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 including affiliates of Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity (each a “Sponsor”) and affiliates of HCA founder, Dr. Thomas F. Frist Jr., (the “Frist Entities,” and together with the Sponsors, 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. 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 March 31, 2008, these affiliates owned and operated 161 hospitals, 101 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. 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 $37 million for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2008. 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, 2007.

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

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141(R), “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141(R)”). This new standard will change the financial accounting and reporting of business combination transactions in consolidated financial statements. SFAS 141(R) replaces FASB Statement No. 141, “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141”). SFAS 141(R) retains the fundamental requirements in SFAS 141 that the acquisition method of accounting (which SFAS 141 called the purchase method) be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. SFAS 141(R) defines the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the

In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS 160”). This new standard will change the financial accounting and reporting of noncontrolling (or minority) interests in consolidated financial statements. SFAS 160 applies to all entities that prepare consolidated financial statements, exceptnot-for-profitorganizations. SFAS 160 amends certain of ARB No. 51’s consolidation procedures to provide consistency with the requirements of SFAS 141(R). SFAS 160 is required to be adopted concurrently with SFAS 141(R) and is effective for the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. SFAS 160 will require retroactive restatement to provide for consistent presentation of noncontrolling interests for all periods presented. We are currently evaluating the impact of SFAS 160.

Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes” (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 creates a single model to address uncertainty in income tax positions and clarifies the accounting for income taxes by prescribing the minimum recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. FIN 48 applies to all tax positions related to income taxes subject to FASB Statement No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Interest expense of $12 million and $14 million related to taxing authority examinations is included in the provision for income taxes for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Our liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $882 million, including interest of $230 million, as of March 31, 2008 ($828 million and $218 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2007). Of the $882 million, $509 million ($489 million as of December 31, 2007) would affect the effective rate, if recognized. The liability for unrecognized tax benefits does not reflect deferred tax assets related to deductible interest and state income taxes or a $215 million refundable deposit we made in 2006, which is recorded in noncurrent assets.

We are currently contesting before the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) certain claimed deficiencies and adjustments proposed by the IRS in connection with its examination of the 2001 and 2002 federal income tax returns for HCA and 15 affiliates that are treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes (“affiliated partnerships”). The IRS completed its examination of the 2003 and 2004 federal income tax returns for HCA and 19 affiliated partnerships during 2008, and we intend to contest certain claimed deficiencies and adjustments proposed by the IRS in connection with these audits before the IRS Appeals Division. The IRS began an audit of the 2005 and 2006 federal income tax returns for HCA and seven affiliated partnerships during 2008.

The disputed items pending before the IRS Appeals Division for 2001 and 2002, or proposed by the IRS Examination Division for 2003 and 2004, include the deductibility of a portion of the 2001 and 2003 government settlement payments, the timing of recognition of certain patient service revenues in 2001 through 2004, the method for calculating the tax allowance for doubtful accounts in 2002 through 2004, and the amount of insurance expense deducted in 2001 and 2002.

Thirty-two taxable periods of HCA, its predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliated partnerships ended in 1987 through 2000, 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 March 31, 2008.

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 twelve months. However, we are currently unable to estimate the range of any possible change.

A summary of our insurance subsidiary’s investments at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 follows (dollars in millions):

At March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the investments of our insurance subsidiary were classified as “available-for-sale.” The fair value of investment securities is generally based on quoted market prices. Changes in temporary unrealized gains and losses are recorded as adjustments to other comprehensive income. At March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, $129 million and $106 million, respectively, of our investments were subject to restrictions included in insurance bond collateralization and assumed reinsurance contracts.

A summary of long-term debt at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, including related interest rates at March 31, 2008, follows (dollars in millions):

During March 2008, we completed a tender offer to repurchase $500 million par value of our outstanding debt, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase dated February 7, 2008. The securities repurchased were $200 million of our 8.750% notes due 2010, $202 million of our 7.875% notes due 2011 and $98 million of our 6.950% notes due 2012. We utilized our senior secured asset-based revolving credit facility to fund the repurchase.

During March 2008, we entered into two interest rate swap agreements, in a total notional amount of $1 billion, in order to hedge a portion of our exposure to variable rate interest payments associated with our senior secured credit facilities. These interest rate swaps expire in March 2011.

On January 1, 2008, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 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 that we have the ability to access. 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),

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. The types of instruments based on quoted market prices in active markets include most U.S. government and agency securities, active listed equities and most money market securities. Such instruments are generally classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. We do not adjust the quoted price for such instruments.

The types of instruments valued based on quoted prices in markets that are not active, broker or dealer quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency include most municipal and provincial obligations, investment-grade and high yield corporate bonds and mortgage securities. Such instruments are generally classified within Level 2 of the fair market hierarchy.

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 bonds and limited partnership investments. The transaction price is initially used as the best estimate of fair value. Accordingly, when a pricing model is used to value such an instrument, the model is adjusted so that the model value at inception equals the transaction price. This valuation is adjusted when changes to inputs and assumptions are corroborated by evidence, such as transactions in similar instruments, completed or pending third-party transactions in the underlying instrument or comparable entities, offerings in the capital markets, and changes in financial results, data or cash flows. For positions that are not traded in active markets or are subject to transfer restrictions, valuations are adjusted to reflect illiquidityand/ornontransferability, and such adjustments are generally based on available market evidence. In the absence of such evidence, management’s best estimate is used.

Our wholly-owned insurance subsidiary had investments in municipal, tax-exempt student loan auction rate securities (“ARS”), that are backed by student loans substantially guaranteed by the federal government, of $661 million at March 31, 2008. The valuations of these securities involved management’s judgment, after consideration of market factors and the absence of market transparency, market liquidity and observable inputs. Our market observations failed to identify an illiquidity discount that was verifiable without the strong presumption of forced liquidation or distress sales. Valuations resulting from forced liquidations or distress sales are inconsistent with the SFAS 157 definition of fair value, which assumes an orderly market. Our valuation models did not indicate a valuation discount below par value for these securities when compared to yields of variable rate demand notes of similar credit worthy securities, without consideration of their mandatory put features. Management observed other ARS with similar characteristics that were called, partially called or repurchased at par by their issuers at or near the measurement date. After considering these factors, management’s best estimate of fair value for our ARS is par value.

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

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 as estimates of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default by us and our counterparties. However, as of March 31, 2008, we have assessed the significance of the impact of the credit valuation adjustments on the overall valuation of our derivative positions and have determined that the credit valuation adjustments are not significant to the overall valuation of our derivatives. As a result, we have determined that our derivative valuations in their entirety are classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following table summarizes our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2008, 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 investments of our insurance subsidiary having fair value measurements based on significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) during the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (dollars in millions):

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 such lawsuits, claims or legal and regulatory proceedings could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position in a given period.

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.

In January 2001, we entered into an eight-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Violation or breach of the CIA, or violation of federal or state laws relating to Medicare, Medicaid or similar programs, could subject us to substantial monetary fines, civil and criminal penaltiesand/orexclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Alleged violations may be pursued by the government or through private qui tam actions. Sanctions imposed against us as a result of such actions could 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 ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 are as follows (dollars in millions):

The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of related taxes, 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 March 31, 2008 and 2007, approximately 25% and 26%, respectively, of our patient revenues related to patients participating in the Medicare program.

Our operations are structured into three geographically organized groups: the Eastern Group includes 49 consolidating hospitals located in the Eastern United States, the Central Group includes 52 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, gains on sales of facilities, minority interests and income taxes. 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):

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 March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and condensed consolidating statements of income and cash flows for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, segregating the parent company issuer, the subsidiary guarantors, the subsidiary non-guarantors and eliminations, follow.