Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

15. Commitments and Contingencies

Construction and Other Capital Commitments. Pursuant to hospital purchase agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011, and where final certificate of need approval has been obtained, the Company is required to build replacement facilities. As required by an amendment to a lease agreement entered into in 2005, the Company agreed to build a replacement facility at its Barstow, California location with an aggregate estimated construction cost, including equipment costs, of approximately $73.5 million. Of this amount, approximately $49.3 million has been expended through December 31, 2011. This project is expected to be completed in 2012. The Company has agreed, as part of an acquisition in 2007, to build a replacement hospital in Valparaiso, Indiana with an aggregate estimated construction cost, including equipment costs, of approximately $208.7 million. Of this amount, approximately $137.0 million has been expended through December 31, 2011. This project is expected to be completed in 2012. The Company has agreed, as part of an acquisition in 2009, to build a replacement hospital in Siloam Springs, Arkansas with an aggregate estimated construction cost, including equipment costs, of approximately $35.0 million. Of this amount, approximately $24.0 million has been expended through December 31, 2011. This project is required to be completed in 2013. In October 2008, after the purchase of the noncontrolling owner’s interest in the Company’s Birmingham, Alabama facility, the Company initiated the purchase of a site, which includes a partially constructed hospital structure, for a potential replacement for the existing Birmingham facility. In September 2010, the Company received approval of its request for a certificate of need from the Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board; however, this certificate of need remains subject to an appeal process. The Company’s estimated construction costs, including the acquisition of the site and equipment costs, are approximately $280.0 million for the Birmingham replacement facility. Of this amount, approximately $3.5 million has been expended through December 31, 2011. In addition, under other purchase agreements outstanding at December 31, 2011, the Company has committed to spend approximately $652.5 million for costs such as capital improvements, equipment, selected leases and physician recruiting. These commitments are required to be fulfilled generally over a five to seven year period after acquisition. Through December 31, 2011, the Company has spent approximately $247.8 million related to these commitments.

Physician Recruiting Commitments. As part of its physician recruitment strategy, the Company provides income guarantee agreements to certain physicians who agree to relocate to its communities and commit to remain in practice there. Under such agreements, the Company is required to make payments to the physicians in excess of the amounts they earned in their practice up to the amount of the income guarantee. These income guarantee periods are typically for 12 months. Such payments are recoverable by the Company from physicians who do not fulfill their commitment period, which is typically three years, to the respective community. At December 31, 2011, the maximum potential amount of future payments under these guarantees in excess of the liability recorded is $27.4 million.

Professional Liability Claims. As part of the Company’s business of owning and operating hospitals, it is subject to legal actions alleging liability on its part. The Company accrues for losses resulting from such liability claims, as well as loss adjustment expenses that are out-of-pocket and directly related to such liability claims. These direct out-of-pocket expenses include fees of outside counsel and experts. The Company does not accrue for costs that are part of corporate overhead, such as the costs of in-house legal and risk management departments. The losses resulting from professional liability claims primarily consist of estimates for known claims, as well as estimates for incurred but not reported claims. The estimates are based on specific claim facts, historical claim reporting and payment patterns, the nature and level of hospital operations and actuarially determined projections. The actuarially determined projections are based on the Company’s actual claim data, including historic reporting and payment patterns which have been gathered over an approximate 20-year period. As discussed below, since the Company purchases excess insurance on a claims-made basis that transfers risk to third-party insurers, the liability it accrues does include an amount for the losses covered by its excess insurance. The Company also records a receivable for the expected reimbursement of losses covered by excess insurance. Since the Company believes that the amount and timing of its future claims payments are reliably determinable, it discounts the amount accrued for losses resulting from professional liability claims using the risk-free interest rate corresponding to the timing of expected payments.

The net present value of the projected payments was discounted using a weighted-average risk-free rate of 1.2%, 1.3% and 1.4% in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. This liability is adjusted for new claims information in the period such information becomes known. The Company’s estimated liability for the self-insured portion of professional and general liability claims was $567.8 million and $489.2 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The estimated undiscounted claims liability was $595.7 million and $513.2 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The current portion of the liability for self-insured portion of professional and general liability claims was $98.1 million and $82.9 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and is included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Professional malpractice expense includes the losses resulting from professional liability claims and loss adjustment expense, as well as paid excess insurance premiums, and is presented within other operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of income.

The Company’s processes for obtaining and analyzing claims and incident data are standardized across all of its hospitals and have been consistent for many years. The Company monitors the outcomes of the medical care services that it provides and for each reported claim, the Company obtains various information concerning the facts and circumstances related to that claim. In addition, the Company routinely monitors current key statistics and volume indicators in its assessment of utilizing historical trends. The average lag period between claim occurrence and payment of a final settlement is between four and five years, although the facts and circumstances of individual claims could result in the timing of such payments being different from this average. Since claims are paid promptly after settlement with the claimant is reached, settled claims represent less than 1.0% of the total liability at the end of any period.

For purposes of estimating its individual claim accruals, the Company utilizes specific claim information, including the nature of the claim, the expected claim amount, the year in which the claim occurred and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the claim occurred. Once the case accruals for known claims are determined, information is stratified by loss layers and retentions, accident years, reported years, geography and claims relating to the acquired Triad hospitals versus claims relating to the Company’s other hospitals. Several actuarial methods are used against this data to produce estimates of ultimate paid losses and reserves for incurred but not reported claims. Each of these methods uses company-specific historical claims data and other information. This company-specific data includes information regarding the Company’s business, including historical paid losses and loss adjustment expenses, historical and current case loss reserves, actual and projected hospital statistical data, a variety of hospital census information, employed physician information, professional liability retentions for each policy year, geographic information and other data.

Based on these analyses the Company determines its estimate of the professional liability claims. The determination of management’s estimate, including the preparation of the reserve analysis that supports such estimate, involves subjective judgment of the management. Changes in reserving data or the trends and factors that influence reserving data may signal fundamental shifts in the Company’s future claim development patterns or may simply reflect single-period anomalies. Even if a change reflects a fundamental shift, the full extent of the change may not become evident until years later. Moreover, since the Company’s methods and models use different types of data and the Company selects its liability from the results of all of these methods, it typically cannot quantify the precise impact of such factors on its estimates of the liability. Due to the Company’s standardized and consistent processes for handling claims and the long history and depth of company-specific data, the Company’s methodologies have produced reliably determinable estimates of ultimate paid losses.

The Company is primarily self-insured for these claims; however, the Company obtains excess insurance that transfers the risk of loss to a third-party insurer for claims in excess of self-insured retentions. The Company’s excess insurance is underwritten on a claims-made basis. For claims reported prior to June 1, 2002, substantially all of the Company’s professional and general liability risks were subject to a $0.5 million per occurrence self-insured retention and for claims reported from June 1, 2002 through June 1, 2003, these self-insured retentions were $2.0 million per occurrence. Substantially all claims reported after June 1, 2003 and before June 1, 2005 are self-insured up to $4 million per claim. Substantially all claims reported on or after June 1, 2005 are self-insured up to $5 million per claim. Management on occasion has selectively increased the insured risk at certain hospitals based upon insurance pricing and other factors and may continue that practice in the future. Excess insurance for all hospitals has been purchased through commercial insurance companies and generally covers the Company for liabilities in excess of the self-insured retentions. The excess coverage consists of multiple layers of insurance, the sum of which totals up to $95 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims reported on or after June 1, 2003 and up to $145 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims incurred and reported after January 1, 2008. For certain policy years, if the first aggregate layer of excess coverage becomes fully utilized, then the Company’s self-insured retention could increase to $10 million per claim for any subsequent claims in that policy year until the Company’s total aggregate coverage is met.

Effective January 1, 2008, the former Triad hospitals are insured on a claims-made basis as described above and through commercial insurance companies as described above for substantially all claims occurring on or after January 1, 2002 and reported on or after January 1, 2008. Substantially all losses for the former Triad hospitals in periods prior to May 1999 were insured through a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary of HCA, Triad’s owner prior to that time, and excess loss policies maintained by HCA. HCA has agreed to indemnify the former Triad hospitals in respect of claims covered by such insurance policies arising prior to May 1999. After May 1999 through December 31, 2006, the former Triad hospitals obtained insurance coverage on a claims incurred basis from HCA’s wholly-owned insurance subsidiary, with excess coverage obtained from other carriers that is subject to certain deductibles. Effective for claims incurred after December 31, 2006, Triad began insuring its claims from $1 million to $5 million through its wholly-owned captive insurance company, replacing the coverage provided by HCA. Substantially all claims occurring during 2007 were self-insured up to $10 million per claim.

Legal Matters. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings incidental to its business. In the opinion of management, any ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. With respect to all litigation matters, the Company considers the likelihood of a negative outcome. If the Company determines the likelihood of a negative outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an estimated loss for the expected outcome of the litigation. If the likelihood of a negative outcome is reasonably possible and the Company is able to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss, the Company discloses that fact together with the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. However, it is difficult to predict the outcome or estimate a possible loss or range of loss in some instances because litigation is subject to significant uncertainties.

Reasonably Possible Contingencies

For all of the legal matters below, the Company believes that a negative outcome is reasonably possible, but the Company is unable to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss.

On February 10, 2006, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the Department of Justice requesting documents in an investigation it was conducting involving the Company. The inquiry related to the way in which different state Medicaid programs apply to the federal government for matching or supplemental funds that are ultimately used to pay for a small portion of the services provided to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are referred to by different names, including “intergovernmental payments,” “upper payment limit programs,” and “Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments.” The February 2006 letter focused on the Company’s hospitals in three states: Arkansas, New Mexico, and South Carolina. On August 31, 2006, the Company received a follow up letter from the Department of Justice requesting additional documents relating to the programs in New Mexico and the payments to the Company’s three hospitals in that state. Through the beginning of 2009, the Company provided the Department of Justice with requested documents, met with its personnel on numerous occasions, and otherwise cooperated in its investigation. During the course of the investigation, the Civil Division notified the Company that it believed that the Company and its three New Mexico hospitals caused the State of New Mexico to submit improper claims for federal funds, in violation of the Federal False Claims Act. At one point, the Civil Division calculated that the three hospitals received ineligible federal participation payments from August 2000 to June 2006 of approximately $27.5 million and said that if it proceeded to trial, it would seek treble damages plus an appropriate penalty for each of the violations of the Federal False Claims Act. This investigation has culminated in the federal government’s intervention in a qui tam lawsuit styled U.S. ex rel. Baker vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The federal government filed its complaint in intervention on June 30, 2009. The relator filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2009. Both of these complaints expand the time period during which alleged improper payments were made. The Company filed motions to dismiss all of the federal government’s and the relator’s claims on August 28, 2009. On March 19, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss as to the relator’s complaint. On July 7, 2010, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s complaint in intervention. On July 21, 2010, the Company filed its answer and pretrial discovery began. On June 2, 2011, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint adding subsidiaries Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation and CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. as defendants. On June 6, 2011, the government filed its First Amended Complaint in intervention adding Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation as a defendant. Discovery is closed. The deadline for filing of Motions for Summary Judgment is March 27, 2012 and there is currently no trial date set. The Company is vigorously defending this action.

On June 12, 2008, two of the Company’s hospitals received letters from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York requesting documents in an investigation it is conducting into billing practices with respect to kyphoplasty procedures performed during the period January 1, 2002, through June 9, 2008. On September 16, 2008, one of the Company’s hospitals in South Carolina also received an inquiry. Kyphoplasty is a surgical spine procedure that returns a compromised vertebrae (either from trauma or osteoporotic disease process) to its previous height, reducing or eliminating severe pain. The Company has been informed that similar investigations have been initiated at unaffiliated facilities in Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana and other states. The Company believes that this investigation is related to a qui tam settlement between the same United States Attorney’s office and the manufacturer and distributor of the Kyphon product, which is used in performing the kyphoplasty procedure. The Company is cooperating with the investigation and continuing to evaluate and discuss this matter with the federal government.

Matters for which an Outcome Cannot be Assessed

For all of the legal matters below, the Company cannot at this time assess what the outcome may be and is further unable to determine any estimate of loss or range of loss. Because the investigations are at a very preliminary stage, there are not sufficient facts available to make these assessments.

On April 8, 2011, the Company received a document subpoena, dated March 31, 2011, from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”), in connection with an investigation of possible improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid. The subpoena, issued from the OIG’s Chicago, Illinois office, requested documents from all of the Company’s hospitals and appears to concern emergency department processes and procedures, including the Company’s hospitals’ use of the Pro-MED Clinical Information System, which is a third-party software system that assists with the management of patient care and provides operational support and data collection for emergency department management and has the ability to track discharge, transfer and admission recommendations of emergency department physicians. The subpoena also requested other information about the Company’s relationships with emergency department physicians, including financial arrangements. The subpoena’s requests were very similar to those contained in the Civil Investigative Demands received by the Company’s Texas hospitals from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas on November 15, 2010. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the government (including production of documents and interviews with witnesses) in this investigation.

On April 11, 2011, Tenet Healthcare Corporation (“Tenet”) filed suit against the Company, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit alleged the Company committed violations of certain federal securities laws by making certain statements in various proxy materials filed with the SEC in connection with the Company’s offer to purchase Tenet. Tenet alleged that the Company engaged in a practice to under-utilize observation status and over-utilize inpatient admission status and asserts that by doing so, the Company created undisclosed financial and legal liability to federal, state and private payors. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and Tenet’s costs. On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 28, 2011, the Company responded to the allegations during its earnings release conference call as discussed in the Company’s Form 8-K furnished on April 28, 2011. On May 16, 2011, Tenet filed an amended complaint. On June 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss occurred on September 8, 2011. The court took this matter under advisement. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this suit.

On April 22, 2011, a joint motion was filed by the relator and the United States Department of Justice in the case styled United States ex rel. and Reuille vs. Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation and Lutheran Musculoskeletal Center, LLC d/b/a Lutheran Hospital, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal on January 7, 2009. The suit is brought under the False Claims Act and alleges that Lutheran Hospital of Indiana billed the Medicare program for (a) false 23 hour observation after outpatient surgeries and procedures, and (b) intentional assignment of inpatient status to one-day stays for cases that do not meet Medicare criteria for inpatient intensity of service or severity of illness. The relator had worked in the case management department of Lutheran Hospital of Indiana but was reassigned to another department in the fall of 2006. This facility was acquired by the Company as part of the July 25, 2007 merger transaction with Triad. The complaint also includes allegations of age discrimination in Ms. Reuille’s 2006 reassignment and retaliation in connection with her resignation on October 1, 2008. The Company had cooperated fully with the government in its investigation of this matter, but had been unaware of the exact nature of the allegations in the complaint. On December 27, 2010, the government filed a notice that it declined to intervene in this suit. The motion contained additional information about how the government intended to proceed with an investigation regarding “allegations of improper billing for inpatient care at other hospitals associated with Community Health Systems, Inc. . . . asserted in other qui tam complaints in other jurisdictions.” The motion stated that the Department of Justice has “consolidated its investigations” of the Company and other related entities and that “the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, multiple United States Attorneys’ offices, and the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”) are now closely coordinating their investigation of these overlapping allegations. The Attorney General of Texas has initiated an investigation; the United States intends to work cooperatively with Texas and any other States investigating these allegations.” The motion also stated that the Office of Audit Services for the Office of Investigations for HHS has been engaged to conduct a national audit of certain of the Company’s Medicare claims. The government confirmed that it considers the allegations made in the complaint styled Tenet Healthcare Corporation vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on April 11, 2011 to be related to the allegations in the qui tam and to what the government is now describing as a consolidated investigation. Because qui tam suits are filed “under seal,” no one but the relator and the government knows that the suit has been filed or what allegations are being made by the relator on behalf of the government. Initially, the government has 60 days to make a determination about whether to intervene in a case and to act as the plaintiff or to decline to intervene and allow the relator to act as the plaintiff in the suit, but extensions of time are frequently granted to allow the government additional time to investigate the allegations. Even if, in the course of an investigation, the court partially unseals a complaint to allow the government and a defendant to work to a resolution of the complaint’s allegations, the defendant is prohibited from revealing to anyone even that the partial unsealing has occurred. As the investigation proceeds, the Company may learn of additional qui tam suits filed against the Company or its affiliated hospitals or related entities, or that contact letters, document requests, or medical record requests the Company has received in the past from various governmental agencies are generated from qui tam cases filed under seal. The motion filed on April 22, 2011 concluded by requesting a stay of the litigation in the Reuille case for 180 days, and on April 25, 2011, the court granted the motion. The Company’s management company subsidiary, Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, the defendant in the Reuille case, consented to the request for the stay. On October 19, 2011, the government filed an application to transfer the Reuille case to the Middle District of Tennessee or for an extension of the stay for an additional 180 days. The Company agreed that a stay for an additional, but shorter period of time, 90 days, was appropriate, but did not consent to the transfer of the case. The Company’s response setting forth the Company’s legal arguments was filed on October 24, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the court denied the motion to transfer the matter and extended the stay until April 30, 2012. The Company is cooperating fully with the government in its investigations.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark Buford, filed June 2, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company’s common stock. On September 20, 2011, all three were assigned to the same judge as related cases. On December 28, 2011, the court consolidated all three shareholder cases for pretrial purposes, selected NYC Funds as lead plaintiffs, and selected NYC Funds’ counsel as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The parties are in the process of negotiating operative dates for these consolidated shareholder federal securities actions, including dates for the filing of an operative consolidated complaint and related briefing. Three purported shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, T. Mark Buford, John A. Clerico, James S. Ely III, John A. Fry, William Norris Jennings, Julia B. North and H. Mitchell Watson, Jr., filed May 24, 2011; Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, John A. Clerico, James S. Ely, III, John A. Fry, William Norris Jennings, Julia B. North and H. Mitchell Watson, Jr., filed June 21, 2011; and Lambert Sweat v. Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, T. Mark Buford, John A. Clerico, James S. Ely, III, John A. Fry, William Norris Jennings, Julia B. North, H. Mitchell Watson, Jr. and Community Health Systems, Inc., filed October 5, 2011. These three cases allege breach of fiduciary duty arising out of allegedly improper inpatient admission practices, mismanagement, waste and unjust enrichment. On September 28, 2011, the court ordered that the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund action and the Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund action be consolidated for pretrial purposes, and appointed the derivative plaintiffs’ lead counsel. On November 29, 2011, the court ordered that the Lambert Sweat action be consolidated with the Plumbers and Roofers consolidated derivative actions. Plaintiffs are expected to file an operative amended derivative complaint in these three consolidated actions on or about March 15, 2012. The Company believes all of these matters are without merit and will vigorously defend them.

The Company incurred the following pre-tax charges in connection with the Tenet acquisition lawsuit, government investigations and shareholder lawsuits relating to possible improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid (in thousands):

	Year Ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009
Professional fees and other related costs	$	15,317	$	—	$	—