Medical Properties (MPW) Risk Factors

The U.S. healthcare industry is highly regulated by federal, state, and local laws and is directly affected by federal conditions of participation, state licensing requirements, facility inspections, state and federal reimbursement policies, regulations concerning capital and other expenditures, certification requirements and other such laws, regulations, and rules. As with the U.S. healthcare industry, our tenants in the U.K., South America, and other parts of Europe are also subject in some instances to comparable types of laws, regulations, and rules that affect their ownership and operation of healthcare facilities. Although our lease and mortgage loan agreements require our tenants/borrowers to comply with applicable laws, and we intend for these facilities to comply with such laws, we do not actively monitor compliance. Therefore, we cannot offer any assurance that our tenants/borrowers will be found to be in compliance with such, as the same may ultimately be implemented or interpreted. From time-to-time, our tenants are subject to various federal and state inquiries, investigations, and other proceedings and would expect such governmental compliance and enforcement activities to be ongoing at any given time with respect to one or more of our tenants, either on a confidential or public basis. An adverse result to our tenant/borrower in one or more such governmental proceedings may have a material adverse effect on their operations and financial condition and on its ability to make required lease and/or loan payments to us. In instances where we have an equity investment in the operator, in addition to the effect on these tenants'/borrowers' ability to meet their financial obligation to us, our ownership and investment interests may be negatively impacted. In the U.S., licensed health care facilities must comply with minimum health and safety standards and are subject to survey and inspection by state and federal agencies and their agents or affiliates, including CMS, The Joint Commission, and state departments of health. CMS develops Conditions of Participation and Conditions for Coverage that health care organizations must meet in order to begin and continue participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and receive payment under such programs. These minimum health and safety standards are aimed at improving quality and protecting the health and safety of beneficiaries, and there are several common criteria that exist across health entities. The failure to comply with any of these standards could jeopardize a healthcare organization's Medicare certification and, in turn, its right to receive payment under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Further, many hospitals and other institutional providers in the U.S. are accredited by accrediting organizations, such as The Joint Commission. The Joint Commission was created to accredit healthcare providers, including our tenants that meet its minimum health and safety standards. A national accrediting organization, such as The Joint Commission, enforces standards that meet or exceed such requirements. Once hospitals achieve a minimum number of patients and approximately every three years thereafter, surveyors for The Joint Commission conduct on site surveys of facilities for compliance with a multitude of patient safety, treatment, and administrative requirements. Facilities may lose accreditation for failure to meet such requirements, which in turn may result in the loss of license or certification including under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as inability to participate in certain managed care plans, which require the healthcare provider to be accredited. Finally, healthcare facility reimbursement practices and quality of care issues may result in loss of license or certification, such as engaging in the practice of "upcoding," whereby services are billed for higher procedure codes, or an event involving poor quality of care, which leads to the serious injury or death of a patient. The failure of any tenant/borrower to comply with such laws, requirements, and regulations resulting in a loss of its license would affect its ability to continue its operation of the facility and would adversely affect its ability to make lease and/or loan payments to us. This, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and could negatively affect our ability to service our debt and make distributions. In addition, establishment of healthcare facilities and transfers of operations of healthcare facilities in the U.S. are typically subject to regulatory approvals, such as federal antitrust laws and state certificate of need laws in the U.S. Restrictions and delays in transferring the operations of healthcare facilities, in obtaining new third-party payor contracts, including Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements, and in receiving licensure and certification approval from appropriate state and federal agencies by new tenants, may affect our ability to terminate lease agreements, remove tenants that violate lease terms, and replace existing tenants with new tenants. Furthermore, these matters may affect a new tenant's/borrower's ability to obtain reimbursement for services rendered, which could adversely affect its ability to make lease and/or loan payments to us. In instances where we have an equity investment in the operator, in addition to the effect on these tenants'/borrowers' ability to meet their financial obligations to us, our ownership and investment interests may also be negatively impacted.

Certain healthcare facilities in which we invest may be subject to state laws in the U.S. which require regulatory approval in the form of a certificate of need prior to the transfer of a healthcare facility or prior to initiation of certain projects, including the establishment of new or replacement facilities, the addition of beds, the addition or expansion of services, and certain capital expenditures. State certificate of need laws are not uniform throughout the U.S., are subject to change, and may delay developments of facilities or acquisitions or certain other transfers of ownership of facilities. We cannot predict the impact of state certificate of need laws on any of the preceding activities or on the operations of our tenants. Certificate of need laws often materially impact the ability of competitors to enter into the marketplace of our facilities. As a result, a portion of the value of the facility may be related to the limitation on new competitors. In the event of a change in the certificate of need laws, this value may markedly change.

We believe that we qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes as of December 31, 2023. In addition, we own a direct interest in two subsidiary REITs that have elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with the 2019 and 2022 tax years, respectively. The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex, and interpretations of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Accordingly, there is no assurance that we will be successful in operating so as to qualify as a REIT. At any time, new laws, regulations, interpretations, or court decisions may change the U.S. federal or state tax laws relating to, or the U.S. federal or state income tax consequences of, qualification as a REIT. It is possible that future economic, market, legal, tax, or other considerations may cause our Board to revoke the REIT election, which it may do without stockholder approval. If we lose or revoke our REIT status (currently or with respect to any tax years for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired), we will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for distribution because we would not be allowed a deduction for distributions to stockholders in computing our taxable income; therefore, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates, and we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay any such tax. We also could be subject to increased state and local taxes. Unless we are entitled to relief under statutory provisions, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify. Separately, as of July 1, 2023, the majority of our real estate operations in the U.K. operate as a U.K. REIT and generally are subject only to a withholding tax on earnings upon distribution out of the U.K. REIT. If we were to fail the requirements of a U.K. REIT, the related U.K. operations would be subject to higher tax rates like non-REITs. As a result of all these factors, a loss or revocation of our REIT status could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and would adversely affect the value of our common stock.

We have historically entered into leases and other transactions with our TRS and its subsidiaries and expect to continue to do so in the future. Under applicable rules, transactions such as leases between our TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on a market terms basis may be subject to a 100% excise tax. While we believe that all of our transactions with our TRS are at arm's length, imposition of a 100% excise tax could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have purchased certain properties and leased them back to the sellers of such properties. We intend for any such sale-leaseback transactions to be structured in a manner that the lease will be characterized as a "true lease," thereby allowing us to be treated as the owner of the property for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, depending on the terms of any specific transaction, taxing authorities might take the position that the transaction is not a "true lease". In the event any sale-leaseback transaction is challenged and successfully re-characterized, we might not be able to deduct depreciation expense on the real estate, resulting in potential higher income taxes.

We are headquartered in the U.S. with subsidiaries and investments globally and are subject to income taxes in these jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. Although we believe that we have adequately assessed and accounted for our potential tax liabilities, and that our tax estimates are reasonable, there can be no assurance that additional taxes will not be due upon audit of our tax returns or as a result of changes to applicable tax laws. The U.S. government, as well as the governments of many of the locations in which we operate (such as Germany, the U.K., Colombia, Portugal, Spain, Finland, and Luxembourg, which is where most of our Europe entities are domiciled) are actively discussing changes to corporate taxation. Our future tax expense could be adversely affected by these changes in tax laws or their interpretation, both domestically and internationally. Potential tax reforms being considered by many countries include changes that could impact, among other things, global tax reporting, intercompany transfer pricing arrangements, the definition of taxable permanent establishments, and other legal or financial arrangements. The nature and timing of any changes to each jurisdiction's tax laws and the impact on our future tax exposure both in the U.S. and abroad cannot be predicted with any accuracy but could materially and adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows.

From time-to-time, we may transfer or otherwise dispose of some of our properties, including by contributing properties as part of joint venture investments. Under the Code, any gain resulting from transfers of properties we hold as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business is treated as income from a prohibited transaction subject to a 100% penalty tax. We do not believe that our transfers or disposals of property or our contributions of properties into joint venture investments are prohibited transactions. However, whether property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. The IRS may contend that these types of transfers or dispositions are prohibited transactions. While we believe that the IRS would not prevail in any such dispute, if the IRS were to argue successfully that a transfer, disposition, or contribution of property constituted a prohibited transaction, we would be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to us from the prohibited transaction. In addition, income from a prohibited transaction might adversely affect our ability to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT.

Physician investment in subsidiaries that lease our facilities could subject our leases to scrutiny under fraud and abuse and physician self-referral laws. Under the Stark Law, and its implementing regulations, if our leases do not satisfy the requirements of an applicable exception, the ability of our tenants to bill for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries pursuant to referrals from physician investors could be adversely impacted and subject our tenants to fines, which could impact our tenants' ability to make lease and/or loan payments to us. In instances where we have an equity investment in our tenants' operations, in addition to the effect on the tenants' ability to meet their financial obligations to us, our ownership and investment interests may also be negatively impacted. Therefore, in all cases, we intend to use our good faith efforts to structure our lease arrangements to comply with these laws.

Primarily all of the facilities in our current portfolio are net-leased healthcare facilities. If we, or our tenants, terminate the leases for these facilities, or if these tenants lose their regulatory authority to operate these facilities, we may not be able to locate suitable replacement tenants to lease the facilities for their specialized uses. Alternatively, we may be required to spend substantial amounts to adapt the facilities to other uses. Any loss of revenues or additional capital expenditures occurring as a result could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and could hinder our ability to meet debt service obligations or make distributions to our stockholders.

Our leases and mortgage loans generally require our tenants/borrowers to carry property, general liability, professional liability, loss of earnings, all risk, and extended coverage insurance in amounts sufficient to permit the replacement of the facility in the event of a total loss, subject to applicable deductibles. We carry general liability insurance and loss of earnings coverage on all of our properties as a contingent measure in case our tenant's coverage is not sufficient. However, there are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and acts of terrorism, which may be uninsurable or not insurable at a price we or our tenants/borrowers can afford. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors also might make it impracticable to use insurance proceeds to replace a facility after it has been damaged or destroyed. Under such circumstances, the insurance proceeds we receive might not be adequate to restore our economic position with respect to the affected facility. If any of these or similar events occur, it may reduce our return from the facility and the value of our investment. We continually review the insurance maintained by our tenants/borrowers and believe the coverage provided to be adequate and customary for similarly situated companies in our industry. However, we cannot provide any assurances that such insurance will be available at a reasonable cost in the future. Also, we cannot assure you that material uninsured losses, or losses in excess of insurance proceeds, will not occur in the future.

Many of our tenants have the option to purchase the facilities we lease to them. There is no assurance that the formulas we have developed for setting the purchase price will yield a fair market value purchase price. In the event our tenants decide to purchase the facilities at the end of the lease term, we may not be able to re-invest the capital on as favorable terms, or at all. Our inability to effectively manage the turnover of our facilities could materially adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and our results of operations. We have 112 leased properties that are subject to purchase options as of December 31, 2023. For 95 of these properties, the purchase option generally allows the lessee to purchase the real estate at the end of the lease term, assuming not currently in default, at a price equivalent to the greater of (i) fair market value or (ii) our original purchase price (increased, in some cases, by a certain annual rate of return from the lease commencement date). The lease agreements generally provide for an appraisal process to determine fair market value. For nine of these properties, the purchase option generally allows the lessee to purchase the real estate at the end of the lease term, assuming not currently in default, at our purchase price (increased, in some cases, by a certain annual rate of return from lease commencement date). For the remaining eight properties, the purchase options approximate fair value. In certain circumstances, a prospective purchaser of our hospital real estate may be deemed to be subject to Anti-Kickback and Stark statutes, which are described in the "Healthcare Regulatory Matters" section in Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In such event, it may not be practicable for us to sell a property to such prospective purchaser at a price other than fair market value.

Failure on the part of a tenant to renew or extend the lease at the end of its fixed term could result in us having to search for, negotiate with, and execute new lease agreements. The process of finding and negotiating with a new tenant, along with costs (such as maintenance, property taxes, utilities, ground lease expenses, etc.) that we will incur while the facility is untenanted, may be costly and require a disproportionate amount of our management's attention. There can be no assurance that we would be able to find another tenant in a timely fashion, or at all, or that, if another tenant were found, we would be able to enter into a new lease on favorable terms. If we are unable to re-let the properties to healthcare operators, we may be forced to sell the properties at a loss due to the repositioning expenses likely to be incurred by non-healthcare purchasers. Alternatively, we may be required to spend substantial amounts to adapt the facility to other uses. Thus, the non-renewal or extension of leases may adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, and our ability to service our debt and make distributions to our stockholders. This risk is even greater for those properties under master leases (like Steward, Circle, and Prospect) because several properties have the same lease ending dates. See Item 2 for our lease and loan maturity schedule.

Failure on the part of a tenant to comply materially with the terms of a lease could give us the right to terminate the lease, repossess the facility, cross default certain other leases and loans with that tenant, and enforce the payment obligations under the lease. The process of terminating a lease with a defaulting tenant and repossessing the applicable facility may be costly and require a disproportionate amount of management's attention. In addition, defaulting tenants may initiate litigation in connection with a lease termination or repossession against us. If a tenant-operator defaults and we choose to terminate the lease, we would then be required to find another tenant-operator or to sell the facility. The transfer of healthcare facilities is highly regulated, which may result in delays and increased costs in locating a suitable replacement tenant. The lease of these properties to non-healthcare operators may be difficult due to the added cost and time of refitting the properties. If we are unable to re-let the properties, we may be forced to sell the properties at a loss. There can be no assurance that we would be able to find another tenant in a timely fashion, or at all, or that, if another tenant were found, we would be able to enter into a new lease on favorable terms. Defaults by our tenants under our leases may adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, and our ability to service our debt and make distributions to our stockholders. Defaults by our significant tenants under master leases (like Steward, Circle, Priory, Prospect, and Lifepoint Behavioral) would have an even more pronounced negative impact. For recent developments in our relationship with Steward, see the risk factor titled "Our revenues are dependent upon our relationships with and success of our tenants, particularly our largest tenants, like Steward, Circle, Priory, Prospect, and Lifepoint Behavioral" and Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.