Universal Health Realty Income (UHT) Risk Factors

Recently, there has been growing concern from advocacy groups, government agencies and the general public on ESG matters and increasingly regulators, customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders are focusing on ESG matters and related disclosures. Such governmental, investor and societal attention to ESG matters, including expanding mandatory and voluntary reporting, diligence, and disclosure on topics such as climate change, human capital, labor and risk oversight, could expand the nature, scope, and complexity of matters that we are required to manage, assess and report. We also face climate-and ESG-related business trends. Investors are increasingly taking into account ESG factors, including climate risks, diversity, equity and inclusion policies, and corporate governance in determining whether to invest in companies. Additionally, our reputation and investor relationships could be damaged as a result of our involvement with certain industries or assets associated with activities perceived to be causing or exacerbating climate change, or other ESG-related issues, as well as any decisions we make to continue to conduct or change our activities in response to considerations relating to climate change or other ESG-related issues. Conversely, if we avoid involvement with such industries or activities, we may limit our capital deployment opportunities to an extent that adversely affects our business.

In general, dividends (qualified) paid by a U.S. corporation to individual U.S. shareholders are subject to Federal income tax at a maximum rate of 20% for 2023 (subject to certain additional taxes for certain taxpayers). In contrast, since we are a REIT, our distributions to individual U.S. shareholders are not eligible for the reduced rates which apply to distributions from regular corporations, and thus may be subject to Federal income tax at a rate as high as 37% for 2023 (subject to certain additional taxes for certain taxpayers). The differing treatment of dividends received from REITs and other corporations might cause individual investors to view an investment in REITs as less attractive relative to other corporations, which might negatively affect the value of our shares.

Healthcare facilities are typically highly customized and may not be easily adapted to non-healthcare-related uses. The improvements generally required to conform a property to healthcare use, such as upgrading electrical, gas and plumbing infrastructure,are costly and at times tenant-specific. A new or replacement operator or tenant may require different features in a property, depending on that operator's or tenant's particular operations. If a current operator or tenant is unable to pay rent and vacates a property, we may incur substantial expenditures to modify a property before we are able to secure another operator or tenant. Also, if the property needs to be renovated to accommodate multiple operators or tenants, we may incur substantial expenditures before we are able to re-lease the space. These expenditures or renovations may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

On March 23, 2010 President Obama signed the Legislation into law. The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Reconciliation Act"), which contains a number of amendments to the Legislation, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. Two primary goals of the Legislation, combined with the Reconciliation Act (collectively referred to as the "Legislation"), are to provide for increased access to coverage for healthcare and to reduce healthcare-related expenses. Although it was expected that the Legislation would result in a reduction in uninsured patients in the U.S., which would reduce the operators' of our facilities' expense from uncollectible accounts receivable, the Legislation made a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid which we believe may have an adverse impact on the operators of our facilities. The Legislation revises reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to emphasize the efficient delivery of high quality care and contains a number of incentives and penalties under these programs to achieve these goals. The Legislation provided for decreases in the annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the market basket update beginning October 1, 2011 for Medicare Part B reimbursable items and services and beginning October 1, 2012 for Medicare inpatient hospital services. The Legislation and subsequent revisions provide for reductions to both Medicare DSH and Medicaid DSH payments. The Medicare DSH reductions began in October, 2013 while Medicaid DSH reimbursements are scheduled to begin in 2024. The Legislation implements a value-based purchasing program, which will reward the delivery of efficient care. Conversely, certain facilities will receive reduced reimbursement for failing to meet quality parameters; such hospitals will include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates. A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the federal government's ability to expand health insurance coverage by holding unconstitutional sections of the Legislation that sought to withdraw federal funding for state noncompliance with certain Medicaid coverage requirements. Pursuant to that decision, the federal government may not penalize states that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program by reducing their existing Medicaid funding. Therefore, states can choose to accept or not to participate without risking the loss of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, many states, including Texas, have not expanded their Medicaid programs without the threat of loss of federal funding. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") had granted section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals. However, most recently, the Biden Administration has expressed disfavor with Medicaid program work requirements, with the understanding that such requirements pose a substantial risk that many potential demonstration beneficiaries would be prevented from initially enrolling in coverage or that the requirements would lead to a sizable number of eligibility suspensions and eventual disenrollments among beneficiaries who are initially able to enroll. Accordingly, CMS has recently revoked certain State Medicaid program approvals including work requirements. The various provisions in the Legislation that directly or indirectly affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years. The impact of the Legislation on healthcare providers will be subject to implementing regulations, interpretive guidance and possible future legislation or legal challenges. Certain Legislation provisions, such as that creating the Medicare Shared Savings Program create uncertainty in how healthcare may be reimbursed by federal programs in the future. Thus, at this time, we cannot predict the impact of the Legislation on the future reimbursement of our hospital operators and we can provide no assurance that the Legislation will not have a material adverse effect on the future results of operations of the tenants/operators of our properties and, thus, our business. The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amended several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to "have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of" the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act, although certain final regulations implementing this statutory requirement remain pending. The Legislation also expands the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations. The impact of the Legislation on hospitals may vary. Initiatives to repeal the Legislation, in whole or in part, to delay elements of implementation or funding, and to offer amendments or supplements to modify its provisions have been persistent. The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown. Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain health coverage that was part of the original Legislation. In addition, Congress has considered legislation that would, if enacted, in material part (i) eliminate the large employer mandates to obtain or provide health insurance coverage, respectively; (ii) permit insurers to impose a surcharge up to 30 percent on individuals who go uninsured for more than two months and then purchase coverage; (iii) provide tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance, with a phase-out of tax credits according to income level; (iv) expand health savings accounts; (v) impose a per capita cap on federal funding of state Medicaid programs, or, if elected by a state, transition federal funding to block grants, and; (vi) permit states to seek a waiver of certain federal requirements that would allow such state to define essential health benefits differently from federal standards and that would allow certain commercial health plans to take health status, including pre-existing conditions, into account in setting premiums. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA") into law. The ARPA extends eligibility for Legislation health insurance subsidies to people buying their own health coverage on the Marketplace who have household incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level. ARPA also increased the amount of financial assistance for people at lower incomes who were already eligible under the Legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ("IRA") was passed on August 16, 2022, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with 10 high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The IRA also continued the expanded subsidies for individuals to obtain private health insurance under the Legislation through 2025. The effect of IRA on hospitals and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known. Under the Legislation, hospitals are required to make public a list of their standard charges, and effective January 1, 2019, CMS has required that this disclosure be in machine-readable format and include charges for all hospital items and services and average charges for diagnosis-related groups. On November 27, 2019, CMS published a final rule on "Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public." This rule took effect on January 1, 2021 and requires all hospitals to also make public their payer-specific negotiated rates, minimum negotiated rates, maximum negotiated rates and cash for all items and services, including individual items and services and service packages, that could be provided by a hospital to a patient. On April 26, 2023, CMS announced updated enforcement processes that requires a shortened timeline for coming into compliance when a violation has been identified and the automatic imposition of a civil monetary penalties in certain circumstances of noncompliance. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in daily monetary penalties. As part of the CAA, Congress passed legislation aimed at preventing or limiting patient balance billing in certain circumstances. The CAA addresses surprise medical bills stemming from emergency services, out-of-network ancillary providers at in-network facilities, and air ambulance carriers. The legislation prohibits surprise billing when out-of-network emergency services or out-of-network services at an in-network facility are provided, unless informed consent is received. In these circumstances providers are prohibited from billing the patient for any amounts that exceed in-network cost-sharing requirements. HHS, the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury issued interim final rules, that begin to implement this legislation. The rule would limit health care providers' ability to receive payment for services at usually higher out-of-network rates in certain circumstances and prohibit out-of-network payments in other circumstances.

Many of our properties are located in areas susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase, or damage caused by severe weather conditions or natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and floods. We could experience losses to the extent that such damages exceed insurance coverage, cause an increase in insurance premiums, and/or a decrease in demand for properties located in such areas. In the event that climate change causes such catastrophic weather or other natural events to increase broadly or in localized areas, such costs and damages could increase above historic expectations. In addition, changes in federal and state legislation and regulation on climate change could result in increased capital expenditures to improve energy efficiency of our existing properties and could require us to spend more on development and redevelopment properties without a corresponding increase in revenue.

The operators of our hospital facilities, FEDs and tenants of our medical office buildings derive a significant portion of their revenue from third party payers, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for health care services. Payments from federal and state government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease program payments, as well as affect the cost of providing service to patients and the timing of payments to facilities. Our tenants are unable to predict the effect of recent and future policy changes on their operations. Three of our acute care hospitals, three of our behavioral health hospitals and two FEDs operated by wholly-owned subsidiaries or joint ventures of UHS, as well as two FEDs operated by unaffiliated third parties are located in Texas, Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and Iowa. We can provide no assurance that reductions to Medicaid revenues earned by operators of certain of our facilities, particularly our hospital operators in the above-mentioned states, will not have a material adverse effect on the future operating results of those operators which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the uncertainty and fiscal pressures placed upon federal and state governments as a result of, among other things, the funding requirements and other provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, may affect the availability of taxpayer funds for Medicare and Medicaid programs. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by government payers are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on the business, financial position and results of operations of the operators of our hospital facilities, and in turn, ours. In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, the ability of our hospital operators to negotiate favorable contracts with private payers, including managed care organizations, significantly affects the revenues and operating results of those facilities. Private payers, including managed care organizations, increasingly are demanding that hospitals accept lower rates of payment. Our hospital operators expect continued third-party efforts to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and cost controls. Reductions in reimbursement amounts received from third party payers could have a material adverse effect on the financial position and results of operations of our hospital operators.