set forth the amounts we are entitled to receive for our services. Our Net operating revenues and our ability to grow our business with these payors could be adversely affected if we are unable to negotiate and maintain favorable agreements with these payors.
Reimbursement claims are subject to various audits from time to time and such audits may negatively affect our operations and our cash flows from operations.
We receive a substantial portion of our revenues from the Medicare program. Medicare reimbursement claims made by healthcare providers, including inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, are subject to audit from time to time by governmental payors, such as CMS and state Medicaid programs, their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) that act as fiscal intermediaries for all Medicare billings and other auditors contracted by CMS, and private insurance carriers, as well as the HHS Office of Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”). As noted above, the clarity and completeness of each patient medical file, some of which is the work product of a physician not employed by us, is essential to successfully challenging any payment denials. If the physicians working with our patients do not adequately document, among other things, their diagnoses and plans of care, our risks related to audits and payment denials in general are greater. Adding to the difficulty associated with the billing and audit processes, we also believe that the MACs and other CMS auditors reviewing claims frequently lack sufficient expertise in rehabilitative care and the related CMS rules and regulations. Depending on the nature of the conduct found in billing audits and whether the underlying conduct could be considered systemic, the resolution of these audits could have a material adverse effect in the aggregate on our financial position, results of operation, cash flows, and liquidity.
In the context of our inpatient rehabilitation business, one of the common grounds cited for denying a claim or challenging a previously paid Medicare claim in an audit is that the patient’s treatment in a hospital was not medically necessary. The medical record must support that both the documentation and coverage criteria requirements are met for the hospital stay to be considered medically necessary. Medical necessity is an assessment by an independent physician of a patient’s ability to tolerate and benefit from intensive multi-disciplinary therapy provided in an IRF setting. A Medicare claim may be denied or challenged based on an opinion of the auditor that the record did not evidence medical necessity for treatment in an IRF or lacked sufficient documentation to support the conclusion. Some MACs have in the past applied, and are likely in the future to apply, their own unique interpretation of CMS coverage rules or impose otherwise arbitrary conditions not set out in the related rules, which has resulted, and may in the future result, in payment denials.
In some cases, we believe the reviewing party is not merely challenging the sufficiency of the medical record but is substituting its judgment of medical necessity for that of the attending physician or imposing documentation or other requirements that are not set out in the regulations. We argue that doing so is inappropriate and has no basis in law. When the government or its contractors reject the medical judgment of physicians or impose documentation and other requirements beyond the language of the statutes and regulations, patient access to inpatient rehabilitation as well as our Medicare reimbursement from the related claims may be adversely affected.
Under CMS’s Targeted Probe and Educate (“TPE”) program, MACs use data analysis to identify healthcare providers with unusual billing practices, high claim error rates, and items and services that have high national error rates. Once a MAC
20
selects a provider for claims review, the initial volume of claims review is limited to 20 to 40 claims. The TPE program includes up to three rounds of claims review with corresponding provider education and a subsequent period to allow for improvement. If results do not improve sufficiently after three rounds, the MAC may refer the provider to CMS for further action, which may include extrapolation of error rates to a broader universe of claims or referral to a UPIC or RAC (defined below). As of December 31, 2025, none of our hospitals have progressed beyond the third round of reviews, so it is unclear how the review process after TPE would proceed. We cannot predict whether the TPE initiative or similar probes or reviews will materially impact our reimbursement or the timeliness of collections from Medicare in the future.
CMS has developed and instituted various audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. These audits are in addition to those conducted by existing MACs. Some contractors are paid a percentage of the overpayments recovered. One type of audit contractor, the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”), receives claims data directly from MACs on a monthly or quarterly basis and is authorized to review previously paid claims. RAC audits of IRFs have focused on reviews of patient coding, medical necessity, and billing accuracy. CMS has, however, authorized RACs to conduct complex reviews of the medical records associated with IRF reimbursement claims. CMS has previously operated a demonstration project that expanded the RAC program to include prepayment review of Medicare fee-for-service claims from primarily acute-care hospitals. It is unclear whether CMS intends to conduct RAC prepayment reviews in the future and if so, what providers and claims would be the focus of those reviews.
CMS has also established other types of contractors, including the Uniform Program Integrity Contractor (“UPIC”) and the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (“SMRC”). The UPICs conduct audits with a focus on potential fraud and abuse issues. Like the RACs, the UPICs conduct audits and have the ability to refer matters to the HHS-OIG or the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Unlike RACs, however, UPICs do not receive a specific financial incentive based on the amount of the error. In December 2017, we received notice of a UPIC audit at one of our hospitals. The UPIC sampled 100 claims and challenged the propriety of a subset of the sample representing $1.3 million in previously paid claims. The UPIC extrapolated the alleged error rate to all claims from that hospital during a period of approximately four years, resulting in an alleged overpayment of $33.9 million. Our MAC later reduced the determination of overpayment to $30.5 million, which it collected through recoupment of current claims during 2019. We appealed the overpayment determination to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who heard the appeal in August 2021. In October 2022, the ALJ overturned $12.5 million of the overpayment determination. We received payment of this amount, plus $3.2 million in interest, in December 2022. We have appealed the remaining $18.0 million of the overpayment determination to the next level of administrative appeal, challenging both the denials and the improper use of extrapolation. It is not possible to predict when this matter will be resolved or the ultimate outcome. The SMRC conducts nationwide medical reviews of Medicare claims to determine compliance with coverage, coding, payment, and billing requirements.
Audits may lead to assertions that we have been underpaid or overpaid by Medicare or have submitted improper claims in some instances. Such assertions may require us to incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and defend the validity of payments and claims and may ultimately require us to refund any amounts determined to have been overpaid. In some circumstances auditors have the authority to extrapolate denial rationales to large pools of claims not actually audited, which could greatly increase the impact of the audit. As a result, we may suffer reduced profitability, and we may have to elect not to accept patients and conditions physicians believe can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. We cannot predict when or how these audit programs will affect us.
Our managed care, including Medicare Advantage, and other third-party payors may also, from time to time, request audits of the amounts paid, or to be paid, to us. We could be adversely affected if one or more auditing payors allege substantial overpayments were made to us due to coding errors or lack of documentation to support medical necessity determinations. Similarly, there can be no assurance that our current or future MACs will not make restrictive or otherwise incorrect interpretations of Medicare coverage rules. Because one MAC has jurisdiction over a significant number of our hospitals and our hospitals derive a substantial portion of their revenue from Medicare, the adoption of restrictive or otherwise incorrect interpretations of coverage rules by that MAC could result in a large number of payment denials and materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
Substantive and procedural deficiencies in the administrative appeals process associated with denied Medicare reimbursement claims could delay and reduce our reimbursement for services previously provided.
Ordinary course Medicare pre-payment denials by MACs, as well as denials resulting from post-payment audits, are subject to appeal by providers. HHS provides an initial appeal process through its ALJs. We have historically appealed a majority of our claims denials. Due to the sheer number of appeals by all Medicare providers and various administrative inefficiencies, including a shortage of judges, appeals that are required by statute to be resolved in a matter of months have in the past taken years to complete. In recent years, this protracted appeals process led to a significant backlog of appeals of
21
denials, which a federal judge ultimately ordered HHS to resolve. Changes implemented by CMS to resolve the backlog may have harmed the ability of providers like us to recover on valid Medicare claims. The Medicare appeals adjudication process is administered by the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (“OMHA”). Beginning in March 2020, OMHA increased the frequency of ALJ hearings and the number of claims set at each hearing, which we believe added to the substantive and procedural deficiencies in the ALJ appeals process. There can be no assurance significant backlogs will not develop in the future or that CMS will not address such a backlog in a manner that we believe compromises providers’ due process rights.
Providers may appeal adverse ALJ rulings to the Department Appeals Board (the “DAB”). Denials by the DAB may be appealed to United States district courts. As of December 31, 2025, we have approximately $12 million and $21 million in denied claims awaiting review at the ALJ and DAB levels, respectively. In addition, we have approximately $6 million in claims denied by the DAB pending review by United States district courts as of December 31, 2025.
Based on a number of factors, including prior experience in the appeals process, we record our estimates for pre-payment denials and for post-payment audit denials that will ultimately not be collected as a component of Net operating revenues.See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, “Net Operating Revenues,” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. We have in the past, and may again in the future, experience decreases in Net operating revenues anddecreases in cash flow as a result of greater frequency of unfavorable resolution of denials or increasing unresolved denials and the associated increasing accounts receivable, which may in turn force us to change the patients we admit and conditions we treat. Any of these impacts could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.
Changes in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients could adversely affect our Net operating revenues or our profitability.
Many factors affect reimbursement rates for our services and, in turn, our revenues. These factors include the treating facility’s urban or rural status, the length of stay, the payor and its applicable rate of reimbursement, and the patient’s medical condition and impairment status (acuity). The reimbursement rates we receive from traditional Medicare fee-for-service are generally higher than those received from other payors, although the difference between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage payments for inpatient rehabilitation care has decreased in the last several years. Over the same period, we have seen a shift in the payor mix from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage and other managed care providers. Not only do Medicare Advantage and managed care payors generally pay us less, but we would expect bad debt to be higher for patients covered by Medicare Advantage and managed care as patients typically retain more payment responsibility under those arrangements. Additionally, the rate at which Medicare Advantage referrals are converted to admissions is lower than the rate for traditional Medicare.
In the past, we have experienced a shift to a slightly larger percentage of Medicaid patients, driven in part by the expansion of coverage consistent with the intent of the ACA and the expansion of coverage resulting from regulatory actions during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Medicaid reimbursement rates are almost always the lowest among those of our payors, and frequently Medicaid patients come to us with other complicating conditions that make treatment more difficult and costly. We cannot predict the growth of, or changes to, Medicaid.
Also, a shift to a lower average patient acuity typically results in lower reimbursement rates regardless of the payor. Both a shift in our payor mix away from Medicare fee-for-service and a shift to a lower patient acuity would likely adversely affect reimbursement. See the “Results of Operations—Net Operating Revenues” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. We cannot predict the extent to which our payor mix may shift to lower reimbursement rate payors. We have in recent years experienced, and in the future may, experience shifts in our payor mix or the acuity of our patients that could adversely affect our reimbursement, Net operating revenues, and profitability.
Delays in collection or non-collection of our accounts receivable could adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity.
Reimbursement is typically conditioned on our documenting medical necessity and correctly applying diagnosis codes. Incorrect or incomplete documentation and billing information could result in non-payment for services rendered. Billing and collection of our accounts receivable are further subject to the complex regulations that govern Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and rules imposed by nongovernment payors. Our inability to bill and collect on a timely basis pursuant to these regulations and rules could subject us to payment delays that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity.
In addition, timing delays in billings and collections may increase our working capital burden. Working capital management, including prompt and diligent billing and collection, is an important factor in our financial position and results of operations and in maintaining liquidity. It is possible that Medicare, Medicaid, documentation support, system problems or
22
other provider issues or industry trends, particularly with respect to newly acquired entities for which we have limited operational experience, may extend our collection period, which may materially adversely affect our working capital, and our working capital management procedures may not successfully mitigate this risk.
The timing of payments made under the Medicare and Medicaid programs is subject to governmental budgetary constraints, which may result in an increased period of time between submission of claims and subsequent payment under specific programs, most notably under the Medicare and Medicaid managed care programs, which in many cases pay claims significantly slower than traditional Medicare or state Medicaid programs do as a result of more complicated authorization, billing and collecting processes that are required by Medicare and Medicaid managed care programs. In addition, we may experience delays in reimbursement as a result of the failure to receive prompt approvals related to change of ownership applications for acquired or other facilities or from delays caused by our or other third parties’ information system failures. Furthermore, the proliferation of Medicare and Medicaid managed care programs could have a material adverse impact on the results of our operations as a result of more complicated authorization, billing and collection requirements implemented by such programs.
A change in our estimates of collectability or a delay in collection of accounts receivable could adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity. The estimates are based on a variety of factors, including the length of time receivables are past due, significant one-time events, contractual rights, the nature of the underlying payment denials, and historical experience. In the fourth quarter of 2023, we recorded aggregate amount of $21.9 million in additional reserves for estimated uncollectible amounts associated with claims denied and appealed prior to 2023. The increase in reserves largely offset the accounts receivable associated with these claims. A delay in collecting our accounts receivable, or the non-collection of accounts receivable, including, without limitation, in connection with our transition and integration of acquired companies and the attendant movement of underlying billing and collection operations from legacy systems to future systems, could have a material negative impact on our results of operations and liquidity, and we could be required to record further impairment charges on our financial statements.
Efforts to reduce payments to healthcare providers undertaken by third-party payors, conveners, and referral sources could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.
Health insurers and managed care companies, including Medicare Advantage plans, may utilize certain third parties, known as conveners, and their own internal analytics to attempt to control costs. Conveners offer patient placement and care transition services to those payors as well as bundled payment participants, ACOs, and other healthcare providers with the intent of managing post-acute utilization and associated costs. Conveners may influence referral source decisions on which post-acute setting to recommend, as well as how long to remain in a particular setting. Given their focus on perceived financial savings, conveners customarily suggest that patients avoid higher acuity post-acute settings altogether or move as soon as practicable to lower acuity settings as those settings are reimbursed at lower rates due to the lower level of care they are required to provide. Conveners are not healthcare providers and may suggest a post-acute setting or duration of care that may not be appropriate from a clinical perspective potentially resulting in worse patient outcomes and costly acute-care hospital readmissions.
Medicare Advantage plans may use overly restrictive coverage determinations in the pre-authorization process to limit participating members’ access to needed inpatient rehabilitative care. Medicare Advantage plans must provide coverage for inpatient rehabilitative care to the extent conventional Medicare does. However, in our experience, Medicare Advantage plans frequently deny coverage for inpatient rehabilitative care when the patients would have qualified for that care under conventional Medicare rules. Additionally, large Medicare Advantage plans have acquired home health operators. Those Medicare Advantage plans may attempt to shift patients who would benefit from intensive inpatient rehabilitation to home health in order to reduce costs to the plans in the near term.
We also depend on referrals from physicians, acute-care hospitals, and other healthcare providers in the communities we serve. As a result of various alternative payment models, many referral sources are becoming increasingly focused on reducing post-acute costs by eliminating post-acute care referrals or referring patients to perceived low-cost post-acute settings rather than rehabilitation hospitals, sometimes without understanding the potential impact on patient outcomes over an entire episode of care. Our ability to attract patients could be adversely affected if any of our hospitals fail to provide or maintain a reputation for providing high-quality care on a cost-effective basis as compared to other providers.
23
Quality reporting requirements could adversely affect the Medicare reimbursement we receive.
The focus on alternative payment models and value-based purchasing of healthcare services has led to more extensive quality of care reporting requirements. In many cases, the new reporting requirements are linked to reimbursement incentives. For example, under the ACA, CMS established new quality data reporting, effective October 1, 2012, for all IRFs. A facility’s failure to submit the required quality data results in a two percentage point reduction to that facility’s annual market basket increase factor for payments made for discharges in the subsequent Medicare fiscal year. Hospitals began submitting quality data to CMS in October 2012. To date, only two of our hospitals have experienced payment reductions, both for fiscal year 2025. We contested those two determinations and have not yet received final decisions.
The IMPACT Act mandated that CMS adopt several new quality reporting measures for the various post-acute provider types. The adoption of additional quality reporting measures to track and report will require additional time and expense and could materially affect reimbursement in the future. In healthcare generally, the burdens associated with collecting, recording, and reporting quality data are increasing. There can be no assurance our hospitals will meet quality reporting requirements or quality performance in the future. Failure to do so will result in any associated hospital seeing a reduction in its Medicare reimbursement. Regardless, we, like other healthcare providers, are likely to incur additional expenses in an effort to comply with additional and changing quality reporting requirements.
Other Regulatory Risks
The ongoing evolution of the healthcare delivery system, including alternative payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives, in the United States may significantly affect our business and results of operations.
The healthcare industry in general is facing regulatory uncertainty around attempts to improve outcomes and reduce costs, including coordinated care and integrated payment models. In an integrated payment model, hospitals, physicians, and other care providers are reimbursed in a fashion meant to encourage coordinated healthcare on a more efficient, patient-centered basis. These providers are then paid based on the overall value and quality (as determined by outcomes) of the services they provide to a patient rather than the number and nature of services they provide. While this is consistent with our goal and proven track record of being a high-quality, cost-effective provider, broad-based implementation of a new payment model would represent a significant evolution or transformation of the healthcare industry, which may have a significant impact on our business and results of operations.
In recent years, HHS has been studying the feasibility of bundling, including conducting a voluntary, multi-year bundling pilot program to test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies. CMS’ voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (“BPCI Advanced”) initiative began October 1, 2018, ran through December 31, 2025, and covered 29 types of inpatient, three types of outpatient clinical episodes, and two multi-setting clinical episodes, including stroke and hip fracture. Providers participating in BPCI Advanced are subject to a semi-annual reconciliation process where CMS compares the aggregate Medicare expenditures for all items and services included in a clinical episode against the target price for that type of episode to determine whether the participant is eligible to receive a portion of the savings, or is required to repay a portion of the payment above target. Accordingly, reimbursement may be increased or decreased, compared to what would otherwise be due, based on whether the total Medicare expenditures and patient outcomes meet, exceed or fall short of the targets. BPCI Advanced did not have a material impact on our hospitals.
Similarly, CMS has established, per the ACA, several separate ACO programs. The largest is the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”), a voluntary ACO program in which hospitals, physicians, and other care providers pursue the delivery of coordinated healthcare on a more efficient, patient-centered basis. Conceptually, ACOs receive a portion of any savings generated above a certain threshold from care coordination as long as benchmarks for the quality of care are maintained. Under the MSSP, there are two ACO tracks from which participants can choose. Each track offers a different degree to which participants share any savings realized or any obligation to repay losses suffered. The ACO rules adopted by CMS are extremely complex and remain subject to further refinement by CMS.
On November 16, 2015, CMS published its final rule establishing the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (“CJR”) payment model, which holds acute-care hospitals accountable for the quality of care they deliver to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for lower extremity joint replacements (i.e., knees and hips) from surgery through recovery. The CJR originally was mandatory for the acute-care hospitals in the 67 geographic areas covered. On November 30, 2017, CMS issued a final rule making the CJR voluntary in 33 of those areas. The CJR model’s original five-year term ended in December 2020, but CMS extended the model through 2024 for most providers in the 34 geographic areas with mandatory participation. Under CJR, healthcare providers in the mandatory participation areas are paid under existing Medicare payment systems. However, CMS holds the acute-care hospital where a joint replacement takes place accountable for the quality and costs of care for the entire episode of care — from the time of the original admission through 90 days after discharge. Depending on the quality and
24
cost performance during the entire episode, the acute-care hospital may receive an additional payment or be required to repay Medicare a portion of the episode costs. As a result, CMS believes acute-care hospitals are incented to work with physicians and post-acute care providers to ensure beneficiaries receive the coordinated care they need in an efficient manner. Acute-care hospitals participating in the CJR model may enter into risk-sharing financial arrangements with post-acute providers, including IRFs. CJR did not have a material impact on our hospitals.
On August 1, 2024, CMS published its final rule establishing the Transforming Episode Accountability Model (“TEAM”). This five-year mandatory model began January 1, 2026 and ends on December 31, 2030. The model seeks to test whether 30-day episode-based payments for five common surgical procedures will reduce Medicare expenditures without lowering quality of care. The five procedures are: lower extremity joint replacement, surgical hip femur fracture treatment, spinal fusion, coronary artery bypass graft, and major bowel procedures. All acute-care hospitals located in the 189 markets selected will be required to participate in TEAM. Based on 2024 Medicare discharge data, approximately 2% of our total discharges were associated with the five procedures in the markets covered by the model. Under TEAM, healthcare providers in those markets are paid under existing Medicare payment systems. CMS will hold the acute-care hospital where these procedures take place accountable for the quality and costs of care for the entire episode of care — from the time of the original admission through 30 days after an acute-care discharge. Acute healthcare providers will receive a target price based on all non-excluded Medicare Parts A & B items and services included in an episode. Depending on the quality and cost performance during the entire episode, the acute-care hospital may receive an additional payment or, beginning in the second year, be required to repay a portion of the episode costs that exceed the target price. Before taking into account quality of care and outcomes, for each of the five procedures in TEAM, the 30-day average total spend in 2024 where an IRF stay followed the acute-care discharge exceeded the corresponding target price established by CMS.
HHS and CMS continue to explore ways to encourage and facilitate increased participation in alternative payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives. Broad-based implementation of a new payment model would represent a significant transformation for us and the healthcare industry generally. The nature and timing of the evolution or transformation of the current healthcare system to coordinated care delivery and integrated payment models and value-based purchasing remain uncertain. The development of new delivery and payment systems will almost certainly take significant time and expense. Many of the alternative approaches, including those discussed above, being explored may not work or could change substantially prior to any nationwide implementations. While only a small percentage of our business currently is subject to the alternative payment models discussed above, we cannot be certain these models will not be expanded or made standard or new models will not be implemented broadly.
Additionally, as the number and types of bundling, direct contracting, and ACO models increase, the number of Medicare beneficiaries who are treated in one of the models increases. Our willingness or inability to participate in integrated payment and other alternative payment models and the referral patterns of other providers participating in those models may limit our access to Medicare patients who would benefit from treatment in inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. In an attempt to reduce costs or increase reimbursements, referral sources may seek to discourage referrals to IRFs or post-acute care all together. To the extent that acute-care hospitals participating in those models do not perceive our quality of care or cost efficiency favorably compared to alternative post-acute providers, we may experience a decrease in volumes and Net operating revenues, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. For further discussion of coordinated care and integrated payment models and value-based purchasing initiatives, the associated challenges, and our efforts to respond to them, see the “Executive Overview—Key Challenges—Changes in Medicare Reimbursement and Regulatory Requirements for Operating IRFs” section of Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Other legislative and regulatory initiatives and changes affecting the industry could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
In addition to the legislative and regulatory actions that directly affect our reimbursement rates or further the evolution of the current healthcare delivery system, other legislative and regulatory changes affect healthcare providers like us from time to time. For example, the ACA expanded the federal Anti-Kickback Law and the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) increasing compliance scrutiny in the healthcare industry generally. Those changes included additional resources for enforcement, lowered burden of proof for the government in healthcare fraud matters, expanded definition of claims under the FCA, enhanced penalties, and increased rewards for relators in successful prosecutions. CMS may also suspend payment for claims prospectively if, in its opinion, credible allegations of fraud exist. The initial suspension period may be up to 180 days. However, the payment suspension period can be extended almost indefinitely if the matter is under investigation by the HHS-OIG or DOJ. Any such suspension would adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
25
Some states in which we operate have also undertaken, or are considering, healthcare reform initiatives that address similar issues. While many of the stated goals of other federal and state reform initiatives are consistent with our own goal to provide care that is high-quality and cost-effective, legislation and regulatory proposals may lower reimbursements, increase the cost of compliance, decrease patient volumes, promote frivolous or baseless litigation, and otherwise adversely affect our business. We cannot predict what healthcare initiatives, if any, will be enacted, implemented or amended, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us.
On December 14, 2020, CMS announced the proposal of a five-year review choice demonstration for inpatient rehabilitation services (the “RCD”). In August 2023, IRFs located in Alabama began participation in RCD. On June 17, 2024, CMS expanded RCD to include IRFs located in Pennsylvania and billing to a certain MAC. We do not bill to that MAC, so we are not subject to the program in Pennsylvania at this time. In December 2025, CMS announced the expansion of RCD to Texas and California, effective March 2, 2026 and May 1, 2026, respectively. With the expansion to those two states, we expect 33 of our current inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (representing approximately 11.9% of our IRF Medicare claims) to be subject to RCD. After the initial four states, CMS intends to expand the demonstration to include additional IRFs based on the MAC to which those IRFs submit claims. There are no details of that expansion at this time.