Chemed - 10-Q quarterly report FY2017 Q2

As used herein, the terms "We," "Company" and "Chemed" refer to Chemed Corporation or Chemed Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.

We have prepared the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Chemed in accordance with Rule 10-01 of SEC Regulation S-X.  Consequently, we have omitted certain disclosures required under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) for complete financial statements. The December 31, 2016 balance sheet data were derived from audited financial statements but do not include all disclosures required by GAAP.  However, in our opinion, the financial statements presented herein contain all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to state fairly our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.  These financial statements are prepared on the same basis as and should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In March 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU No. 2016-09 - Compensation – Stock Compensation” which is part of the FASB’s Simplification Initiative.  The object of this initiative is to identify, evaluate, and improve areas of GAAP. The areas of simplification in this initiative involve several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows.  The guidance was effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016.  We adopted the applicable provisions of ASU 2016-09 on a prospective basis.  The impact of this ASU on our financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 was to decrease our income tax expense by $2.6 million as the result of excess tax benefits on stock based compensation being recorded on the statements of income. This, combined with the required change in diluted share count, resulted in an increase to basic and diluted earnings per share of $0.17. The impact of this ASU on our financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2017 was to decrease our income tax expense by $6.3 million as the result of excess tax benefits on stock based compensation being recorded on the statements of income. This, combined with the required change in diluted share count, resulted in an increase to basic earnings per share by $0.39 and an increase to diluted earnings per share by $0.38.

Both the VITAS segment and the Roto-Rooter segment recognize service revenues and sales when the earnings process has been completed.  Generally, this occurs when services are provided or products are shipped.  VITAS recognizes revenue at the estimated realizable amount due from third-party payers.  Medicare payments are subject to certain limitations, as described below.

We actively monitor each of our hospice programs, by provider number, as to their specific admission, discharge rate and median length of stay data in an attempt to determine whether they are likely to exceed the annual per-beneficiary Medicare cap (“Medicare cap”).  Should we determine that revenues for a program are likely to exceed the Medicare cap based on projected trends, we attempt to institute corrective action to influence the patient mix or to increase patient admissions.  However, should we project our corrective action will not prevent that program from exceeding its Medicare cap, we estimate the amount of revenue recognized during the period that will require repayment to the Federal government under the Medicare cap and record the amount as a reduction to patient revenue.

In 2013, the U.S. government implemented automatic budget reductions of 2.0% for all government payees, including hospice benefits paid under the Medicare program.  In 2015, CMS determined that the Medicare cap should be calculated “as if” sequestration did not occur.  As a result of this decision, VITAS has received notification from our third party intermediary that an additional $2.2 million is owed for Medicare cap in three programs arising during the 2013, 2014 and 2015 measurement periods.  The amounts were automatically deducted from our semi-monthly PIP payments.  We do not believe that CMS is authorized under the sequestration authority or the statutory methodology for establishing the Medicare cap to demand the $2.2 million under their “as if” methodology.  We have not recorded a reserve as of June 30, 2017 for $1.9 million of the potential exposure.  We have appealed CMS’s methodology change with the appropriate regulatory appeal board.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively, no Medicare cap was recorded.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, we recorded $247,000 for two programs cap liability for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 measurement periods of the amount recorded, $105,000 relates to the sequestration issue described above.

Shown below is the Medicare cap liability activity for the fiscal periods ended (in thousands):

Vitas provides charity care, in certain circumstances, to patients without charge when management of the hospice program determines, at the time services are performed, that the patient cannot afford payment.  There is no revenue or associated accounts receivable in the accompanying consolidated financial statements related to charity care.  The cost of charity care is calculated by taking the ratio of charity care days to total days of care and multiplying by total cost of care.  The cost of charity care is as follows (in thousands):

 

We report corporate administrative expenses and unallocated investing and financing income and expense not directly related to either segment as “Corporate”.

Earnings/(loss) per share (“EPS”/”LPS”) are computed using the weighted average number of shares of capital stock outstanding.  Earnings and diluted earnings per share are computed as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

For the three months ended June 30, 2017, all stock options and nonvested stock awards have been excluded in the calculation of dilutive earnings per share as they be would anti-dilutive due to the net loss for the period.

For the six month period ended June 30, 2017, there were no stock options excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share because they would have been anti-dilutive.

 For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2016, 418,000 stock options were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share because they would have been anti-dilutive.

On June 30, 2014, we replaced our existing credit agreement with the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (“2014 Credit Agreement”).  Terms of the 2014 Credit Agreement consist of a five-year, $350 million revolving credit facility and a $100 million term loan.  The 2014 Credit Agreement has a floating interest rate that is generally LIBOR plus a tiered additional rate which varies based on our current leverage ratio.  The interest rate as of June 30, 2017 is LIBOR plus 113 basis points.

The debt outstanding as of June 30, 2017 consists of the following:

Scheduled principal payments of the term loan are as follows:

The 2014 Credit Agreement contains the following quarterly financial covenants:

On February 17, 2017, the Compensation/Incentive Committee of the Board of Directors (“CIC”) granted 7,304 Performance Stock Units (“PSUs”) contingent upon the achievement of certain total shareholders return (“TSR”) targets as compared to the TSR of a group of peer companies for the three-year period ending December 31, 2019, the date at which such awards vest.  The cumulative compensation cost of the TSR-based PSU award to be recorded over the three year service period is $1.7 million.

On February 17, 2017, the CIC also granted 7,304 PSUs contingent upon the achievement of certain earnings per share (“EPS”) targets for the three-year period ending December 31, 2019.  At the end of each reporting period, the Company estimates the number of shares that it believes will ultimately be earned and records that expense over the service period of the award.  We currently estimate the cumulative compensation cost of the EPS-based PSUs to be recorded over the three year service period is $1.3 million.

The Roto-Rooter segment sublicenses with 69 independent contractors to operate certain plumbing repair, excavation, water restoration and drain cleaning businesses in lesser-populated areas of the United States and Canada.  We had notes receivable from our independent contractors as of June 30, 2017 totaling $1.4 million (December 31, 2016 - $1.7 million).  In most cases these loans are fully or partially secured by equipment owned by the contractor.  The interest rates on the loans range from 0% to 7% per annum and the remaining terms of the loans range from 2.5 months to 5.4 years at June 30, 2017.  We recorded the following from our independent contractors (in thousands):

 

The VITAS segment of the Company’s business operates in a heavily-regulated industry.  As a result, the Company is subjected to inquiries and investigations by various government agencies, as well as to lawsuits, including qui tam actions.  The following sections describe the various ongoing material lawsuits and investigations of which the Company is currently aware. Other than as described below with respect to U.S. v. Vitas, it is not possible at this time for us to estimate either the timing or outcome of any of those matters, or whether any potential loss, or range of potential losses, is probable or reasonably estimable.

On May 2, 2013, the government filed a False Claims Act complaint against the Company and certain of its hospice-related subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, United States v. VITAS Hospice Services, LLC, et al., No. 4:13-cv-00449-BCW (the “2013 Action”).  Prior to that date, the Company received various qui tam lawsuits and subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice and OIG that have been previously disclosed.  The 2013 Action alleges that, since at least 2002, VITAS, and since 2004, the Company, submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the Medicare program by (a) billing Medicare for continuous home care services when the patients were not eligible, the services were not provided, or the medical care was inappropriate, and (b) billing Medicare for patients who were not eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit because they did not have a life expectancy of six months or less if their illnesses ran their normal course.  This complaint seeks treble damages, statutory penalties, and the costs of the action, plus interest.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2013.  On September 30, 2014, the Court denied the motion, except to the extent that claims were filed before July 24, 2002. On November 13, 2014, the government filed a Second Amended Complaint.  The Second Amended Complaint changed and supplemented some of the allegations, but did not otherwise expand the causes of action or the nature of the relief sought against VITAS.  VITAS filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on August 11, 2015.  This case is in the discovery phase.  Based on recent case developments, including recent mediation discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice, we believe it probable that this matter will be settled, to include payments of $55.8 million after-tax ($90.0 million pretax) including attorneys’ fees.  A final settlement will require the parties to resolve several outstanding issues, and to draft and negotiate definitive documentation.  There can be no assurance that such a final definitive settlement will be reached on these, or other, terms.  For additional procedural history of this litigation, please refer to our prior quarterly and annual filings.  The costs incurred related to U.S. v. Vitas and related regulatory matters were $2.1 million and $1.2 million for the quarters ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.  For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the net costs were $4.2 million and $3.5 million respectively.

Net income/(loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 includes the $55.8 million of after-tax expense ($90 million pre-tax) for the accrual of such potential litigation settlement.  As required by U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Company accrues for contingent loss claims in its financial statements when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

 The Company and certain current and former directors and officers are defendants in a case captioned In re Chemed Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 13 Civ. 1854 (LPS) (CJB) (D. Del.), which was consolidated on February 2, 2015.

On February 2, 2015, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV the sole lead plaintiff and its counsel, the sole lead and liaison counsel. On March 3, 2015, Lead Plaintiff KBC designated its Complaint as the operative complaint in the consolidated proceedings and defendants renewed a previously filed motion to dismiss those claims and allegations.  The consolidated Complaint named fourteen individual defendants, together with the Company as nominal defendant.  The Complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants for allegedly permitting the Company to submit false claims to the U.S. government.  The Complaint seeks (a) a declaration that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company; (b) an order requiring those defendants to pay compensatory damages, restitution and exemplary damages, in unspecified amounts, to the Company; (c) an order directing the Company to implement new policies and procedures; and (d) costs and disbursements incurred in bringing the action, including attorneys’ fees.  On May 12, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum Order granting Chemed’s motion to dismiss, and  dismissing Lead Plaintiff KBC’s Complaint without prejudice to KBC’s opportunity to file within 30 days of the date of the Court’s Order (i.e., by June 13, 2016) an amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies in its duty of loyalty claim.  Lead Plaintiff KBC did not file an amended Complaint within the time specified by the Court.

However, on June 13, 2016, counsel for Chemed shareholder Michael Kvint filed a letter with the Court requesting a two-week extension to file a motion to substitute Mr. Kvint as lead plaintiff, in place of Lead Plaintiff KBC and to file an amended Complaint.  Alternatively, counsel for Mr. Kvint requested that any dismissal of the action be with prejudice to KBC only.  On June 14, 2016, Chemed filed a reply letter with the Court, reserving its rights to oppose any motion filed by Mr. Kvint and, if warranted, to oppose any other actions taken by Mr. Kvint to proceed with the action (including by filing an untimely amended Complaint).  On June 21, 2016, the Court entered an Oral Order providing Mr. Kvint until June 30, 2016 to file a Motion to Substitute and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.  On that date, Mr. Kvint filed, under seal, a Motion to Substitute Plaintiff and File Amended Complaint, and attached a Proposed Amended Complaint.    Mr. Kvint’s motion was fully briefed by the parties.  On April 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court permit Mr. Kvint to intervene as Lead Plaintiff and grant leave to amend the complaint to replead the duty of loyalty claim only.  On May 16, 2017, Chief Judge Stark signed an Order adopting that Report and Recommendation.  Plaintiff Kvint filed a Corrected Amended Complaint on May 30, 2017.  On July 25, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting Defendants to file a Motion to Dismiss the Corrected Amended Complaint on or before August 14, 2017, with Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to be filed on or before October 16, 2017, and Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss to be filed on or before November 13, 2017.  As the Company has previously disclosed, the legal fees and costs associated with defending against this lawsuit are presently being paid by insurance. For additional procedural history of this litigation, please refer to our prior quarterly and annual filings.

Jordan Seper, (“Seper”) a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  She alleged VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA (“VITAS CA”) (1) failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period; (4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.  Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  She seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit,  Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on October 13, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles.  The Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case.  On December 16, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on Seper.

 Jiwan Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for VITAS' San Diego program.  On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act.  Chhina seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  He seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwann Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare, Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016.  On December 1, 2016, VITAS filed its Answer and served written discovery on Chhina.

The Court in Seper lifted the stay at the Initial Status Conference on May 11, 2017.  At the Conference, Seper’s counsel informed the Court that he was in contact with Jiwan Chhina’s counsel to consolidate the two cases.  The Court set a Further Status Conference for July 13, 2017 expressly to receive a status update on the consolidation efforts.  If the cases are consolidated and proceed under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division,  the Chhina case in the San Diego Superior Court would then be dismissed.  The Parties have agreed to stay further discovery efforts pending the issue of consolidation of the two cases.  Counsel for Seper and counsel for Chhina are currently preparing a joint Amended Complaint.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of loss or range of loss for either of these lawsuits at this time.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations in each of the above lawsuits.  Regardless of the outcome of any of the preceding matters, dealing with the various regulatory agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us through defense costs, potential payments, diversion of management time, and related publicity.  Although the Company intends to defend them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

During the quarter VITAS had pharmacy services agreements with one service provider to provide specified pharmacy services for VITAS and its hospice patients.  VITAS made purchases from this provider of $8.2 and $17.0 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively. Vitas made purchases from two providers of $8.5 and $17.4 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively.  Purchases from these providers were approximately 90% of all pharmacy services used by VITAS during each quarter presented.

There are $7.5 million in cash overdrafts payable included in accounts payable at June 30, 2017 (December 31, 2016 - $8.6 million).

From time to time throughout the year, we invest excess cash in money market funds with major commercial banks. We closely monitor the creditworthiness of the institutions with which we invest our overnight funds.  We had $79,000 in cash equivalents as of June 30, 2017.  There was $72,000 in cash equivalents as of December 31, 2016.

Included in properties and equipment and accounts payable on the balance sheet at June 30, 2017 is $10.8 million of unpaid commitments related to the purchase of transportation equipment.  This amount will be paid in July 2017 and is not reflected in capital expenditures in the statement of cash flows.  Unpaid commitments to purchase properties and equipment for comparable periods is not material.

FASB’s authoritative guidance on fair value measurements defines a hierarchy which prioritizes the inputs in fair value measurements.  Level 1 measurements are measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.  Level 2 measurements use significant other observable inputs.  Level 3 measurements are measurements using significant unobservable inputs which require a company to develop its own assumptions.  In recording the fair value of assets and liabilities, companies must use the most reliable measurement available

The following shows the carrying value, fair value and the hierarchy for our financial instruments as of June 30, 2017 (in thousands):

 

The following shows the carrying value, fair value and the hierarchy for our financial instruments as of December 31, 2016 (in thousands):

For cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable, the carrying amount is a reasonable estimate of fair value because of the liquidity and short-term nature of these instruments.  As further described in Footnote 5, our outstanding long-term debt and current portion of long-term debt have floating interest rates that are reset at short-term intervals, generally 30 or 60 days.  The interest rate we pay also includes an additional amount based on our current leverage ratio.  As such, we believe our borrowings reflect significant nonperformance risks, mainly credit risk.  Based on these factors, we believe the fair value of our long-term debt and current portion of long-term debt approximate the carrying value.

We repurchased the following capital stock for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016:

 

In March 2017, the Board of Directors authorized an additional $100.0 million for stock repurchase under Chemed’s existing share repurchase program. We currently have $65.1 million of authorization remaining under this share repurchase plan.

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU No. 2014-09 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers” which provides additional guidance to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue.  The standard and subsequent amendments are intended to develop a common revenue standard for removing inconsistencies and weaknesses, improve comparability, provide more useful information to users through improved disclosure requirements, and simplify the preparation of financial statements. This guidance and subsequent amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017.    We are in the process of analyzing various contractual arrangements with customers at each subsidiary.  We believe that it is likely, as a result of adopting the ASU that certain expenses currently included in bad debt expense will be shown as contractual allowances (i.e. net revenue).  We currently do not have an estimate of the magnitude of this potential impact.  We anticipate a modified retrospective adoption of the ASU.

In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU No. 2016-02 – Leases” which introduces a lessee model that brings most leases on to the balance sheets and updates lessor accounting  to align with changes in the lessee model and the revenue recognition standard.   The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018.  We are currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements, existing lease recognition policies and disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU No. 2016-15 – Cash Flow Classification” which amends guidance on the classification of certain cash receipts and payments in the statement of cash flows.  The primary purpose of ASU 2016-15 is to reduce diversity in practice related to eight specific cash flow issues.  The guidance in this ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017.    We have analyzed the impact of ASU 2016-15 on our statement of cash flows and do not expect it to have a material effect.

In January 2017, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update “ASU No. 2017-4 – Intangibles – Goodwill and Other”.  To simplify the subsequent measurement of goodwill, the FASB eliminated Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test.  The guidance in the ASU is effective for the Company in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019.  Early adoption is permitted.  We anticipate adoption of this standard will have no impact on our consolidated financial statements.