Revenue Recognition

Background

The Company's revenue recognition policy is significant because net patient service revenue is a primary component of its results of operations. Revenue is recognized as services are delivered. The determination of the amount of revenue to be recognized in connection with the Company's services is subject to significant judgments and estimates, which are discussed below.

Revenue Recognition Policy

The Company has established billing rates for its medical services which it bills as services are delivered. Gross billings are then reduced by the Company’s estimate of allowances, which includes the contractual allowance and the provision for doubtful accounts, to arrive at net patient service revenues. Net patient service revenues may not represent amounts ultimately collected. The Company adjusts current period revenue for differences in estimated revenue recorded in prior periods and actual cash collections.

The following table shows gross revenues and allowances for the three and six months ended February 28, 2015 and 2014:

	Three months ended February 28,						Six months ended February 28,
	2015			2014			2015			2014

Gross billed charges	$	8,059,057		$	6,618,079		$	16,317,829		$	13,658,418
Allowances		6,304,169			4,386,692			12,244,263			9,167,784
Net revenue	$	1,754,888		$	2,231,387		$	4,073,566		$	4,490,634
Allowance percentage		78	%		66	%		75	%		67	%

Contractual Allowance

The Company computes its contractual allowance based on the estimated collections on its gross billed charges. The Company computes its estimate by taking into account collections received, up to 30 days after the end of the period, for the services performed and also estimating amounts collectible for the services performed within the last six months. A significant amount of our net revenue results from Texas workers' compensation claims, which are governed by the rules and regulations of the Texas Department of Workers’ Compensation (“TDWC”) and the workers’ compensation healthcare networks. If our hospital chooses to participate in a network, the amount of revenue that will be generated from workers’ compensation claims will be governed by the network contract.

For claims arising prior to the implementation of workers’ compensation networks and out of network claims, inpatient and outpatient surgical services are either reimbursed pursuant to the Acute Care In-Patient Hospital Fee Guideline or at a "fair and reasonable" rate for services in which the fee guideline is not applicable. Starting March 1, 2008, the Texas Workers’ Compensation 2008 Acute Care Hospital Outpatient and Inpatient Facility Fee Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) became effective. Under these Guidelines, the reimbursement amounts are determined by applying the most recently adopted and effective Medicare reimbursement formula and factors; however, if the maximum allowable reimbursement for the procedure performed cannot be calculated using these Guidelines, then reimbursement is determined on a fair and reasonable basis.

Should we disagree with the amount of reimbursement provided by a third-party payer, we are required to pursue the medical dispute resolution (“MDR”) process at the TDWC to request proper reimbursement for services. From January 2007 to November 2008, the Company had been successful in its pursuit of collections regarding the stop-loss cases pending before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”), receiving positive rulings in over 90% of its claims presented for administrative determination. A 2007 district court decision upholding our interpretation of the statute as applied to the stop-loss claims was appealed by certain insurance carriers, and on November 13, 2008 the Third Court of Appeals determined that in order for a hospital to be reimbursed at 75% of its usual and customary audited charges for an inpatient admission, the hospital must not only bill at least $40,000, but also show that the admission involved unusually costly and unusually extensive services. Procedurally, the decision means that each case where a carrier raised an issue regarding whether the services provided were unusually costly or unusually extensive would be remanded to either SOAH or MDR for a case-by-case determination of whether the services provided meet these standards. As a result of the Third Court of Appeals opinion, any stop-loss cases pending at SOAH have been remanded to the TDWC since these cases have not been reviewed or decided by the two-prong standard decided by the Third Court of Appeals. The SOAH Administrative Law judges determined that the most appropriate location for these cases is the TDWC.

A petition asking the Texas Supreme Court to review the Third Court of Appeals decision has been denied. Therefore, the Company is bound by the Third Court of Appeals decision. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision delayed final adjudication in these pending stop-loss cases. The uncertain outcome in these cases will depend on a very lengthy process. We anticipate further, lengthy litigation at the Travis County District Courts and the Texas Courts of Appeals. Because of this lengthy process and the uncertainty of recovery in these cases, collection of a material amount of funds in these pending stop-loss cases cannot be anticipated.

Through February 2015, insurance carriers have voluntarily paid the awards in the decisions and orders issued by SOAH, plus interest, in approximately 180 cases, involving approximately $11 million in claims. In most of these cases, when the payments were made, the carriers requested refunds of the payments made in the event that the SOAH decisions and orders were reversed on appeal (which they were). Our request that the TDWC Commissioner enforce the awards which were not voluntarily paid by the carriers was refused in approximately 130 cases. As a result of the reversal of the SOAH decisions and orders, Texas Mutual Insurance Company and other carriers filed petitions in Travis County district court seeking a refund in cases in which the awards were voluntarily paid. The district court found in favor of Texas Mutual and the Company was ordered to refund approximately $4.2 million, including prejudgment interest, pending remand for a case-by-case determination of whether the services provided were unusually costly and unusually extensive. The Company did not object to the reversal and remand of the SOAH decisions and orders, but did object to the judgments ordering refunds and those judgments were appealed to the Third Court of Appeals. As part of the appeals, the Company deposited the amounts that were ordered to be refunded as cash deposits into the registry of the court in order to stay execution of the judgments ordering refunds. On June 6, 2013, the judgments ordering refunds were reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that if Texas Mutual wants a refund, it must pursue the refund demand administratively through the TDWC rather than through the district courts. Texas Mutual filed a motion for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which ultimately was denied. The Company filed motions in all 47 cases with the district court asking that the district clerk be ordered to release the deposited funds to the Company, and in January 2014, the Company received the deposits and accrued interest totaling $4.2 million. In addition, Texas Mutual filed three additional petitions in district court for cases that were left out of the original 47. The court granted Texas Mutual’s petitions and ordered the Company to refund approximately $300,000, including prejudgment interest to Texas Mutual. These judgments were granted before the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s original judgments. These three cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals and the funds ordered refunded were deposited with the district clerk. As with the other 47 cases, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s final judgments in these three cases and the Company filed motions with the district court asking that the district clerk be ordered to release the deposited funds to the Company, and in February 2014, the Company received the deposits and accrued interest totaling approximately $300,000. The total refund received by the Company in fiscal year 2014 for the 50 stop-loss cases discussed above was $4,476,097.

During the time that the carriers’ petitions seeking refunds were pending, because of the uncertainty of the results at that time, as of February 28, 2015, the Company has accrued the total potential refund amount of $11.3 million, and an additional amount of $3.7 million in interest payable, as accrued liabilities. This includes the deposit amounts refunded back to the Company in January and February 2014. We do not anticipate that any other carriers will pursue refund demands through district court but instead will pursue them administratively through TDWC. The cases in which the SOAH decisions and orders were reversed have been or are being remanded to TDWC for determinations of whether the services provided were unusually costly and unusually extensive. The carriers contend that the voluntary payments made pursuant to the Decisions and Orders were premature payments by the carriers and may be ordered to be refunded. The Company disagrees with this contention. After the reversal of the judgments it obtained from the district court ordering refunds, on December 4, 2013, Texas Mutual made a formal request to the Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation that he administratively order the Company to make refunds to Texas Mutual (in the same amount that was sought in the district court). The Company responded to this request on December 11, 2013, asking that it be denied. The matter is pending at this time. As to the matters remanded to TDWC and SOAH, once the Company is given the opportunity to present its evidence regarding whether the services provided were unusually costly and unusually extensive, the Company anticipates that it will prevail in many of the underlying stop-loss fee disputes and that payments refunded to the carriers will be recaptured. In March 2014, a settlement conference with one self-insured entity successfully resolved the stop-loss cases in which that entity was involved. Although the Company is willing to participate in settlement negotiations, we anticipate that few, if any, other carriers are interested in doing so at this time. It is anticipated that hearings at SOAH on the pending stop-loss cases will begin in November 2015.

Due to the uncertainties associated with these stop-loss fee dispute cases, the Company recognized increases in the contractual allowance at our Pasadena facility of $10,254,990 during fiscal year 2011 and $149,875 during the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2013, (and an additional contractual allowance amount of $779,583 during fiscal year 2011 and $136,542 during the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2013, at our Garland facility, which was classified as discontinued operations). The Company has also recognized interest expense related to these refunds starting from fiscal year 2011.

Some claims regarding payment for ambulatory surgical center and hospital outpatient services remain pending at the TDWC and/or SOAH. It is expected that these remaining claims will be adjudicated at SOAH and possibly in the Texas district and appellate courts. The basis for reimbursement for these services made the subject of these pending cases is the same as it was for the other ASC and outpatient cases that have been either tried or settled: the determination of “fair and reasonable” charges. In 2007, the Company received unfavorable rulings from SOAH in all of its appeals of unfavorable decisions related to services provided in 2001 and 2002. The 179 cases, which were appealed to the Travis County district courts, challenged the constitutionality of the relevant statutory language. The Company received an unfavorable ruling in its lead case in March 2009, which ruling was appealed to and was upheld by the Third Court of Appeals on August 26, 2010. The Texas Supreme Court denied a petition asking for review of the Third Court of Appeals decision. The unfavorable interpretation by the Texas Courts of Appeal in the Company’s lead case negatively affects the recovery of additional reimbursement, not only in the lead case, but in the remaining 178 pending cases. Consequently, the Company is bound by the Third Court of Appeals’ ruling that interprets the applicable statute and fee guideline to require that the amount that will be paid to a provider must not only be at a “fair and reasonable rate” but also must “ensure the quality of medical care” and “achieve effective cost control” and be the same or less than that charged to others with an equivalent standard of living. This ruling has impacted cases in which a fee guideline was not applicable, specifically all pending cases involving ambulatory surgical services provided from 2001 through 2004 as well as all pending cases involving hospital outpatient services provided prior to March 1, 2008, when the Guidelines took effect. Since the Third Court of Appeals’ unfavorable ruling, collection, if any, in these cases depends on the Company’s ability to establish the criteria in this ruling. The Company was given the opportunity to establish the criteria in approximately 80 cases, which were set for hearing on the merits from March through May 2012 and was unsuccessful. In 2014, hearings were held in 23 of the Company’s hospital outpatient cases at SOAH. Decisions and Orders were handed down by SOAH adopting the methodology for determining “fair and reasonable” reimbursement that was put forth by the Company and ordered additional reimbursement in each of the 23 cases plus interest be paid to the Company. The carrier has appealed these decisions to Travis County district court and the cases have been consolidated. In April 2015 a large group of outpatient cases with various carriers were tried at SOAH. The Company and the carriers have presented their evidence and the parties’ closing arguments were filed in June 2015.

Due to the uncertainties regarding the accounts receivable in the MDR process, the 2008 and 2010 Third Court of Appeals’ opinions and our legal counsel’s advice that settlements with insurance carriers in stop-loss cases have virtually stopped, the Company had fully reserved all accounts receivable related to the MDR process as of August 31, 2008. The Company has had settlement negotiations with insurance carriers for ambulatory surgical center and hospital outpatient cases. Some of these negotiations have been successful. Any monies collected for these MDR accounts receivable is recorded as current period’s net patient service revenues.

Provision for Doubtful Accounts

Although outcomes vary, our policy is to attempt to collect amounts due from patients, including co-payments and deductibles due from patients with insurance, at the time of service while complying with all federal and state laws and regulations. In non-emergency circumstances or for elective procedures and services, it is our policy to verify insurance prior to a patient being treated; however, there are various exceptions that can occur.

The Company computes its allowances based on the estimated collections on its gross billed charges. The Company computes its estimate of allowance, which is a combination of contractual allowance and provision for doubtful accounts, by taking into account collections received, up to 30 days after the end of the period, for the services performed and also estimating amounts collectible for the services performed within the last six months.

Accounts receivable represent net receivables for services provided by the Company. At each balance sheet date management reviews the accounts receivable for collectibility and provides full allowance reserves for any accounts receivable deemed uncollectible.

The allowances stated as a percentage of gross receivables at the balance sheet dates is larger than the allowance percentage used to reduce gross billed charges due to the application of partial cash collections to the outstanding gross receivable balances, without any adjustment being made to the allowances. The allowance amounts netted against gross receivables are not adjusted until such time as the final collections on an individual receivable are recognized.

The focal point of our business is providing patient care services, including complex orthopedic and bariatric procedures. The Company pursues optimal reimbursement from third-party payers for these services. In some instances, we do not have contractual arrangements with third-party payers which provide for “prompt payment” which may result in additional time to collect the expected reimbursement.

The collection process may also be extended due to our efforts to obtain all optimal reimbursement available to the Company. Specifically, for medical services provided to injured workers, the Company may initially receive reimbursement that may not be within the fee guidelines or regulatory guidelines mandating reimbursement. The Company reviews and pursues those particular claims that are determined to warrant additional reimbursement pursuant to the fee or regulatory guidelines. The Company's pursuit of additional reimbursement amounts that it believes are due under fee or regulatory guidelines may be accomplished through established dispute resolution procedures with applicable regulatory authorities.