HCA Healthcare - 10-Q quarterly report FY

On November 17, 2006, HCA Inc. completed its merger (the “Merger”) with Hercules Acquisition Corporation, pursuant to which the Company was acquired by Hercules Holding II, LLC (“Hercules Holding”), a Delaware limited liability company owned by a private investor group comprised of affiliates of Bain Capital Partners (“Bain”), Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (“KKR”), Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity (“MLGPE”) (each a “Sponsor”) and of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corporation (the “Sponsor Assignees”), by affiliates of HCA founder, Dr. Thomas F. Frist Jr., (the “Frist Entities,” and together with the Sponsors and the Sponsor Assignees, the “Investors”), and by members of management and certain other investors. The Merger, the financing transactions related to the Merger and other related transactions are collectively referred to in this quarterly report as the “Recapitalization.” The Merger was accounted for as a recapitalization in our financial statements, with no adjustments to the historical basis of our assets and liabilities. As a result of the Recapitalization, our outstanding capital stock is owned by the Investors, certain members of management and key employees and certain other investors. On April 29, 2008, we registered our common stock pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, thus subjecting us to the reporting requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our common stock is not traded on a national securities exchange.

HCA Inc. is a holding company whose affiliates own and operate hospitals and related health care entities. The term “affiliates” includes direct and indirect subsidiaries of HCA Inc. and partnerships and joint ventures in which such subsidiaries are partners. At June 30, 2009, these affiliates owned and operated 155 hospitals, 97 freestanding surgery centers and facilities which provided extensive outpatient and ancillary services. Affiliates of HCA are also partners in joint ventures that own and operate eight hospitals and eight freestanding surgery centers which are accounted for using the equity method. The Company’s facilities are located in 20 states and England. The terms “HCA,” “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us,” as used in this quarterly report onForm 10-Q,refer to HCA Inc. and its affiliates unless otherwise stated or indicated by context.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions toForm 10-Qand Article 10 ofRegulation S-X.Accordingly, they do not include all the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete consolidated financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included and are of a normal and recurring nature. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements-an Amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS 160”), references in this report to our net income attributable to HCA Inc. and stockholders’ deficit attributable to HCA Inc. do not include noncontrolling interests (previously known as minority interests), which we now report separately. The implementation of SFAS 160 also results in the cash flow impact of distributions to and certain other transactions with noncontrolling interests that were previously classified within operating activities being classified within financing activities. Such treatment is consistent with the view that under SFAS 160 transactions between HCA Inc. and noncontrolling interests are considered to be equity transactions. The presentation and disclosure provisions of SFAS 160 have been applied retrospectively for all periods presented.

We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 165, “Subsequent Events” (“SFAS 165”), during the period ended June 30, 2009. SFAS 165 establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. We evaluated all events or transactions that occurred after June 30, 2009, through August 14, 2009, the date we issued these financial statements. During this period we did not have any material recognizable subsequent events that required recognition or disclosure in the June 30, 2009 financial statements.

The majority of our expenses are “cost of revenue” items. Costs that could be classified as general and administrative would include our corporate office costs, which were $40 million and $43 million for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and $77 million and $83 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Operating results for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2009. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in our annual report onForm 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2008.

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

At June 30, 2009, we were contesting before the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), certain claimed deficiencies and adjustments proposed by the IRS in connection with its examination of the 2003 and 2004 federal income tax returns for HCA and 11 affiliates that are treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes (“affiliated partnerships”). The disputed items include the timing of recognition of certain patient service revenues and our method for calculating the tax allowance for doubtful accounts.

Eight taxable periods of HCA and its predecessors ended in 1995 through 2002 and the 2002 taxable year for seven affiliated partnerships, for which the primary remaining issue is the computation of the tax allowance for doubtful accounts, are pending before the IRS Examination Division or the United States Tax Court as of June 30, 2009. The IRS began an audit of the 2005 and 2006 federal income tax returns for HCA and seven affiliated partnerships during 2008.

Our liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $613 million, including accrued interest of $153 million, as of June 30, 2009 ($625 million and $156 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2008). Unrecognized tax benefits of $250 million ($264 million as of December 31, 2008) would affect the effective rate, if recognized. The liability for unrecognized tax benefits does not reflect deferred tax assets of $76 million ($81 million as of December 31, 2008) related to deductible interest and state income taxes or the balance of a refundable deposit of $104 million we made in 2006, which is recorded in noncurrent assets. The provision for income taxes reflects $14 million and $6 million reductions in interest expense related to taxing authority examinations for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The provision for income taxes reflects a $34 million reduction in interest expense and interest expense of $6 million related to taxing authority examinations for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Depending on the resolution of the IRS disputes, the completion of examinations by federal, state or international taxing authorities, or the expiration of statutes of limitation for specific taxing jurisdictions, we believe it is reasonably possible our liability for unrecognized tax benefits may significantly increase or decrease within the next 12 months. However, we are currently unable to estimate the range of any possible change.

A summary of our insurance subsidiary’s investments at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 follows (dollars in millions):

At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the investments of our insurance subsidiary were classified as“available-for-sale.”Changes in temporary unrealized gains and losses are recorded as adjustments to other comprehensive income. At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, $99 million and $119 million, respectively, of our investments were subject to restrictions included in insurance bond collateralization and assumed reinsurance contracts.

Scheduled maturities of investments in debt securities at June 30, 2009 were as follows (dollars in millions):

The average expected maturity of the investments in debt securities at June 30, 2009 was 3.8 years, compared to the average scheduled maturity of 12.2 years. Expected and scheduled maturities may differ because the issuers of certain securities have the right to call, prepay or otherwise redeem such obligations prior to the scheduled maturity date. The average expected maturity for our auction rate and asset-backed securities were derived from valuation models of expected cash flows and involved management’s judgment. The average expected maturities for our auction rate and asset-backed securities at June 30, 2009 were 5.6 years and 6.4 years, respectively, compared to average scheduled maturities of 25.0 years and 25.7 years, respectively.

A summary of long-term debt at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, including related interest rates at June 30, 2009, follows (dollars in millions):

During February 2009, we issued $310 million aggregate principal amount of 97/8% senior secured second lien notes due 2017 at a price of 96.673% of their face value, resulting in $300 million of gross proceeds. After the payment of related fees and expenses, we used the proceeds to repay outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured term loan facilities.

During April 2009, we issued $1.500 billion aggregate principal amount of 81/2% senior secured first lien notes due 2019 at a price of 96.755% of their face value, resulting in $1.451 billion of gross proceeds. After the payment of related fees and expenses, we used the proceeds to repay outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured term loan facilities.

During August 2009, we issued $1.250 billion aggregate principal amount of 77/8% senior secured first lien notes due 2020 at a price of 98.254% of their face value, resulting in $1.228 billion of gross proceeds. After the payment of related fees and expenses, we used the proceeds to repay outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured term loan facilities.

We have entered into interest rate swap agreements to manage our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. These swap agreements involve the exchange of fixed and variable rate interest payments between two parties based on common notional principal amounts and maturity dates. Pay-fixed interest rate swaps effectively convert LIBOR indexed variable rate instruments to fixed interest rate obligations. The net interest payments, based on the notional amounts in these agreements, generally match the timing of the related liabilities. The notional amounts of the swap agreements represent amounts used to calculate the exchange of cash flows and are not our assets or liabilities. Our credit risk related to these agreements is considered low because the swap agreements are with creditworthy financial institutions. The interest payments under these agreements are settled on a net basis.

The following table sets forth our interest rate swap agreements, which have been designated as cash flow hedges, at June 30, 2009 (dollars in millions):

During the next 12 months, we estimate $347 million will be reclassified from other comprehensive income (“OCI”) to interest expense.

The Company and certain subsidiaries have incurred obligations and entered into various intercompany transactions where such obligations are denominated in currencies (Great Britain Pound and Euro), other than the functional currencies (United States Dollar and Great Britain Pound) of the parties executing the trade. In order to mitigate the currency exposure risks and better match the cash flows of our obligations and intercompany transactions with cash flows from operations, we entered into various cross currency swaps. Our credit risk related to these agreements is considered low because the swap agreements are with creditworthy financial institutions.

Certain of our cross currency swaps were not designated as hedges, and changes in fair value are recognized in results of operations. The following table sets forth these cross currency swap agreements at June 30, 2009 (amounts in millions):

The following table sets forth our cross currency swap agreements, which have been designated as cash flow hedges, at June 30, 2009 (amounts in millions):

During the next 12 months, we estimate $3 million will be reclassified from OCI to interest expense.

The following tables present the effect on our results of operations of our interest rate and cross currency swaps for the six months ended June 30, 2009 (dollars in millions):

We have agreements with each of our derivative counterparties that contain a provision where we could be declared in default on our derivative obligations if repayment of the underlying indebtedness is accelerated by the lender due to our default on the indebtedness. As of June 30, 2009, we have not been required to post any collateral related to these agreements. If we had breached these provisions at June 30, 2009, we would have been required to settle our obligations under the agreements at their aggregate, estimated termination value of $568 million.

On January 1, 2008, we adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS 157”). SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 applies to reported balances that are required or permitted to be measured at fair value under existing accounting pronouncements.

SFAS 157 emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, SFAS 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity (observable inputs that are classified within Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the reporting entity’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy).

Level 1 inputs utilize quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs may include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, as well as inputs that are observable for the asset or liability (other than quoted prices), such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability, which are typically based on an entity’s own assumptions, as there is little, if any, related market activity. In instances where the determination of the fair value measurement is based on inputs from different levels of the fair value hierarchy, the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the entire fair value measurement falls is based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Our assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the asset or liability.

Our cash traded investments are generally classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices, broker or dealer quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Certain types of cash traded instruments are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because they trade infrequently and therefore have little or no price transparency. Such instruments include auction rate securities (“ARS”) and limited partnership investments. The transaction price is initially used as the best estimate of fair value.

Our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary had investments in municipal, tax-exempt ARS, that are backed by student loans substantially guaranteed by the federal government, of $472 million ($502 million par value) at June 30, 2009. We do not currently intend to attempt to sell the ARS as the liquidity needs of our insurance subsidiary are expected to be met by other investments in its investment portfolio. These securities continue to accrue and pay interest semi-annually based on the failed auction maximum rate formulas stated in their respective Official Statements. During 2008 and the first six months of 2009, certain issuers of our ARS redeemed $93 million and $71 million, respectively, of our securities at par value. The valuation of these securities involved management’s judgment, after consideration of market factors and the absence of market transparency, market liquidity and observable inputs. Our valuation models derived a fair market value compared to tax-equivalent yields of other student loan backed variable rate securities of similar credit worthiness.

We have entered into interest rate and cross currency swap agreements to manage our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates and foreign currency risks. The valuation of these instruments is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques, including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, foreign exchange rates and implied volatilities. To comply with the provisions of SFAS 157, we incorporate credit valuation adjustments to reflect both our own nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements.

Although we have determined that the majority of the inputs used to value our derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments associated with our derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such

The following table summarizes our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2009, aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall (dollars in millions):

The following table summarizes the activity related to the investments of our insurance subsidiary and our cross currency and interest rate swaps which have fair value measurements based on significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) during the six months ended June 30, 2009 (dollars in millions):

The estimated fair value of our long-term debt was $24.124 billion and $20.225 billion at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, compared to carrying amounts aggregating $26.545 billion and $26.989 billion, respectively. The estimates of fair value are generally based upon the quoted market prices or quoted market prices for similar issues of long-term debt with the same maturities.

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any

We are subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for personal injuries or wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges. In certain of these actions the claimants may seek punitive damages against us which may not be covered by insurance. It is management’s opinion that the ultimate resolution of these pending claims and legal proceedings will not have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

The components of comprehensive income, net of related taxes, for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 are only attributable to HCA Inc. and are as follows (dollars in millions):

The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of related taxes, are as follows (dollars in millions):

The changes in stockholders’ deficit, including changes in stockholders’ deficit attributable to HCA Inc. and changes in equity attributable to noncontrolling interests are as follows (dollars in millions):

We operate in one line of business, which is operating hospitals and related health care entities. During the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, approximately 23% of our patient revenues related to patients participating in thefee-for-serviceMedicare program. During the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, approximately 24% of our patient revenues related to patients participating in thefee-for-serviceMedicare program.

Our operations are structured into three geographically organized groups: the Eastern Group includes 48 consolidating hospitals located in the Eastern United States, the Central Group includes 47 consolidating hospitals located in the Central United States and the Western Group includes 54 consolidating hospitals located in the Western United States. We also operate six consolidating hospitals in England, and these facilities are included in the Corporate and other group.

Adjusted segment EBITDA is defined as income before depreciation and amortization, interest expense, losses (gains) on sales of facilities, impairment of long-lived assets, income taxes and noncontrolling interests. We use adjusted segment EBITDA as an analytical indicator for purposes of allocating resources to geographic areas and assessing their performance. Adjusted segment EBITDA is commonly used as an analytical indicator within the health care industry, and also serves as a measure of leverage capacity and debt service ability. Adjusted segment EBITDA should not be considered as a measure of financial performance under generally accepted accounting principles, and the items excluded from adjusted segment EBITDA are significant components in understanding and assessing financial performance. Because adjusted segment EBITDA is not a measurement determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is thus susceptible to varying calculations, adjusted segment EBITDA, as presented, may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies. The geographic distributions of our revenues, equity in earnings of affiliates, adjusted segment EBITDA and depreciation and amortization are summarized in the following table (dollars in millions):

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, we paid $41 million to acquire other health care entities. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, we paid $18 million to acquire one hospital and $26 million to acquire other health care entities.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, we recognized a net pretax loss of $3 million related to sales of hospital facilities and other investments. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, we received proceeds of $29 million and recognized a net pretax loss of $8 million related to sales of hospital facilities and other investments. During the quarter ended June 30, 2008, we recognized a net loss of $11 million related to sales of real estate investments. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, we received proceeds of $110 million and recognized a net gain of $40 million, which includes a $43 million gain on the sale of a hospital facility and a $3 million net loss on sales of real estate and other health care entity investments.

During the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2009, we recorded charges of $4 million and $13 million, respectively, to adjust the values of certain real estate investments in our Central Group to estimated fair value. During the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2008, we recorded a charge of $9 million to adjust the value of certain hospital facilities in our Central Group to estimated fair value.

Our senior secured credit facilities and senior secured notes are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by substantially all existing and future, direct and indirect, wholly-owned material domestic subsidiaries that are “Unrestricted Subsidiaries” under our Indenture dated December 16, 1993 (except for certain special purpose subsidiaries that only guarantee and pledge their assets under our senior secured asset-based revolving credit facility).

Our summarized condensed consolidating balance sheets at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and condensed consolidating statements of income for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 and condensed consolidating statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, segregating the parent company issuer, the subsidiary guarantors, the subsidiary non-guarantors and eliminations, follow: