Annual Reports

 
Quarterly Reports

 
8-K

 
Other

ENSIGN GROUP INC THE 10-K 2011
WebFilings | EDGAR view
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
Form 10-K
 
(Mark One)
 
 
R
 
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
 
 
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
OR
o
 
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
 
 
For the transition period from          to          
 
Commission file number: 001-33757
 
THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
 
Delaware
 
33-0861263
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) 
 
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) 
 
 
 
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 450,
Mission Viejo, CA
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) 
 
92691
(Zip Code)
 
Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:
(949) 487-9500
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
 
 
 
Title of Each Class
 
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
 
 
 
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share
 
NASDAQ Global Select Market
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  o Yes     R No
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  o Yes     R No
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  R Yes     o No
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  o Yes     o No
 
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
 
Large accelerated filer o
 
Accelerated filer R 
 
Non-accelerated filer o
 
Smaller reporting company o
 
 
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)     
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  o Yes     R No
 
The aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to the closing price as of the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2010, was approximately $232,700,000.
 
On February 15, 2011, The Ensign Group, Inc. had 20,846,353 shares of Common Stock outstanding.
 
 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
 
Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates information by reference from the Registrant's definitive proxy statement for the Registrant's 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this annual report.

 


THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC.
 
INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
PART I.
 
Item 1.
 
Item 1A.
 
Item 1B.
 
Item 2.
 
Item 3.
 
Item 4.
(Removed and Reserved)
 
 
 
PART II.
 
Item 5.
 
Item 6.
 
Item 7.
 
Item 7A.
 
Item 8.
 
Item 9.
 
Item 9A.
 
Item 9B.
 
 
 
PART III.
 
Item 10.
 
Item 11.
 
Item 12.
 
Item 13.
 
Item 14.
 
 
 
PART IV.
 
Item 15.
 
 
 
 
 
EX-10.54
 
 
 
EX-10.55
 
 
 
EX-23.1
 
 
 
EX-31.1
 
 
 
EX-31.2
 
 
 
EX-32.1
 
 
 
EX-32.2
 
 
 
 
 

2

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
 
 
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which include, but are not limited to the Company's expected future financial position, results of operations, cash flows, financing plans, business strategy, budgets, capital expenditures, competitive positions, growth opportunities and plans and objectives of management. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “would,” “could,” “potential,” “continue,” “ongoing,” similar expressions, and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, some of which are listed under the section “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Accordingly, you should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Report, and are based on our current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry and business, management's beliefs, and certain assumptions made by us, all of which are subject to change. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statement for any reason, except as otherwise required by law. As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the words, “we,” “our” and “us” refer to The Ensign Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. All of our facilities, operations, the Service Center and our wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary (the Captive) are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries that have their own management, employees and assets. The use of “we”, “us”, “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that any of our facilities, business operations, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity.
 
 
The Ensign Group, Inc. is a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. All of our facilities are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries, each of which have their own management, employees and assets. In addition, one of our wholly-owned independent subsidiaries, referred to as the Service Center, provides centralized accounting, payroll, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management and other centralized services to the other operating subsidiaries through contractual relationships with such subsidiaries. In addition, we have the Captive that provides some claims-made coverage to our operating subsidiaries for general and professional liability, as well as for certain workers' compensation insurance liabilities.
 
Like our facilities, the Service Center and Captive are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries that have their own management, employees and assets. Reference herein to the consolidated “Company” and “its” assets and activities, as well as the use of the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that The Ensign Group, Inc. has direct operating assets, employees or revenue, or that any of the facilities, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity. We were incorporated in 1999 in Delaware. Our corporate address is 27101 Puerta Real, Suite 450, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, and our telephone number is (949) 487-9500. Our corporate website is located at www.ensigngroup.net. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website does not constitute a part of this annual report.
 
 
EnsignTM is our United States trademark. All other trademarks and trade names appearing in this annual report are the property of their respective owners.
 

3


PART I.
 
Item 1.    Business
 
 
 
Overview
 
 
We are a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of 85 facilities located in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. All of these facilities are skilled nursing facilities, other than four stand-alone assisted living facilities in Arizona, Texas and Colorado and seven campuses that offer both skilled nursing and assisted living, independent living, or hospice care services in California, Arizona, Utah and Texas. Our facilities provide a broad spectrum of skilled nursing and assisted living services, physical, occupational and speech therapies, and other rehabilitative and healthcare services, for both long-term residents and short-stay rehabilitation patients. We encourage and empower our facility leaders and staff to make their facility the “facility of choice” in the community it serves. This means that our facility leaders and staff are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then work to create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility. As of December 31, 2010, we operated 82 facilities, of which we owned 52 and operated an additional 30 facilities under long-term lease arrangements, and had options to purchase eight of those 30 facilities.
 
 
Our organizational structure is centered upon local leadership. We believe our organizational structure, which empowers leaders and staff at the facility level, is unique within the skilled nursing industry. Each of our facilities is led by highly dedicated individuals who are responsible for key operational decisions at their facilities. Facility leaders and staff are trained and motivated to pursue superior clinical outcomes, high patient and family satisfaction, operating efficiencies and financial performance at their facilities. In addition, our facility leaders are enabled and motivated to share real-time operating data and otherwise benchmark clinical and operational performance against their peers in other facilities in order to improve clinical care, maximize patient satisfaction and augment operational efficiencies, promoting the sharing of best practices.
 
 
We view skilled nursing primarily as a local business, influenced by personal relationships and community reputation. We believe our success is largely dependent upon our ability to build strong relationships with key stakeholders from the local healthcare community, based upon a solid foundation of reliably superior care. Accordingly, our brand strategy is focused on encouraging the leaders and staff of each facility to focus on clinical excellence, and promote their facility independently within their local community.
 
 
Much of our historical growth can be attributed to our expertise in acquiring under-performing facilities and transforming them into market leaders in clinical quality, staff competency, employee loyalty and financial performance. We plan to continue to grow our revenue and earnings by:
 
•    
continuing to grow our talent base and develop future leaders;
 
•    
increasing the overall percentage or “mix” of higher-acuity residents;
 
•    
focusing on organic growth and internal operating efficiencies;
 
•    
continuing to acquire additional facilities in existing and new markets; and
 
•    
expanding and renovating our existing facilities, and potentially constructing new facilities.
 
 
 
Company History
 
 
Our company was formed in 1999 with the goal of establishing a new level of quality care within the skilled nursing industry. The name “Ensign” is synonymous with a “flag” or a “standard,” and refers to our goal of setting the standard by which all others are measured. We believe that through our efforts and leadership, we can foster a new level of patient care and professional competence at our facilities, and set a new industry standard for quality skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services.
 
We have an established track record of successful acquisitions. Many of our earliest acquisitions were completed at a time when the skilled nursing industry was undergoing a major restructuring. From 2001 to 2003, we acquired a number of underperforming facilities, as several long-term care providers disposed of troubled facilities from their portfolios. We then

4


applied our core operating expertise to turn these facilities around, both clinically and financially. In 2004 and 2005, we focused on the integration and improvement of our existing operations while limiting our acquisitions to strategically situated properties, acquiring five facilities over that period.
 
 
We organized our facilities into five portfolio companies in 2006 and introduced a sixth portfolio company in 2008, which we believe has enabled us to attract additional qualified leadership talent, and to identify, acquire, and improve facilities at a generally faster rate. With the introduction in early 2006 of the portfolio companies and our New Market CEO program, described below, our acquisition activity accelerated, allowing us to add 15 facilities between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2007. We then effectively suspended our acquisition program while we effected our initial public offering, which was completed in November 2007. From January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, we acquired seventeen facilities which added 1,976 operational beds to our operations. During 2010 we acquired four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility and one home health and hospice operation, which added 650 operational beds to our operations. The following table summarizes our growth from our formation in 1999 through December 31, 2010:
 
 
Cumulative Facility Growth
 
 
December 31,
 
 
 
1999
 
2000
 
2001
 
2002
 
2003
 
2004
 
2005
 
2006
 
2007
 
2008
 
2009
 
2010
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cumulative number of facilities
5
 
 
13
 
 
19
 
 
24
 
 
41
 
 
43
 
 
46
 
 
57
 
 
61
 
 
63
 
 
77
 
 
82
 
Cumulative number of operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
665
 
 
1,571
 
 
2,155
 
 
2,751
 
 
4,959
 
 
5,213
 
 
5,585
 
 
6,667
 
 
7,105
 
 
7,324
 
 
8,948
 
 
9,539
 
 
 
Each of our portfolio companies has its own president. These presidents, who are experienced and proven leaders that are generally taken from the ranks of facility CEOs, serve as leadership resources within their own portfolio companies, and have the primary responsibility for recruiting qualified talent, finding potential acquisition targets, and identifying other internal and external growth opportunities. We believe this reorganization has improved the quality of our recruiting and will continue to facilitate successful acquisitions.
 
 
New Market CEO and New Ventures Programs.  In order to broaden our reach to new markets, and in an effort to provide existing leaders in our company with the entrepreneurial opportunity and challenge of entering a new market and starting a new business, we established our New Market CEO program in 2006. Supported by our Service Center and other resources, a New Market CEO evaluates a target market, develops a comprehensive business plan, and relocates to the target market to find talent and connect with other providers, regulators and the healthcare community in that market, with the goal of ultimately acquiring facilities and establishing an operating platform for future growth. In addition, this program was expanded to broaden our reach to other lines of business closely related to the skilled nursing industry through our New Ventures program. The New Ventures program encourages facility CEOs to evaluate new lines of business with the goal of establishing an operating platform in new markets. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we acquired a home health and hospice operation in Idaho through the New Ventures program as a platform to enter the industry.
 
 
We believe that this program will not only continue to drive growth, but will also provide a valuable training ground for our next generation of leaders, who will have experienced the challenges of growing and operating a new business.
 
 
Recent Developments
 
 
On November 1, 2010, we purchased an assisted living facility in Colorado for approximately $2.4 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 215 assisted living beds to our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction.
 
On December 31, 2010, four of our real estate holding subsidiaries executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35.0 million (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to certain prepayment fees. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018. As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had $35.0 million outstanding on the RBS Loan.

5


 
On January 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 123 operational skilled nursing beds, 77 assisted living units, 72 independent living units and 20 independent living cottages to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
 
On February 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services, for approximately $16.6 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 221 operational skilled nursing beds, 48 operational assisted living units and 60 independent living apartments to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
 
Recent Acquisition History and Growth.  Since January 1, 2010, we added an aggregate of four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility and two skilled nursing facilities which also provide assisted living and independent living services located in each of Utah, Idaho, Colorado and Texas that we had not operated previously. These facilities contributed 1,271 operational beds, respectively, to our operations, increasing our total capacity by approximately 14%. In addition, we acquired one home health and hospice operation in Idaho which did not add operational beds, however, added approximately $5.5 million in revenue to our operations.
 
 
The following table sets forth the location and number of licensed and independent living beds located at our facilities as of December 31, 2010:
 
 
CA
 
AZ
 
TX
 
UT
 
CO
 
WA
 
ID
 
TOTAL
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of facilities
33
 
 
12
 
 
17
 
 
9
 
 
5
 
 
3
 
 
3
 
 
82
 
Operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
3,702
 
 
1,814
 
 
2,069
 
 
967
 
 
463
 
 
278
 
 
246
 
 
9,539
 
 
 
Industry Trends
 
 
The skilled nursing industry has evolved to meet the growing demand for post-acute and custodial healthcare services generated by an aging population, increasing life expectancies and the trend toward shifting of patient care to lower cost settings. The skilled nursing industry has evolved in recent years, which we believe has led to a number of favorable improvements in the industry, as described below:
 
•    
Shift of Patient Care to Lower Cost Alternatives.  The growth of the senior population in the United States continues to increase healthcare costs, often faster than the available funding from government-sponsored healthcare programs. In response, federal and state governments have adopted cost-containment measures that encourage the treatment of patients in more cost-effective settings such as skilled nursing facilities, for which the staffing requirements and associated costs are often significantly lower than acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities and other post-acute care settings. As a result, skilled nursing facilities are serving a larger population of higher-acuity patients than in the past.
 
•    
Significant Acquisition and Consolidation Opportunities.  The skilled nursing industry is large and highly fragmented, characterized predominantly by numerous local and regional providers. We believe this fragmentation provides significant acquisition and consolidation opportunities for us.
 
•    
Improving Supply and Demand Balance.  The number of skilled nursing facilities has declined modestly over the past several years. We expect that the supply and demand balance in the skilled nursing industry will continue to improve due to the shift of patient care to lower cost settings, an aging population and increasing life expectancies.
 
•    
Increased Demand Driven by Aging Populations and Increased Life Expectancy.  As life expectancy continues to increase in the United States and seniors account for a higher percentage of the total U.S. population, we believe the overall demand for skilled nursing services will increase. At present, the primary market demographic for skilled nursing services is individuals age 75 and older. According to U.S. Census Bureau Interim Projections, there will be approximately 46 million people in the United States in 2010 that are over 65 years old. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates this group is one of the fastest growing segments of the United States population and is expected to more than double between 2000 and 2030.

6


 
 
We believe the skilled nursing industry has been and will continue to be impacted by several other trends. The use of long-term care insurance is increasing among seniors as a means of planning for the costs of skilled nursing services. In addition, as a result of increased mobility in society, reduction of average family size, and the increased number of two-wage earner couples, more seniors are looking for alternatives outside the family for their care.
 
 
Effects of Changing Prices.  Medicare reimbursement rates and procedures are subject to change from time to time, which could materially impact our revenue. Medicare reimburses our skilled nursing facilities under a prospective payment system (PPS) for certain inpatient covered services. Under the PPS, facilities are paid a predetermined amount per patient, per day, based on the anticipated costs of treating patients. The amount to be paid is determined by classifying each patient into a resource utilization group (RUG) category that is based upon each patient's acuity level. As of October 1, 2010, the RUG categories were expanded from 53 to 66 with the introduction of MDS 3.0. Should future changes in skilled nursing facility payments reduce rates or increase the standards for reaching certain reimbursement levels, our Medicare revenues could be reduced, with a corresponding adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
 
The DRA directs Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a process to allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services provided on or after January 1, 2006 for patients with certain conditions or multiple complexities whose therapy services are reimbursed under Medicare Part B. A significant portion of the residents in our skilled nursing facilities and patients served by our rehabilitation therapy programs whose therapy is reimbursed under Medicare Part B have qualified for the exceptions to these reimbursement caps. DRA added Sec. 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act and directed them to develop a process that allows exceptions for Medicare beneficiaries to therapy caps when continued therapy is deemed medically necessary. The therapy cap exception was reauthorized in a number of subsequent laws, most recently as part of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, which extends the exceptions process through December 31, 2011.
 
 
On July 16, 2010, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed rule on the fiscal year 2011 PPS reimbursement rates for skilled nursing facilities, which would result in a net increase in payments to skilled nursing facilities of 1.7%. This net increase includes a 2.3% market basket increase, partially offset by a correction of a FY 2010 forecast error which would result in a 0.6% rate reduction.
 
On November 2, 2010, CMS issued the final rule for fiscal year 2011 Physician Fee Schedule, which included a moderation of the proposed cuts to Part B therapy reimbursement. CMS has adopted a 25% reduction in the practice expense component of Part B rehab payments for the second and subsequent therapies provided to a patient on the same day.
 
Historically, adjustments to reimbursement under Medicare have had a significant effect on our revenue. For a discussion of historic adjustments and recent changes to the Medicare program and related reimbursement rates see Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Business and Industry - “Our revenue could be impacted by federal and state changes to reimbursement and other aspects of Medicaid and Medicare,” “Our future revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be impacted by continued cost containment pressures on Medicaid spending,” “We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations” and “Reforms to the U.S. healthcare system will impose new requirements upon us and may lower our reimbursements." The federal government and state governments continue to focus on efforts to curb spending on healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. We are not able to predict the outcome of the legislative process. We also cannot predict the extent to which proposals will be adopted or, if adopted and implemented, what effect, if any, such proposals and existing new legislation will have on us. Efforts to impose reduced allowances, greater discounts and more stringent cost controls by government and other payors are expected to continue and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
 
Competition
 
 
The skilled nursing industry is highly competitive, and we expect that the industry will become increasingly competitive in the future. The industry is highly fragmented and characterized by numerous local and regional providers, in addition to large national providers that have achieved geographic diversity and economies of scale. We also compete with inpatient rehabilitation facilities and long-term acute care hospitals. Competitiveness may vary significantly from location to location, depending upon factors such as the number of competing facilities, availability of services, expertise of staff, and the physical appearance and amenities of each location. We believe that the primary competitive factors in the skilled nursing industry are:
 
•    
ability to attract and to retain qualified management and caregivers;

7


 
•    
reputation and commitment to quality;
 
•    
attractiveness and location of facilities;
 
•    
the expertise and commitment of the facility management team and employees;
 
•    
community value, including amenities and ancillary services; and
 
•    
for private pay and HMO patients, price of services.
 
 
 
We seek to compete effectively in each market by establishing a reputation within the local community as the “facility of choice.” This means that the facility leaders are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market that is calculated to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility.
 
 
Increased competition could limit our ability to attract and retain patients, maintain or increase rates or to expand our business. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than we have, may have greater brand recognition and may be more established in their respective communities than we are. Competing companies may also offer newer facilities or different programs or services than we offer, and may therefore attract individuals who are currently residents of our facilities, potential residents of our facilities, or who are otherwise receiving our healthcare services. Other competitors may have lower expenses or other competitive advantages than us and, therefore, provide services at lower prices than we offer.
 
 
Our Competitive Strengths
 
 
We believe that we are well positioned to benefit from the ongoing changes within our industry. We believe that our ability to acquire, integrate and improve our facilities is a direct result of the following key competitive strengths:
 
 Experienced and Dedicated Employees.  We believe that our employees are among the best in the skilled nursing industry. We believe each of our facilities is led by an experienced and caring leadership team, including dedicated front-line care staff, who participates daily in the clinical and operational improvement of their individual facilities. We have been successful in attracting, training, incentivizing and retaining a core group of outstanding business and clinical leaders to lead our facilities. These leaders operate their facilities as separate local businesses. With broad local control, these talented leaders and their care staffs are able to quickly meet the needs of their patients and residents, employees and local communities, without waiting for permission to act or being bound to a “one-size-fits-all” corporate strategy.
 
 Unique Incentive Programs.  We believe that our employee compensation programs are unique within the skilled nursing industry. Employee stock options and performance bonuses, based on achieving target clinical quality and financial benchmarks, represent a significant component of total compensation for our facility leaders. We believe that these compensation programs assist us in encouraging our facility leaders and key employees to act with a shared ownership mentality. Furthermore, our facility leaders are motivated to help local facilities within a defined “cluster,” which is a group of geographically-proximate facilities that share clinical best practices, real-time financial data and other resources and information.
 
 Staff and Leadership Development.  We have a company-wide commitment to ongoing education, training and professional development. Accordingly, our facility leaders participate in regular training. Most participate in training sessions at Ensign University, our in-house educational system, generally four or five times each year. Other training opportunities are generally offered on a monthly basis. Training and educational topics include leadership development, our values, updates on Medicaid and Medicare billing requirements, updates on new regulations or legislation, emerging healthcare service alternatives and other relevant clinical, business and industry specific coursework. Additionally, we encourage and provide ongoing education classes for our clinical staff to maintain licensing and increase the breadth of their knowledge and expertise. We believe that our commitment to, and substantial investment in, ongoing education will further strengthen the quality of our facility leaders and staff, and the quality of the care they provide to our patients and residents.
 
 Innovative Service Center Approach.  We do not maintain a corporate headquarters; rather, we operate a Service Center to support the efforts of each facility. Our Service Center is a dedicated service organization that acts as a resource and provides centralized information technology, human resources, accounting, payroll, legal, risk management, educational and other key

8


services, so that local facility leaders can focus on delivering top-quality care and efficient business operations. Our Service Center approach allows individual facilities to function with the strength, synergies and economies of scale found in larger organizations, but without what we believe are the disadvantages of a top-down management structure or corporate hierarchy. We believe our Service Center approach is unique within the industry, and allows us to preserve the “one-facility-at-a-time” focus and culture that has contributed to our success.
 
Proven Track Record of Successful Acquisitions.  We have established a disciplined acquisition strategy that is focused on selectively acquiring facilities within our target markets. Our acquisition strategy is highly operations driven. Prospective facility leaders are included in the decision making process and compensated as these acquired facilities reach pre-established clinical quality and financial benchmarks, helping to ensure that we only undertake acquisitions that key leaders believe can become clinically sound and contribute to our financial performance.
 
 
Since April 1999, we have acquired 85 facilities with approximately 10,200 operational beds, including 803 assisted living beds and 299 independent living units, through both long-term leases and purchases. We believe our experience in acquiring these facilities and our demonstrated success in significantly improving their operations enables us to consider a broad range of acquisition targets. In addition, we believe we have developed expertise in transitioning newly-acquired facilities to our unique organizational culture and operating systems, which enables us to acquire facilities with limited disruption to patients, residents and facility operating staff, while significantly improving quality of care. We also intend to consider the construction of new facilities as we determine that market conditions justify the cost of new construction in some of our markets.
 
 
Reputation for Quality Care.  We believe that we have achieved a reputation for high-quality and cost-effective care and services to our patients and residents within the communities we serve. We believe that our reputation for quality, coupled with the integrated skilled nursing and rehabilitation services that we offer, allows us to attract patients that require more intensive and medically complex care and generally result in higher reimbursement rates than lower acuity patients.
 
 
Community Focused Approach.  We view skilled nursing care primarily as a local, community-based business. Our local leadership-centered management culture enables each facility's nursing and support staff and leaders to meet the unique needs of their residents and local communities. We believe that our commitment to this “one-facility-at-a-time” philosophy helps to ensure that each facility, its residents, their family members and the community will receive the individualized attention they need. By serving our residents, their families, the community and our fellow healthcare professionals, we strive to make each individual facility the facility of choice in its local community.
 
 
We further believe that when choosing a healthcare provider, consumers usually choose a person or people they know and trust, rather than a corporation or business. Therefore, rather than pursuing a traditional organization-wide branding strategy, we actively seek to develop the facility brand at the local level, serving and marketing one-on-one to caregivers, our residents, their families, the community and our fellow healthcare professionals in the local market.
 
 
Attractive Asset Base.  We believe that our facilities are among the best-operated in their respective markets. As of December 31, 2010, we owned 52 of the 82 facilities that we operated, and had purchase agreements or options to purchase eight of the 30 facilities that we operated under long-term lease arrangements. We will consider exercising some or all of these purchase options as they become exercisable, and we expect that we will own a higher percentage of our facilities in the future than we currently own. Assuming we eventually exercise all purchase options we currently hold and we don't dispose of any of our current facilities, we would own approximately 74% of the facilities we currently operate. By owning our facilities, we believe we will have better control over our occupancy costs over time, as well as increased financial and operational flexibility. We plan to continue to invest in our facilities, both owned and leased, to keep them physically attractive and clinically sound.
 
 
Investment in Information Technology.  We have acquired information technology that enables our facility leaders to access, and to share with their peers, both clinical and financial performance data in real time. Armed with relevant and current information, our facility leaders and their management teams are able to share best practices and latest information, adjust to challenges and opportunities on a timely basis, improve quality of care, mitigate risk and improve both clinical outcomes and financial performance. We have also invested in specialized healthcare technology systems to assist our nursing and support staff. We have installed automated software and touch-screen interface systems in each facility to enable our clinical staff to more efficiently monitor and deliver patient care and record patient information. We believe these systems have improved the quality of our medical and billing records, while improving the productivity of our staff.

9


 
Our Growth Strategy
 
 
We believe that the following strategies are primarily responsible for our growth to date, and will continue to drive the growth of our business:
 
 
Grow Talent Base and Develop Future Leaders.  Our primary growth strategy is to expand our talent base and develop future leaders. A key component of our organizational culture is our belief that strong local leadership is a primary key to the success of each facility. While we believe that significant acquisition opportunities exist, we have generally followed a disciplined approach to growth that permits us to acquire a facility only when we believe, among other things, that we will have qualified leadership for that facility. To develop these leaders, we have a rigorous “CEO-in-Training Program” that attracts proven business leaders from various industries and backgrounds, and provides them the knowledge and hands-on training they need to successfully lead one of our facilities. We generally have between five and fifteen prospective administrators progressing through the various stages of this training program, which is generally much more rigorous, hands-on and intensive than the minimum 1,000 hours of training mandated by the licensing requirements of most states where we do business. Once administrators are licensed and assigned to a facility, they continue to learn and develop in our facility Chief Executive Officer Program, which facilitates the continued development of these talented business leaders into outstanding facility CEOs, through regular peer review, our Ensign University and on-the-job training.
 
 
In addition, our facility Chief Operating Officer Program recruits and trains highly-qualified Directors of Nursing to lead the clinical programs in our facilities. Working together with their facility CEO and/or administrator, other key facility leaders and front-line staff, these experienced nurses manage delivery of care and other clinical personnel and programs to optimize both clinical outcomes and employee and patient satisfaction.
 
 
Increase Mix of High Acuity Patients.  Many skilled nursing facilities are serving an increasingly larger population of patients who require a high level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, as a result of government and other payors seeking lower-cost alternatives to traditional acute-care hospitals. We generally receive higher reimbursement rates for providing care for these patients. In addition, many of these patients require therapy and other rehabilitative services, which we are able to provide as part of our integrated service offerings. Where therapy services are prescribed by a patient's physician or other healthcare professional, we generally receive additional revenue in connection with the provision of those services. By making these integrated services available to such patients, and maintaining established clinical standards in the delivery of those services, we are able to increase our overall revenues. We believe that we can continue to attract high acuity patients and therapy patients to our facilities by maintaining and enhancing our reputation for quality care, continuing our community focused approach, and strengthening our referral networks.
 
 
Focus on Organic Growth and Internal Operating Efficiencies.  We plan to continue to grow organically by focusing on increasing patient occupancy within our existing facilities. Although some of the facilities we have acquired were in good physical and operating condition, the majority have been clinically and financially troubled, with some facilities having had occupancy rates as low as 30% at the time of acquisition. Additionally, we believe that incremental operating margins on the last 20% of our beds are significantly higher than on the first 80%, offering real opportunities to improve financial performance within our existing facilities, as we seek to improve overall operational occupancy beyond our average occupancy rates for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 of 79.9% and 79.4%, respectively.
 
 
We also believe we can generate organic growth by improving operating efficiencies and the quality of care at the patient level. By focusing on staff development, clinical systems and the efficient delivery of quality patient care, we believe we are able to deliver higher quality care at lower costs than many of our competitors.
 
 
We also have achieved incremental occupancy and revenue growth by creating or expanding outpatient therapy programs in existing facilities. Physical, occupational and speech therapy services account for a significant portion of revenue in most of our skilled nursing facilities. By expanding therapy programs to provide outpatient services in many markets, we are able to increase revenue while spreading the fixed costs of maintaining these programs over a larger patient base. Outpatient therapy has also proven to be an effective marketing tool, raising the visibility of our facilities in their local communities and enhancing the reputation of our facilities with short-stay rehabilitation patients.
 
Add New Facilities and Expand Existing Facilities.  A key element of our growth strategy includes the acquisition of new and existing facilities from third parties, the expansion and upgrade of current facilities, and the potential construction of new facilities. In the near term, we plan to take advantage of the fragmented skilled nursing industry by acquiring facilities within select geographic markets and may consider the construction of new facilities. In addition, historically we have targeted

10


facilities that we believed were underperforming, and where we believed we could improve service delivery, occupancy rates and cash flow. With experienced leaders in place at the community level, and demonstrated success in significantly improving operating conditions at acquired facilities, we believe that we are well positioned for continued growth. While the integration of underperforming facilities generally has a negative short-term effect on overall operating margins, these facilities are typically accretive to earnings within 12 to 18 months following their acquisition. For the 69 facilities that we acquired from 2001 through 2009, the aggregate EBITDAR (defined below) as a percentage of revenue improved from 10.4% during the first full three months of operations to 13.8% during the thirteenth through fifteenth months of operations.
 
 
Labor
 
 
The operation of our skilled nursing and assisted living facilities requires a large number of highly skilled healthcare professionals and support staff. At December 31, 2010, we had approximately 8,382 full-time equivalent employees, employed by our Service Center and our operating subsidiaries. For the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately 60% of our total expenses were payroll related. Periodically, market forces, which vary by region, require that we increase wages in excess of general inflation or in excess of increases in reimbursement rates we receive. We believe that we staff appropriately, focusing primarily on the acuity level and day-to-day needs of our patients and residents. In most of the states where we operate, our skilled nursing facilities are subject to state mandated minimum staffing ratios, so our ability to reduce costs by decreasing staff, notwithstanding decreases in acuity or need, is limited. We seek to manage our labor costs by improving staff retention, improving operating efficiencies, maintaining competitive wage rates and benefits and reducing reliance on overtime compensation and temporary nursing agency services.
 
 
The healthcare industry as a whole has been experiencing shortages of qualified professional clinical staff. We believe that our ability to attract and retain qualified professional clinical staff stems from our ability to offer attractive wage and benefits packages, a high level of employee training, an empowered culture that provides incentives for individual efforts and a quality work environment.
 
 
Government Regulation
 
 
The regulatory environment within the skilled nursing industry continues to intensify in the amount and type of laws and regulations affecting it. In addition to this changing regulatory environment, federal, state and local officials are increasingly focusing their efforts on the enforcement of these laws. In order to operate our facilities we must comply with federal, state and local laws relating to licensure, delivery and adequacy of medical care, distribution of pharmaceuticals, equipment, personnel, operating policies, fire prevention, rate-setting, billing and reimbursement, building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, we must also adhere to anti-kickback laws, physician referral laws, and safety and health standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Changes in the law or new interpretations of existing laws may have an adverse impact on our methods and costs of doing business.
 
 
Skilled nursing facilities are also subject to various regulations and licensing requirements promulgated by state and local health and social service agencies and other regulatory authorities. Requirements vary from state to state and these requirements can affect, among other things, personnel education and training, patient and personnel records, facility services, staffing levels, monitoring of patient wellness, patient furnishings, housekeeping services, dietary requirements, emergency plans and procedures, certification and licensing of staff prior to beginning employment, and patient rights. These laws and regulations could limit our ability to expand into new markets and to expand our services and facilities in existing markets.
 
 
Regulations Regarding Our Facilities.  Governmental and other authorities periodically inspect our facilities to assess our compliance with various standards. The intensified regulatory and enforcement environment continues to impact healthcare providers, as these providers respond to periodic surveys and other inspections by governmental authorities and act on any noncompliance identified in the inspection process. Unannounced surveys or inspections generally occur at least annually, and also following a government agency's receipt of a complaint about a facility. We must pass these inspections to maintain our licensure under state law, to obtain or maintain certification under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to continue participation in the Veterans Administration (VA) program at some facilities, and to comply with our provider contracts with managed care clients at many facilities. From time to time, we, like others in the healthcare industry, may receive notices from federal and state regulatory agencies alleging that we failed to comply with applicable standards. These notices may require us to take corrective action, may impose civil monetary penalties for noncompliance, and may threaten or impose other operating restrictions on facilities such as admission holds, provisional skilled nursing license or increased staffing requirements. If our facilities fail to comply with these directives or otherwise fail to comply substantially with licensure and certification laws, rules and regulations, we could lose our certification as a Medicare or Medicaid provider, or lose our state licenses to operate the facilities.

11


 
 
Regulations Protecting Against Fraud.  Various complex federal and state laws exist which govern a wide array of referrals, relationships and arrangements, and prohibit fraud by healthcare providers. Governmental agencies are devoting increasing attention and resources to such anti-fraud efforts. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) expanded the penalties for healthcare fraud. Additionally, in connection with our involvement with federal healthcare reimbursement programs, the government or those acting on its behalf may bring an action under the False Claims Act, alleging that a healthcare provider has defrauded the government. These claimants may seek treble damages for false claims and payment of additional civil monetary penalties. The False Claims Act allows a private individual with knowledge of fraud to bring a claim on behalf of the federal government and earn a percentage of the federal government's recovery. Due to these “whistleblower” incentives, suits have become more frequent.
 
 
In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1.0 million in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”
 
 
Regulations Regarding Financial Arrangements.  We are also subject to federal and state laws that regulate financial arrangement by healthcare providers, such as the federal and state anti-kickback laws, the Stark laws, and various state referral laws.
 
 
The federal anti-kickback laws and similar state laws make it unlawful for any person to pay, receive, offer, or solicit any benefit, directly or indirectly, for the referral or recommendation for products or services which are eligible for payment under federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. For the purposes of the anti-kickback law, a “federal healthcare program” includes Medicare and Medicaid programs and any other plan or program that provides health benefits which are funded directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government.
 
 
The arrangements prohibited under these anti-kickback laws can involve nursing homes, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers, plans and suppliers. These laws have been interpreted very broadly to include a number of practices and relationships between healthcare providers and sources of patient referral. The scope of prohibited payments is very broad, including anything of value, whether offered directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind. Federal “safe harbor” regulations describe certain arrangements that will not be deemed to constitute violations of the anti-kickback law. Arrangements that do not comply with all of the strict requirements of a safe harbor are not necessarily illegal, but, due to the broad language of the statute, failure to comply with a safe harbor may increase the potential that a government agency or whistleblower will seek to investigate or challenge the arrangement. The safe harbors are narrow and do not cover a wide range of economic relationships.
 
Violations of the federal anti-kickback laws can result in criminal penalties of up to $25,000 and five years imprisonment. Violations of the anti-kickback laws can also result in civil monetary penalties of up to $50,000 and an assessment of up to three times the total amount of remuneration offered, paid, solicited, or received. Violation of the anti-kickback laws may also result in an individual's or organization's exclusion from future participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other state and federal healthcare programs. Exclusion of us or any of our key employees from the Medicare or Medicaid program could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition.
 
 
In addition to these regulations, we may face adverse consequences if we violate the federal Stark laws related to certain Medicare physician referrals. The Stark laws prohibit a physician from referring Medicare patients for certain designated health

12


services where the physician has an ownership interest in or compensation arrangement with the provider of the services, with limited exceptions. Also, any services furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral are not eligible for payment by the Medicare programs, and the provider is prohibited from billing any third party for such services. The Stark laws provide for the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of $15,000 per prohibited claim, and up to $100,000 for knowingly entering into certain prohibited cross-referral schemes, and potential exclusion from Medicare for any person who presents or causes to be presented a bill or claim the person knows or should know is submitted in violation of the Stark laws. Such designated health services include physical therapy services; occupational therapy services; radiology services, including CT, MRI and ultrasound; durable medical equipment and services; radiation therapy services and supplies; parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment and supplies; prosthetics, orthotics and prosthetic devices and supplies; home health services; outpatient prescription drugs; inpatient and outpatient hospital services; clinical laboratory services; and diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medical services.
 
 
Regulations Regarding Patient Record Confidentiality.  We are also subject to laws and regulations enacted to protect the confidentiality of patient health information. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued rules pursuant to HIPAA, which relate to the privacy of certain patient information. These rules govern our use and disclosure of protected health information. We have established policies and procedures to comply with HIPAA privacy requirements at these facilities. We believe that we are in compliance with all current HIPAA laws and regulations.
 
 
Antitrust Laws.  We are also subject to federal and state antitrust laws. Enforcement of the antitrust laws against healthcare providers is common, and antitrust liability may arise in a wide variety of circumstances, including third party contracting, physician relations, joint venture, merger, affiliation and acquisition activities. In some respects, the application of federal and state antitrust laws to healthcare is still evolving, and enforcement activity by federal and state agencies appears to be increasing. At various times, healthcare providers and insurance and managed care organizations may be subject to an investigation by a governmental agency charged with the enforcement of antitrust laws, or may be subject to administrative or judicial action by a federal or state agency or a private party. Violators of the antitrust laws could be subject to criminal and civil enforcement by federal and state agencies, as well as by private litigants.
 
Federal Health Care Reform. On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which contained several sweeping changes to America’s health insurance system. Among other reforms contained in PPACA, many Medicare providers received reductions in their market basket updates. Unlike for some other Medicare providers, PPACA makes no reduction to the market basket update for skilled nursing facilities in fiscal years 2010 or 2011. However, under PPACA, the skilled nursing facility market basket update will be subject to a full productivity adjustment beginning in fiscal year 2012. In addition, PPACA enacted several reforms with respect to skilled nursing facilities and hospice organizations, including payment measures to realize significant savings of federal and state funds by deterring and prosecuting fraud and abuse in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. While many of the provisions of PPACA will not take effect for several years or are subject to further refinement through the promulgation of regulations, some key provisions of PPACA are effective immediately or within six to twelve months of PPACA’s enactment date.
 
•    
Enhanced CMPs and Escrow Provisions —Effective March 23, 2010, PPACA includes expanded civil monetary penalty (CMP) provisions applicable to all Medicare and Medicaid providers. PPACA provides for the imposition of CMPs of up to $50,000 and, in some cases, treble damages, for actions relating to alleged false statements to the federal government.
 
•    
Nursing Home Transparency Requirements —In addition to expanded CMP provisions, PPACA imposes substantial new transparency requirements for Medicare-participating nursing facilities. Existing law requires Medicare providers to disclose to CMS: (1) any person or entity that owns directly or indirectly an ownership interest of five percent or more in a provider; (2) officers and directors (if a corporation) and partners (if a partnership); and (3) holders of a mortgage, deed of trust, note or other obligation secured by the entity or the property of the entity. PPACA expands the information required to be disclosed to include: (4) the facility’s organizational structure; (5) additional information on officers, directors, trustees, and “managing employees” of the facility (including their names, titles, and start dates of services); and (6) information on any “additional disclosable party” of the facility. Beginning March 23, 2010, facilities must have this information available for submission to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the state in which the facility is located, and the state long-term care ombudsman upon request.
 
•    
Suspension of Payments During Pending Fraud Investigations —PPACA also provides the federal government with expanded authority to suspend payment if a provider is investigated for allegations or issues of fraud. Section 6402 of the PPACA provides that, beginning March 23, 2010, Medicare and Medicaid payments may be suspended pending a “credible investigation of fraud,” unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that good cause

13


exists not to suspend payments. “Credible investigation of fraud” is undefined, although the Secretary must consult with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in determining whether a credible investigation of fraud exists. This suspension authority creates a new mechanism for the federal government to suspend both Medicare and Medicaid payments for allegations of fraud, independent of whether a state exercises its authority to suspend Medicaid payments pending a fraud investigation. To the extent the Secretary applies this suspension of payments provision to one of our facilities for allegations of fraud, such a suspension could adversely affect our results of operations.
 
•    
Overpayment Reporting and Repayment; Expanded False Claims Act Liability —PPACA also enacted several important changes that expand potential liability under the federal False Claims Act. Effective March 23, 2010, PPACA provides that overpayments related to services provided to both Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries must be reported and returned to the applicable payor within the later of sixty days of identification of the overpayment, or the date the corresponding cost report (if applicable) is due. Any overpayment retained after the deadline is considered an “obligation” for purposes of the federal False Claims Act.
 
•    
Voluntary Pilot Program — Bundled Payments —To support the policies of making all providers responsible during an episode of care and rewarding value over volume, HHS will establish, test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies for Medicare services through a five-year, national, voluntary pilot program starting in 2013. This program will provide incentives for providers to coordinate patient care across the continuum and to be jointly accountable for an entire episode of care centered around a hospitalization. HHS will develop qualifying provider payment methods that may include bundled payments and bids from entities for episodes of care that begins three days prior to hospitalization and spans 30 days following discharge. The bundled payment will cover the costs of acute care inpatient services; physicians’ services delivered in and outside of an acute care hospital; outpatient hospital services including emergency department services; post-acute care services, including home health services, skilled nursing services; inpatient rehabilitation services; and inpatient hospital services. The payment methodology will include payment for services, such as care coordination, medication reconciliation, discharge planning and transitional care services, and other patient-centered activities. Payments for items and services cannot result in spending more than would otherwise be expended for such entities if the pilot program were not implemented. As with Medicare’s shared savings program discussed above, payment arrangements among providers on the backside of the bundled payment must take into account significant hurdles under the Anti-kickback Law, the Stark Law and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. This pilot program may expand in 2016 if expansion would reduce Medicare spending without also reducing quality of care.
 
The provisions of PPACA discussed above are examples of recently-enacted federal health reform provisions that we believe may have a material impact on the long-term care industry and on our business. However, the foregoing discussion is not intended to constitute, nor does it constitute, an exhaustive review and discussion of PPACA. It is possible that these and other provisions of PPACA may be interpreted, clarified, or applied to our facilities or operations in a way that could have a material adverse impact on the results of operations.
 
 
Environmental Matters
 
 
Our business is subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. As a healthcare provider, we face regulatory requirements in areas of air and water quality control, medical and low-level radioactive waste management and disposal, asbestos management, response to mold and lead-based paint in our facilities and employee safety.
 
 
As an owner or operator of our facilities, we also may be required to investigate and remediate hazardous substances that are located on and/or under the property, including any such substances that may have migrated off, or may have been discharged or transported from the property. Part of our operations involves the handling, use, storage, transportation, disposal and discharge of medical, biological, infectious, toxic, flammable and other hazardous materials, wastes, pollutants or contaminants. In addition, we are sometimes unable to determine with certainty whether prior uses of our facilities and properties or surrounding properties may have produced continuing environmental contamination or noncompliance, particularly where the timing or cost of making such determinations is not deemed cost-effective. These activities, as well as the possible presence of such materials in, on and under our properties, may result in damage to individuals, property or the environment; may interrupt operations or increase costs; may result in legal liability, damages, injunctions or fines; may result in investigations, administrative proceedings, penalties or other governmental agency actions; and may not be covered by insurance.
 
 
We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental and occupational health and safety requirements. However, we cannot assure you that we will not encounter environmental liabilities in the future, and such

14


liabilities may result in material adverse consequences to our operations or financial condition.
 
 
Payor Sources
 
 
Total Revenue by Payor Sources.  We derive revenue primarily from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, private pay patients and managed care payors. Medicaid typically covers patients that require standard room and board services, and provides reimbursement rates that are generally lower than rates earned from other sources. We monitor our quality mix, which is the percentage of non-Medicaid revenue from each of our facilities, to measure the level received from each payor across each of our business units. We intend to continue to focus on enhancing our care offerings to accommodate more high acuity patients.
 
 
Medicaid.  Medicaid is a state-administered program financed by state funds and matching federal funds. Medicaid programs are administered by the states and their political subdivisions, and often go by state-specific names, such as Medi-Cal in California and the Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System in Arizona. Medicaid programs generally provide health benefits for qualifying individuals, and may supplement Medicare benefits for financially needy persons aged 65 and older. Medicaid reimbursement formulas are established by each state with the approval of the federal government in accordance with federal guidelines. Seniors who enter skilled nursing facilities as private pay clients can become eligible for Medicaid once they have substantially depleted their assets. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for nursing home facilities.
 
 
Private and Other Payors.  Private and other payors consist primarily of individuals, family members or other third parties who directly pay for the services we provide.
 
 
Medicare.  Medicare is a federal program that provides healthcare benefits to individuals who are 65 years of age or older or are disabled. To achieve and maintain Medicare certification, a skilled nursing facility must meet the CMS, “Conditions of Participation”, on an ongoing basis, as determined in periodic facility inspections or “surveys” conducted primarily by the state licensing agency in the state where the facility is located. Medicare pays for inpatient skilled nursing facility services under the prospective payment system. The prospective payment for each beneficiary is based upon the medical condition of and care needed by the beneficiary. Medicare skilled nursing facility coverage is limited to 100 days per episode of illness for those beneficiaries who require daily care following discharge from an acute care hospital.
 
 
Managed Care and Private Insurance.  Managed care patients consist of individuals who are insured by a third-party entity, typically a senior HMO plan, or who are Medicare beneficiaries who have assigned their Medicare benefits to a senior HMO plan. Another type of insurance, long-term care insurance, is also becoming more widely available to consumers, but is not expected to contribute significantly to industry revenues in the near term.
 
 
Billing and Reimbursement.  Our revenue from government payors, including Medicare and state Medicaid agencies, is subject to retroactive adjustments in the form of claimed overpayments and underpayments based on rate adjustments and asserted billing and reimbursement errors. We believe billing and reimbursement errors, disagreements, overpayments and underpayments are common in our industry, and we are regularly engaged with government payors and their fiscal intermediaries in reviews, audits and appeals of our claims for reimbursement due to the subjectivity inherent in the processes related to patient diagnosis and care, recordkeeping, claims processing and other aspects of the patient service and reimbursement processes, and the errors and disagreements those subjectivities can produce.
 
 
We take seriously our responsibility to act appropriately under applicable laws and regulations, including Medicare and Medicaid billing and reimbursement laws and regulations. Accordingly, we employ accounting, reimbursement and compliance specialists who train, mentor and assist our clerical, clinical and rehabilitation staffs in the preparation of claims and supporting documentation, regularly monitor billing and reimbursement practices within our facilities, and assist with the appeal of overpayment and recoupment claims generated by governmental, fiscal intermediary and other auditors and reviewers. In addition, due to the potentially serious consequences that could arise from any impropriety in our billing and reimbursement processes, we investigate all allegations of impropriety or irregularity relative thereto, and sometimes do so with the aid of outside auditors, other than our independent registered public accounting firm, attorneys and other professionals.
 
 
Whether information about our billing and reimbursement processes is obtained from external sources or activities such as Medicare and Medicaid audits or probe reviews, internal investigations such as the one completed in early 2008 (discussed below in Risk Factors), or our regular day-to-day monitoring and training activities, we collect and utilize such information to improve our billing and reimbursement functions and the various processes related thereto. While, like other operators in our industry, we experience billing and reimbursement errors, disagreements and other effects of the inherent subjectivities in reimbursement processes on a regular basis, we believe that we are in substantial compliance with applicable Medicare and

15


Medicaid reimbursement requirements. We continually strive to improve the efficiency and accuracy of all of our operational and business functions, including our billing and reimbursement processes.
 
 
The following table sets forth the payor sources of our total revenue for the periods indicated:
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Payor Sources for All Facilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medicaid-custodial
$
259,711
 
 
$
219,188
 
 
$
187,499
 
Medicare
219,217
 
 
174,769
 
 
154,852
 
Medicaid-skilled
17,573
 
 
12,449
 
 
8,537
 
Total
496,501
 
 
406,406
 
 
350,888
 
Managed care
84,364
 
 
72,544
 
 
64,361
 
Private and other payors(1)
68,667
 
 
63,052
 
 
54,123
 
Total revenue
$
649,532
 
 
$
542,002
 
 
$
469,372
 
 
 
 
(1)    
Includes revenue from our assisted living facilities.
 
 
Payor Sources as a Percentage of Skilled Nursing Services.  We use both our skilled mix and quality mix as measures of the quality of reimbursements we receive at our skilled nursing facilities over various periods. The following table sets forth our percentage of skilled nursing patient days by payor source:
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
Percentage of Skilled Nursing Days:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medicare
14.5
%
 
14.1
%
 
14.7
%
Managed care
9.2
 
 
9.5
 
 
9.7
 
Other skilled
1.3
 
 
1.0
 
 
0.7
 
Skilled mix
25.0
 
 
24.6
 
 
25.1
 
Private and other payors
11.7
 
 
12.7
 
 
12.7
 
Quality mix
36.7
 
 
37.3
 
 
37.8
 
Medicaid
63.3
 
 
62.7
 
 
62.2
 
Total skilled nursing
100.0
%
 
100.0
%
 
100.0
%
 
 
Reimbursement for Specific Services
 
 
Reimbursement for Skilled Nursing Services.  Skilled nursing facility revenue is primarily derived from Medicaid, private pay, managed care and Medicare payors. Our skilled nursing facilities provide Medicaid-covered services to eligible individuals consisting of nursing care, room and board and social services. In addition, states may, at their option, cover other services such as physical, occupational and speech therapies.
 
Reimbursement for Rehabilitation Therapy Services.  Rehabilitation therapy revenue is primarily received from private pay and Medicare for services provided at skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities. The payments are based on negotiated patient per diem rates or a negotiated fee schedule based on the type of service rendered.
 
 
Reimbursement for Assisted Living Services.  Assisted living facility revenue is primarily derived from private pay residents at rates we establish based upon the services we provide and market conditions in the area of operation. In addition, Medicaid or other state-specific programs in some states where we operate supplement payments for board and care services provided in assisted living facilities.
 
 
Reimbursement for Hospice Services.  Hospice revenues are primarily derived from Medicare. We receive one of four predetermined daily or hourly rates based on the level of care we furnish to the beneficiary. These rates are subject to annual adjustments based on inflation and geographic wage considerations.
 
 

16


We are subject to two limitations on Medicare payments for hospice services. First, if inpatient days of care provided to patients at a hospice exceed 20% of the total days of hospice care provided for an annual period beginning on November 1st, then payment for days in excess of this limit are paid for at the routine home care rate.
 
 
Second, overall payments made by Medicare to us on a per hospice program basis are also subject to a cap amount calculated by the Medicare fiscal intermediary at the end of the hospice cap period. The Medicare revenue paid to a hospice program from November 1 to October 31 may not exceed the annual aggregate cap amounts. This annual aggregate cap amount is calculated by multiplying the number of first time Medicare hospice beneficiaries during the year by the Medicare per beneficiary cap amount, resulting in that hospice's aggregate cap, which is the allowable amount of total Medicare payments that hospice can receive for that cap year. If a hospice exceeds its aggregate cap, then the hospice must repay the excess back to Medicare. The Medicare cap amount is reduced proportionately for patients who transferred in and out of our hospice services.
 
 
Available Information
 
 
We are subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). Consequently, we are required to file reports and information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including reports on the following forms: annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These reports and other information concerning the Company may be accessed through the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov.
 
 
You may also find on our website at http://www.ensigngroup.net, electronic copies of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Such filings are placed on our website as soon as reasonably possible after they are filed with the SEC. All such filings are available free of charge. Information contained in our website is not deemed to be a part of this Annual Report.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Set forth below are certain risk factors that could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. You should carefully read the following risk factors, together with the financial statements, related notes and other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that contain risks and uncertainties. Please refer to the section entitled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” on page 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K in connection with your consideration of the risk factors and other important factors that may affect future results described below.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Our revenue could be impacted by federal and state changes to reimbursement and other aspects of Medicaid and Medicare.
We derived 42.7% of our revenue from the Medicaid program during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. We derived 33.7% and 32.3% of our revenue from the Medicare program during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. If reimbursement rates under these programs are reduced or fail to increase as quickly as our costs, or if there are changes in the way these programs pay for services, our business and results of operations would be adversely affected. The services for which we are currently reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare may not continue to be reimbursed at adequate levels or at all. Further limits on the scope of services being reimbursed, delays or reductions in reimbursement or changes in other aspects of reimbursement could impact our revenue. For example, in the past, the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) caused changes in government reimbursement systems, which, in some cases, made obtaining reimbursements more difficult and costly and lowered or restricted reimbursement rates for some of our residents.
The Medicaid and Medicare programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes affecting base rates or basis of payment, retroactive rate adjustments, annual caps that limit the amount that can be paid (including deductible and coinsurance amounts) for rehabilitation therapy services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries, administrative or executive orders and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially adversely affect the rates and frequency at which these programs reimburse us for our services. For example, the Medicaid Integrity Contractor (MIC) program is increasing

17


the scrutiny placed on Medicaid payments, and could result in recoupments of alleged overpayments in an effort to rein in Medicaid spending. The Mid-Session Review of the presidential budget submitted for federal fiscal year 2010 included, through federal fiscal year 2014, $490.0 million in savings from improving “Medicare and Medicaid program integrity”, and another $175.0 million in Medicaid savings through implementation of coding edits to ensure “appropriate Medicaid payments.” It is uncertain what proportion of these estimated cost savings will come from recoupments against long-term care facilities. However, despite the savings projected from effectively reducing payments to Medicaid providers, the Mid-Session Review of the presidential budget submitted for federal fiscal year 2010 also included an outlay of $1.5 billion for Medicaid spending through federal fiscal year 2014, with a net increase in Medicaid outlays of $48.0 billion during the same time period. The federal share of current law Medicaid outlays is expected to be $248.0 billion, a $26.0 billion increase over projected fiscal year 2009 spending. Some of the projected increases in Medicaid outlays are pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, which contained several temporary measures expected to increase Medicaid expenditures. In order to qualify for increases in Medicaid matching funds from the federal government, states must refrain from implementing eligibility standards, methodologies or procedures that are more restrictive than those in effect as of July 1, 2008. Implementation of these and other measures to reduce or delay reimbursement could result in substantial reductions in our revenue and profitability. Payors may disallow our requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain costs are not reimbursable or reasonable because either adequate or additional documentation was not provided or because certain services were not covered or considered reasonably necessary. Additionally, revenue from these payors can be retroactively adjusted after a new examination during the claims settlement process or as a result of post-payment audits. New legislation and regulatory proposals could impose further limitations on government payments to healthcare providers.
Our future revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be impacted by continued cost containment pressures on Medicaid spending.
Medicaid, which is largely administered by the states, is a significant payor for our skilled nursing services. Rapidly increasing Medicaid spending, combined with slow state revenue growth, has led many states to institute measures aimed at controlling spending growth. For example, in February 2009, the California legislature approved a new budget to help relieve a $42 billion budget deficit. The budget package was signed after months of negotiation, during which time California's governor declared a fiscal state of emergency in California. The new budget implements spending cuts in several areas, including Medi-Cal spending. Some of the spending cuts are triggered only if an inadequate amount of federal funding is received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 described above. Further, California initially had extended its cost-based Medi-Cal long-term care reimbursement system enacted through Assembly Bill 1629 (A.B.1629) through the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years with a growth rate of up to five percent for both years. However, due to California's severe budget crisis, in July 2009, the State passed a budget-balancing proposal that eliminated this five percent growth cap by amending the current statute to provide that, for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years, the weighted average Medi-Cal reimbursement rate paid to long-term care facilities shall not exceed the weighted average Medi-Cal reimbursement rate for the 2008-2009 rate year. In addition, the budget proposal increased the amounts that California nursing facilities will pay to Medi-Cal in quality assurance fees for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 rate years by including Medicare revenue in the calculation of the quality assurance fee that nursing facilities pay under A.B. 1629. Although overall reimbursement from Medi-Cal remained stable, individual facility rates varied.
California's Governor signed the budget trailer into law in October 2010. Despite its enactment, these changes in reimbursement to long-term care facilities will be implemented retroactively to the beginning of the calendar quarter in which California submitted its request for federal approval of CMS. Most recently, on January 10, 2011, the California Governor proposed a budget for 2011-2012 which proposes to reduce Medi-Cal provider payments by 10%, including payments to long-term care facilities. Because state legislatures control the amount of state funding for Medicaid programs, cuts or delays in approval of such funding by legislatures could reduce the amount of, or cause a delay in, payment from Medicaid to skilled nursing facilities. Since a significant portion of our revenue is generated from our skilled nursing operations in California, these budget reductions, if approved, could adversely affect our net patient service revenue and profitability. We expect continuing cost containment pressures on Medicaid outlays for skilled nursing facilities, and any such decline could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
To generate funds to pay for the increasing costs of the Medicaid program, many states utilize financial arrangements such as provider taxes. Under provider tax arrangements, states collect taxes or fees from healthcare providers and then return the revenue to these providers as Medicaid expenditures. Congress, however, has placed restrictions on states' use of provider tax and donation programs as a source of state matching funds. Under the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, the federal medical assistance percentage available to a state was reduced by the total amount of healthcare related taxes that the state imposed, unless certain requirements are met. The federal medical assistance percentage is not reduced if the state taxes are broad-based and not

18


applied specifically to Medicaid reimbursed services. In addition, the healthcare providers receiving Medicaid reimbursement must be at risk for the amount of tax assessed and must not be guaranteed to receive reimbursement through the applicable state Medicaid program for the tax assessed. Lower Medicaid reimbursement rates would adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Our hospice operations are subject to annual Medicare caps calculated by Medicare. If such caps were to be exceeded by any of our hospice providers, our business and consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.
With respect to our hospice operations, overall payments made by Medicare to each provider number are subject to an inpatient cap amount and an overall payment cap, which are calculated and published by the Medicare fiscal intermediary on an annual basis covering the period from November 1 through October 31. If payments received by any one of our hospice provider numbers exceeds either of these caps, we may be required to reimburse Medicare for payments received in excess of the caps, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Skilled nursing facilities are required to perform consolidated billing for certain items and services furnished to patients and residents. The consolidated billing requirement essentially confers on the skilled nursing facility itself the Medicare billing responsibility for the entire package of care that its residents receive in these situations. The BBA also affected skilled nursing facility payments by requiring that post-hospitalization skilled nursing services be “bundled” into the hospital's Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) payment in certain circumstances. Where this rule applies, the hospital and the skilled nursing facility must, in effect, divide the payment which otherwise would have been paid to the hospital alone for the patient's treatment, and no additional funds are paid by Medicare for skilled nursing care of the patient. At present, this provision applies to a limited number of DRGs, but already is apparently having a negative effect on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments, either because hospitals are finding it difficult to place patients in skilled nursing facilities which will not be paid as before or because hospitals are reluctant to discharge the patients to skilled nursing facilities and lose part of their payment. This bundling requirement could be extended to more DRGs in the future, which would accentuate the negative impact on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments. We may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing, which could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.
Reforms to the U.S. healthcare system will impose new requirements upon us and may lower our reimbursements.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Reconciliation Act) were recently enacted as new laws. These new laws include sweeping changes to how health care is paid for and furnished in the United States.
PPACA, as modified by the Reconciliation Act, is projected to expand access to Medicaid for approximately 16 million additional people. It also reduces the projected growth of Medicare by $500 billion over ten years by tying payments to providers more closely to quality outcomes. It also imposes new obligations on skilled nursing facilities, requiring them to disclose information regarding ownership, expenditures and certain other information. This information will be disclosed on a website for comparison by members of the public.
To address potential fraud and abuse in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, PPACA includes provider screening and enhanced oversight periods for new providers and suppliers, as well as enhanced penalties for submitting false claims. It also provides funding for enhanced anti-fraud activities. The new law imposes enrollment moratoria in elevated risk areas by requiring providers and suppliers to establish compliance programs.
 
PPACA also provides the federal government with expanded authority to suspend payment if a provider is investigated for allegations or issues of fraud. Section 6402 of the PPACA provides that, beginning March 23, 2010, Medicare and Medicaid payments may be suspended pending a “credible investigation of fraud,” unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that good cause exists not to suspend payments. “Credible investigation of fraud” is undefined, although the Secretary must consult with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in determining whether a credible investigation of fraud exists. This suspension authority creates a new mechanism for the federal government to suspend both Medicare and Medicaid payments for allegations of fraud, independent of whether a state exercises its authority to suspend Medicaid payments pending a fraud investigation. To the extent the Secretary applies this suspension of payments provision to one of our facilities for allegations of fraud, such a suspension could adversely affect our results

19


of operations.
 
Under PPACA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish, test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies for Medicare services through a five-year, national, voluntary pilot program starting in 2013. This program will provide incentives for providers to coordinate patient care across the continuum and to be jointly accountable for an entire episode of care centered around a hospitalization. HHS will develop qualifying provider payment methods that may include bundled payments and bids from entities for episodes of care that begins three days prior to hospitalization and spans 30 days following discharge. The bundled payment will cover the costs of acute care inpatient services; physicians’ services delivered in and outside of an acute care hospital; outpatient hospital services including emergency department services; post-acute care services, including home health services, skilled nursing services; inpatient rehabilitation services; and inpatient hospital services. The payment methodology will include payment for services, such as care coordination, medication reconciliation, discharge planning and transitional care services, and other patient-centered activities. Payments for items and services cannot result in spending more than would otherwise be expended for such entities if the pilot program were not implemented. As with Medicare’s shared savings program discussed above, payment arrangements among providers on the backside of the bundled payment must take into account significant hurdles under the Anti-kickback Law, the Stark Law and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. This pilot program may expand in 2016 if expansion would reduce Medicare spending without also reducing quality of care.
 
PPACA attempts to improve the health care delivery system through incentives to enhance quality, improve beneficiary outcomes and increase value of care. One of these key delivery system reforms is the encouragement of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs will facilitate coordination and cooperation among providers to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries and reduce unnecessary costs. Participating ACOs that meet specified quality performance standards will be eligible to receive a share of any savings if the actual per capita expenditures of their assigned Medicare beneficiaries are a sufficient percentage below their specified benchmark amount. Quality performance standards will include measures in such categories as clinical processes and outcomes of care, patient experience and utilization of services.
In addition, on October 1, 2010, the next generation of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 was implemented, creating significant changes in the methodology for calculating the RUGS category under Medicare Part A, most notably eliminating Section T. Because therapy does not necessarily begin upon admission, MDS 2.0 and the RUGS-III system included a provision to capture therapy services that are scheduled to occur but have not yet been provided in order to calculate a RUG level that better reflects the level of care the recipient would actually receive. This is eliminated with MDS 3.0, which creates a new category of assessment called the Medicare Short Stay Assessment. This assessment provides for calculation of a rehabilitation RUG for residents discharged on or before day eight who received less than five days of therapy.
We cannot predict what effect these changes will have on our business, including the demand for our services or the amount of reimbursement available for those services. However, it is possible these new laws may lower reimbursement and adversely affect our business.
Increased competition for, or a shortage of, nurses and other skilled personnel could increase our staffing and labor costs and subject us to monetary fines.
Our success depends upon our ability to retain and attract nurses, Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) and therapists. Our success also depends upon our ability to retain and attract skilled management personnel who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of each of our facilities. Each facility has a facility leader responsible for the overall day-to-day operations of the facility, including quality of care, social services and financial performance. Depending upon the size of the facility, each facility leader is supported by facility staff that is directly responsible for day-to-day care of the patients and marketing and community outreach programs. Other key positions supporting each facility may include individuals responsible for physical, occupational and speech therapy, food service and maintenance. We compete with various healthcare service providers, including other skilled nursing providers, in retaining and attracting qualified and skilled personnel.
We operate one or more skilled nursing facilities in the states of California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. With the exception of Utah, which follows federal regulations, each of these states has established minimum staffing requirements for facilities operating in that state. Failure to comply with these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with the conditions of participation under relevant state and federal healthcare programs. In addition, if a facility is determined to be out of compliance with these requirements, it may be subject to a notice of deficiency, a citation, or a significant fine or litigation risk. For example, we are aware of one

20


company in our industry that is subject to a substantial judgment as a result of not complying with minimum staffing laws. Deficiencies may also result in the suspension of patient admissions and/or the termination of Medicaid participation, or the suspension, revocation or nonrenewal of the skilled nursing facility's license. If the federal or state governments were to issue regulations which materially change the way compliance with the minimum staffing standard is calculated or enforced, our labor costs could increase and the current shortage of healthcare workers could impact us more significantly.
Increased competition for or a shortage of nurses or other trained personnel, or general inflationary pressures may require that we enhance our pay and benefits packages to compete effectively for such personnel. We may not be able to offset such added costs by increasing the rates we charge to our patients. Turnover rates and the magnitude of the shortage of nurses or other trained personnel vary substantially from facility to facility. An increase in costs associated with, or a shortage of, skilled nurses, could negatively impact our business. In addition, if we fail to attract and retain qualified and skilled personnel, our ability to conduct our business operations effectively would be harmed.
We are subject to various government reviews, audits and investigations that could adversely affect our business, including an obligation to refund amounts previously paid to us, potential criminal charges, the imposition of fines, and/or the loss of our right to participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
 
As a result of our participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, we are subject to various governmental reviews, audits and investigations to verify our compliance with these programs and applicable laws and regulations. Private pay sources also reserve the right to conduct audits. We believe that billing and reimbursement errors and disagreements are common in our industry. We are regularly engaged in reviews, audits and appeals of our claims for reimbursement due to the subjectivities inherent in the process related to patient diagnosis and care, record keeping, claims processing and other aspects of the patient service and reimbursement processes, and the errors and disagreements those subjectivities can produce. An adverse review, audit or investigation could result in:
 
•    
an obligation to refund amounts previously paid to us pursuant to the Medicare or Medicaid programs or from private payors, in amounts that could be material to our business;
 
•    
state or federal agencies imposing fines, penalties and other sanctions on us;
 
•    
loss of our right to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs or one or more private payor networks;
 
•    
an increase in private litigation against us; and
 
•    
damage to our reputation in various markets.
In 2004, one of our Medicare fiscal intermediaries began to conduct selected reviews of claims previously submitted by and paid to some of our facilities. While we have always been subject to post-payment audits and reviews, more intensive “probe reviews” appear to be a permanent procedure with our fiscal intermediary. Although some of these probe reviews identified patient miscoding, documentation deficiencies and other errors in our recordkeeping and Medicare billing, these errors resulted in no Medicare revenue recoupment, net of appeal recoveries, to the federal government and related resident copayments. As of December 31, 2010, we had one facility under probe review.
If the government or court were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies constituted criminal violations, or were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies resulted in the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs, or if it were to discover other problems in addition to the ones identified by the probe reviews that rose to actionable levels, we and certain of our officers might face potential criminal charges and/or civil claims, administrative sanctions and penalties for amounts that could be material to our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we and/or some of our key personnel could be temporarily or permanently excluded from future participation in state and federal healthcare reimbursement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. In any event, it is likely that a governmental investigation alone, regardless of its outcome, would divert material time, resources and attention from our management team and our staff, and could have a materially detrimental impact on our results of operations during and after any such investigation or proceedings.
In some cases, probe reviews can also result in a facility being temporarily placed on prepayment review of reimbursement claims, requiring additional documentation and adding steps and time to the reimbursement process for the affected facility. Failure to meet claim filing and documentation requirements during the prepayment review could subject a facility to an even more intensive “targeted review,” where a corrective action plan addressing perceived deficiencies must be prepared by the facility and approved by the fiscal intermediary. During a targeted review, additional claims are

21


reviewed pre-payment to ensure that the prescribed corrective actions are being followed. Failure to make corrections or to otherwise meet the claim documentation and submission requirements could eventually result in Medicare decertification. None of our operations are currently on prepayment review, although some may be placed on prepayment review in the future. We have no operations that are currently undergoing targeted review.
Separately, in 2006, the federal government introduced a program that utilizes independent contractors (other than the fiscal intermediaries) known as recovery audit contractors to identify and recoup Medicare overpayments. These recovery audit contractors are paid a contingent fee based on recoupments. In October 2008, this program was permanently implemented and from 2008 to the end of 2010 the program was expanded to all 50 states. We anticipate that the number of overpayment reviews will increase in the future, and that the reviewers could be more aggressive in making claims for recoupment. In 2006, one of our facilities was subjected to review under this program, resulting in a recoupment to the federal government of approximately $12,000. If future Medicare reviews result in significant refund payments to the federal government, it would have an adverse effect on our financial results.
Annual caps that limit the amounts that can be paid for outpatient therapy services rendered to any Medicare beneficiary may reduce our future revenue and profitability or cause us to incur losses.
Some of our rehabilitation therapy revenue is paid by the Medicare Part B program under a fee schedule. Congress has established annual caps that limit the amounts that can be paid (including deductible and coinsurance amounts) for rehabilitation therapy services rendered to any Medicare beneficiary under Medicare Part B. The BBA requires a combined cap for physical therapy and speech-language pathology and a separate cap for occupational therapy.
The DRA directs Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a process to allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services provided on or after January 1, 2006 for patients with certain conditions or multiple complexities whose therapy services are reimbursed under Medicare Part B. A significant portion of the residents in our skilled nursing facilities and patients served by our rehabilitation therapy programs whose therapy is reimbursed under Medicare Part B have qualified for the exceptions to these reimbursement caps. DRA added Sec. 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act and directed them to develop a process that allows exceptions for Medicare beneficiaries to therapy caps when continued therapy is deemed medically necessary. The therapy cap exception was reauthorized in a number of subsequent laws, most recently as part of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, which extends the exceptions process through December 31, 2011.
The application of annual caps, or the discontinuation of exceptions to the annual caps, could have an adverse effect on our rehabilitation therapy revenue. Additionally, the exceptions to these caps may not be extended beyond December 31, 2011, which could also have an adverse effect on our revenue after that date.
We are subject to extensive and complex federal and state government laws and regulations which could change at any time and increase our cost of doing business and subject us to enforcement actions.
 
We, along with other companies in the healthcare industry, are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things:
 
•    
facility and professional licensure, certificates of need, permits and other government approvals;
 
•    
adequacy and quality of healthcare services;
 
•    
qualifications of healthcare and support personnel;
 
•    
quality of medical equipment;
 
•    
confidentiality, maintenance and security issues associated with medical records and claims processing;
 
•    
relationships with physicians and other referral sources and recipients;
 
•    
constraints on protective contractual provisions with patients and third-party payors;
 
•    
operating policies and procedures;
 
•    
certification of additional facilities by the Medicare program; and

22


 
•    
payment for services.
The laws and regulations governing our operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how we do business, the services we offer, and our interactions with patients and other healthcare providers. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent change. We believe that such regulations may increase in the future and we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or impact on us of any healthcare reform legislation. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or the enactment of new laws or regulations, could negatively impact our business. If we fail to comply with these applicable laws and regulations, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties and other detrimental consequences, including denial of reimbursement, imposition of fines, temporary suspension of admission of new patients, suspension or decertification from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, restrictions on our ability to acquire new facilities or expand or operate existing facilities, the loss of our licenses to operate and the loss of our ability to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs.
We are subject to federal and state laws, such as the Federal False Claims Act, state false claims acts, the illegal remuneration provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal anti-kickback laws, state anti-kickback laws, and the federal “Stark” laws, that govern financial and other arrangements among healthcare providers, their owners, vendors and referral sources, and that are intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse. Among other things, these laws prohibit kickbacks, bribes and rebates, as well as other direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements that are designed to induce the referral of patients to a particular provider for medical products or services payable by any federal healthcare program, and prohibit presenting a false or misleading claim for payment under a federal or state program. They also prohibit some physician self-referrals. Possible sanctions for violation of any of these restrictions or prohibitions include loss of eligibility to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs and civil and criminal penalties. Changes in these laws could increase our cost of doing business. If we fail to comply, even inadvertently, with any of these requirements, we could be required to alter our operations, refund payments to the government, enter into corporate integrity, deferred prosecution or similar agreements with state or federal government agencies, and become subject to significant civil and criminal penalties.
In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
We are also required to comply with state and federal laws governing the transmission, privacy and security of health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires us to comply with certain standards for the use of individually identifiable health information within our company, and the disclosure and electronic transmission of such information to third parties, such as payors, business associates and patients. These include standards for common electronic healthcare transactions and information, such as claim submission, plan eligibility determination, payment information submission and the use of electronic signatures; unique identifiers for providers, employers and health plans; and the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information. In addition, some states have enacted comparable or, in some cases, more stringent privacy and security laws. If we fail to comply with these state and federal laws, we could be subject to criminal penalties and civil sanctions and be forced to modify our policies and procedures.
Our failure to obtain or renew required regulatory approvals or licenses or to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the suspension or revocation of our licenses or our disqualification from participation in federal and state reimbursement programs, or the imposition of other harsh enforcement sanctions could increase our cost of doing business and expose us to potential sanctions. Furthermore, if we were to lose licenses or certifications for any of our facilities as a result of regulatory action or otherwise, we could be deemed to be in default under some of our agreements, including agreements governing outstanding indebtedness and lease obligations.

23


Legislative reforms to investor and customer standards will impose new requirements upon us and increase our costs of doing business.
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1.0 million in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”
Increased civil and criminal enforcement efforts of government agencies against skilled nursing facilities could harm our business, and could preclude us from participating in federal healthcare programs.
 
Both federal and state government agencies have heightened and coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts as part of numerous ongoing investigations of healthcare companies and, in particular, skilled nursing facilities. The focus of these investigations includes, among other things:
 
•    
cost reporting and billing practices;
 
•    
quality of care;
 
•    
financial relationships with referral sources; and
 
•    
medical necessity of services provided.
 
If any of our facilities is decertified or loses its licenses, our revenue, financial condition or results of operations would be adversely affected. In addition, the report of such issues at any of our facilities could harm our reputation for quality care and lead to a reduction in our patient referrals and ultimately a reduction in occupancy at these facilities. Also, responding to enforcement efforts would divert material time, resources and attention from our management team and our staff, and could have a materially detrimental impact on our results of operations during and after any such investigation or proceedings, regardless of whether we prevail on the underlying claim.
 
Federal law provides that practitioners, providers and related persons may not participate in most federal healthcare programs, including the Medicaid and Medicare programs, if the individual or entity has been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of a product or service under these programs or if the individual or entity has been convicted under state or federal law of a criminal offense relating to neglect or abuse of patients in connection with the delivery of a healthcare product or service. Other individuals or entities may be, but are not required to be, excluded from such programs under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:
 
•    
medical necessity of services provided;
 
•    
conviction related to fraud;
 
•    
conviction relating to obstruction of an investigation;
 
•    
conviction relating to a controlled substance;
 
•    
licensure revocation or suspension;
 
•    
exclusion or suspension from state or other federal healthcare programs;
 
•    
filing claims for excessive charges or unnecessary services or failure to furnish medically necessary services;
 
•    
ownership or control of an entity by an individual who has been excluded from the Medicaid or Medicare programs, against whom a civil monetary penalty related to the Medicaid or Medicare programs has been assessed or who has been convicted of a criminal offense under federal healthcare programs; and
 

24


•    
the transfer of ownership or control interest in an entity to an immediate family or household member in anticipation of, or following, a conviction, assessment or exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The OIG, among other priorities, is responsible for identifying and eliminating fraud, abuse and waste in certain federal healthcare programs. The OIG has implemented a nationwide program of audits, inspections and investigations and from time to time issues “fraud alerts” to segments of the healthcare industry on particular practices that are vulnerable to abuse. The fraud alerts inform healthcare providers of potentially abusive practices or transactions that are subject to criminal activity and reportable to the OIG. An increasing level of resources has been devoted to the investigation of allegations of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and federal and state regulatory authorities are taking an increasingly strict view of the requirements imposed on healthcare providers by the Social Security Act and Medicaid and Medicare programs. Although we have created a corporate compliance program that we believe is consistent with the OIG guidelines, the OIG may modify its guidelines or interpret its guidelines in a manner inconsistent with our interpretation or the OIG may ultimately determine that our corporate compliance program is insufficient.
In some circumstances, if one facility is convicted of abusive or fraudulent behavior, then other facilities under common control or ownership may be decertified from participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs. Federal regulations prohibit any corporation or facility from participating in federal contracts if it or its principals have been barred, suspended or declared ineligible from participating in federal contracts. In addition, some state regulations provide that all facilities under common control or ownership licensed within a state may be de-licensed if one or more of the facilities are de-licensed. If any of our facilities were decertified or excluded from participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs, our revenue would be adversely affected.
 
In December 2010, the OIG released a report entitled “Questionable Billing by Skilled Nursing Facilities.” The report examined the billing practices of skilled nursing facilities based on Medicare Part A claims from 2006 to 2008 and found, among other things, that for-profit skilled nursing facilities were more likely to bill for higher paying therapy RUGs, particularly in the ultra high therapy categories, than government and not-for-profit operators. It also found that for-profit skilled nursing facilities showed a higher incidence of patients using RUGs with higher activities of daily living (ADL) scores, and had a “long” average length of stay among Part A beneficiaries, compared to their government and not-for-profit counterparts. The OIG recommended that CMS vigilantly monitor overall payments to skilled nursing facilities, adjust RUG rates annually, change the method for determining how much therapy is needed to ensure appropriate payments and conduct additional reviews for skilled nursing operators that exceed certain thresholds for higher paying therapy RUGs. CMS concurred with and agreed to take action on three of the four recommendations, declining only to change the methodology for assessing a patient's therapy needs. While the OIG report does not identify any particular skilled nursing operators, it indicated that the OIG would issue a separate memorandum to CMS listing 384 specific facilities that the OIG had identified as being in the top one percent for use of ultra high therapy, RUGs with high ADL scores, or “long” average lengths of stay, and CMS agreed to forward the list to the appropriate fiscal intermediaries or other contractors for follow up. Although we believe our therapy assessment and billing practices are consistent with applicable law and CMS requirements, we cannot predict the extent to which the OIGs recommendations to CMS will be implemented and, what effect, if any, such proposals would have on us. We are not aware of the identity of any facility that may have been listed for further review by the OIG or referred to the fiscal intermediaries or other contractors by CMS, and do not know if the OIG list includes any Ensign facility. Our business model, like those of some other for-profit operators, is based in part on seeking out higher-acuity patients whom we believe are generally more profitable, and over time our overall patient mix has consistently shifted to higher-acuity and higher-RUGs patients in most facilities we operate. We also use specialized care-delivery software that assists our caregivers in more accurately capturing and recording ADL services in order to, among other things, increase reimbursement to levels appropriate for the care actually delivered. These efforts may place us under greater scrutiny with the OIG, CMS, our fiscal intermediaries, recovery audit contractors and others, as well as other government agencies, unions, advocacy groups and others who seek to pursue their own mandates and agendas. Efforts by officials and others to make or advocate for any increase in regulatory monitoring and oversight, adversely change RUG rates, revise methodologies for assessing and treating patients, or conduct more frequent or intense reviews of our treatment and billing practices, could reduce our reimbursement, increase our costs of doing business and otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Public and governmental calls for increased survey and enforcement efforts against long-term care facilities could result in increased scrutiny by state and federal survey agencies.
CMS has undertaken several initiatives to increase or intensify Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, including federal oversight of state actions. CMS is taking steps to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to identify multi-facility providers with patterns of noncompliance. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services has adopted a rule that requires CMS to charge user fees to healthcare facilities cited during regular certification, recertification or

25


substantiated complaint surveys for deficiencies, which require a revisit to assure that corrections have been made. CMS is also increasing its oversight of state survey agencies and requiring state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified, to investigate complaints more promptly, and to survey facilities more consistently.
In addition, CMS has adopted, and is considering additional regulations expanding federal and state authority to impose civil monetary penalties in instances of noncompliance. When a facility is found to be deficient under state licensing and Medicaid and Medicare standards, sanctions may be threatened or imposed such as denial of payment for new Medicaid and Medicare admissions, civil monetary penalties, focused state and federal oversight and even loss of eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare participation or state licensure. Sanctions such as denial of payment for new admissions often are scheduled to go into effect before surveyors return to verify compliance. Generally, if the surveyors confirm that the facility is in compliance upon their return, the sanctions never take effect. However, if they determine that the facility is not in compliance, the denial of payment goes into effect retroactive to the date given in the original notice. This possibility sometimes leaves affected operators, including us, with the difficult task of deciding whether to continue accepting patients after the potential denial of payment date, thus risking the retroactive denial of revenue associated with those patients' care if the operators are later found to be out of compliance, or simply refusing admissions from the potential denial of payment date until the facility is actually found to be in compliance.
Facilities with otherwise acceptable regulatory histories generally are given an opportunity to correct deficiencies and continue their participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs by a certain date, usually within nine months, although where denial of payment remedies are asserted, such interim remedies go into effect much sooner. Facilities with deficiencies that immediately jeopardize patient health and safety and those that are classified as poor performing facilities, however, are not generally given an opportunity to correct their deficiencies prior to the imposition of remedies and other enforcement actions. Moreover, facilities with poor regulatory histories continue to be classified by CMS as poor performing facilities notwithstanding any intervening change in ownership, unless the new owner obtains a new Medicare provider agreement instead of assuming the facility's existing agreement. However, new owners (including us, historically) nearly always assume the existing Medicare provider agreement due to the difficulty and time delays generally associated with obtaining new Medicare certifications, especially in previously-certified locations with sub-par operating histories. Accordingly, facilities that have poor regulatory histories before we acquire them and that develop new deficiencies after we acquire them are more likely to have sanctions imposed upon them by CMS or state regulators. In addition, CMS has increased its focus on facilities with a history of serious quality of care problems through the special focus facility initiative. A facility's administrators and owners are notified when it is identified as a special focus facility. This information is also provided to the general public. The special focus facility designation is based in part on the facility's compliance history typically dating before our acquisition of the facility. Local state survey agencies recommend to CMS that facilities be placed on special focus status. A special focus facility receives heightened scrutiny and more frequent regulatory surveys. Failure to improve the quality of care can result in fines and termination from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. A facility “graduates” from the program once it demonstrates significant improvements in quality of care that are continued over time. We have had several facilities placed on special focus facility status, due largely or entirely to their respective regulatory histories prior to our acquisition of the operations, and have successfully graduated four facilities from the program to date. We currently have two facilities operating under special focus status.
State efforts to regulate or deregulate the healthcare services industry or the construction or expansion of healthcare facilities could impair our ability to expand our operations, or could result in increased competition.
 
Some states require healthcare providers, including skilled nursing facilities, to obtain prior approval, known as a certificate of need, for:
 
•    
the purchase, construction or expansion of healthcare facilities;
 
•    
capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount; or
 
•    
changes in services or bed capacity.
In addition, other states that do not require certificates of need have effectively barred the expansion of existing facilities and the development of new ones by placing partial or complete moratoria on the number of new Medicaid beds they will certify in certain areas or in the entire state. Other states have established such stringent development standards and approval procedures for constructing new healthcare facilities that the construction of new facilities, or the expansion or renovation of existing facilities, may become cost-prohibitive or extremely time-consuming. Our ability to acquire or construct new facilities or expand or provide new services at existing facilities would be adversely affected if we are unable

26


to obtain the necessary approvals, if there are changes in the standards applicable to those approvals, or if we experience delays and increased expenses associated with obtaining those approvals. We may not be able to obtain licensure, certificate of need approval, Medicaid certification, or other necessary approvals for future expansion projects. Conversely, the elimination or reduction of state regulations that limit the construction, expansion or renovation of new or existing facilities could result in increased competition to us or result in overbuilding of facilities in some of our markets. If overbuilding in the skilled nursing industry in the markets in which we operate were to occur, it could reduce the occupancy rates of existing facilities and, in some cases, might reduce the private rates that we charge for our services.
Changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could increase our cost of doing business.
Our operations are subject to a variety of federal and state employment-related laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act which governs such matters as minimum wages, overtime and other working conditions, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar state laws that provide civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the context of employment, public accommodations and other areas, the National Labor Relations Act, regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regulations of the Office of Civil Rights, regulations of state Attorneys General, family leave mandates and a variety of similar laws enacted by the federal and state governments that govern these and other employment law matters. Because labor represents such a large portion of our operating costs, changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could increase our cost of doing business.
The compliance costs associated with these laws and evolving regulations could be substantial. For example, all of our facilities are required to comply with the ADA. The ADA has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial properties,” but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of government fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Further legislation may impose additional burdens or restrictions with respect to access by disabled persons. In addition, federal proposals to introduce a system of mandated health insurance and flexible work time and other similar initiatives could, if implemented, adversely affect our operations. We also may be subject to employee-related claims such as wrongful discharge, discrimination or violation of equal employment law. While we are insured for these types of claims, we could experience damages that are not covered by our insurance policies or that exceed our insurance limits, and we may be required to pay such damages directly, which would negatively impact our cash flow from operations.
Compliance with federal and state fair housing, fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unanticipated expenditures, which could be costly to us.
We must comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws, which prohibit us from discriminating against individuals if it would cause such individuals to face barriers in gaining residency in any of our facilities. Additionally, the Fair Housing Act and other similar state laws require that we advertise our services in such a way that we promote diversity and not limit it. We may be required, among other things, to change our marketing techniques to comply with these requirements.
In addition, we are required to operate our facilities in compliance with applicable fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations and food licensing or certification requirements as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies from time to time. Like other healthcare facilities, our skilled nursing facilities are subject to periodic surveys or inspections by governmental authorities to assess and assure compliance with regulatory requirements. Surveys occur on a regular (often annual or biannual) schedule, and special surveys may result from a specific complaint filed by a patient, a family member or one of our competitors. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements.
We depend largely upon reimbursement from third-party payors, and our revenue, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted by any changes in the acuity mix of patients in our facilities as well as payor mix and payment methodologies.
Our revenue is affected by the percentage of our patients who require a high level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, and by our mix of payment sources. Changes in the acuity level of patients we attract, as well as our payor mix among Medicaid, Medicare, private payors and managed care companies, significantly affect our profitability because we generally receive higher reimbursement rates for high acuity patients and because the payors reimburse us at different rates. For the year ended December 31, 2010, 76.4% of our revenue was provided by government payors that reimburse us at predetermined rates. If our labor or other operating costs increase, we will be unable to recover such increased costs from government payors. Accordingly, if we fail to maintain our

27


proportion of high acuity patients or if there is any significant increase in the percentage of our patients for whom we receive Medicaid reimbursement, our results of operations may be adversely affected.
Initiatives undertaken by major insurers and managed care companies to contain healthcare costs may adversely affect our business. These payors attempt to control healthcare costs by contracting with healthcare providers to obtain services on a discounted basis. We believe that this trend will continue and may limit reimbursements for healthcare services. If insurers or managed care companies from whom we receive substantial payments were to reduce the amounts they pay for services, we may lose patients if we choose not to renew our contracts with these insurers at lower rates.
Compliance with state and federal employment, immigration, licensing and other laws could increase our cost of doing business.
We have hired personnel, including skilled nurses and therapists, from outside the United States. If immigration laws are changed, or if new and more restrictive government regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security are enacted, our access to qualified and skilled personnel may be limited.
We operate in at least one state that requires us to verify employment eligibility using procedures and standards that exceed those required under federal Form I-9 and the statutes and regulations related thereto. Proposed federal regulations would extend similar requirements to all of the states in which our facilities operate. To the extent that such proposed regulations or similar measures become effective, and we are required by state or federal authorities to verify work authorization or legal residence for current and prospective employees beyond existing Form I-9 requirements and other statutes and regulations currently in effect, it may make it more difficult for us to recruit, hire and/or retain qualified employees, may increase our risk of non-compliance with state and federal employment, immigration, licensing and other laws and regulations and could increase our cost of doing business.
We are subject to litigation that could result in significant legal costs and large settlement amounts or damage awards.
The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of our patients and residents and the services we provide. We and others in our industry are subject to a large and increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that our services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The defense of these lawsuits has in the past, and may in the future, result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. Plaintiffs tend to sue every healthcare provider who may have been involved in the patient's care and, accordingly, we respond to multiple lawsuits and claims every year.
In addition, plaintiffs' attorneys have become increasingly more aggressive in their pursuit of claims against healthcare providers, including skilled nursing providers and other long-term care companies, and have employed a wide variety of advertising and publicity strategies. Among other things, these strategies include establishing their own Internet websites, paying for premium advertising space on other websites, paying Internet search engines to optimize their plaintiff solicitation advertising so that it appears in advantageous positions on Internet search results, including results from searches for our company and facilities, using newspaper, magazine and television ads targeted at customers of the healthcare industry generally, as well as at customers of specific providers, including us. From time to time, law firms claiming to specialize in long-term care litigation have named us, our facilities and other specific healthcare providers and facilities in their advertising and solicitation materials. These advertising and solicitation activities could result in more claims and litigation, which could increase our liability exposure and legal expenses, divert the time and attention of our personnel from day-to-day business operations, and materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, to the extent the frequency and/or severity of losses from such claims and suits increases, our liability insurance premiums could increase and/or available insurance coverage levels could decline, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Certain lawsuits filed on behalf of patients of long-term care facilities for alleged negligence and/or alleged abuses have resulted in large damage awards against other companies, both in and related to our industry. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of class action suits filed against long-term and rehabilitative care companies. For example, the State of California has established minimum staffing requirements for facilities operating in the state. Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with the conditions of participation as established under relevant state and federal healthcare programs; it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a citation, civil money penalty, or the possibility of litigation. We are aware of one company in our industry that is subject to a substantial judgment in a class action suit as a result of not complying with minimum staffing laws.

28


 
A class action suit was previously filed against us in the State of California alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of our California facilities. In 2007, we settled this class action suit and this settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court. We have been, and continue to be, subject to similar claims and legal actions, which could possibly result in large damage awards and settlements. In the wake of the substantial judgment awarded by a jury to a group of plaintiffs in a recent case against one of our competitors, we expect that plaintiff's attorneys will become increasingly more aggressive in their pursuit of claims alleging non-compliance with such requirements. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of any known such action will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. However, if there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could have a material adverse effect to our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, we contract with a variety of landlords, lenders, vendors, suppliers, consultants and other individuals and businesses. These contracts typically contain covenants and default provisions. If the other party to one or more of our contracts were to allege that we have violated the contract terms, we could be subject to civil liabilities which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
 
Were litigation to be instituted against one or more of our subsidiaries, a successful plaintiff might attempt to hold us or another subsidiary liable for the alleged wrongdoing of the subsidiary principally targeted by the litigation. If a court in such litigation decided to disregard the corporate form, the resulting judgment could increase our liability and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
 
On February 26, 2009, Congress reintroduced the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009. After failing to be enacted into law in the 110th Congress in 2008, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009 was introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the House and Senate judiciary committees in March 2009. The 111th Congress did not pass the bill and therefore has been cleared from the present agenda. We anticipate this bill will be reintroduced in the 112th Congress in 2011. If enacted, this bill would require, among other things, that agreements to arbitrate nursing home disputes be made after the dispute has arisen rather than before prospective residents move in, to prevent nursing home operators and prospective residents from mutually entering into a pre-admission pre-dispute arbitration agreement. We use arbitration agreements, which have generally been favored by the courts, to streamline the dispute resolution process and reduce our exposure to legal fees and excessive jury awards. If we are not able to secure pre-admission arbitration agreements, our litigation exposure and costs of defense in patient liability actions could increase, our liability insurance premiums could increase, and our business may be adversely affected.
The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation into the billing and reimbursement processes of some of our operating subsidiaries, which could adversely affect our operations and financial condition.
In March 2007, we and certain of our officers received a series of notices from our bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to our bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. Subsequently, in June of 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of our current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both we and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
On December 17, 2007, we were informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of our operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed our previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of our operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of our 82 facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. We also continue to sporadically receive anecdotal reports of former employees who have been contacted by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's office. Based on these events, we believe that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of our skilled nursing facilities.

29


Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) served search warrants on our Service Center and six of our Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. We have worked with the U.S. Attorney's office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. We and our regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney's office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office, and intend to continue working with them to the extent they will allow us to help move their inquiry forward. To our knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of its operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. We cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any qui tam litigation that may follow, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, we have not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a qui tam relator who elects to pursue the matter, and we are subjected to or alleged to be liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
We conducted an internal investigation into the billing and reimbursement processes of some of our operating subsidiaries. Future reviews could result in additional billing and reimbursement noncompliance, which would also decrease our revenue.
We initiated an internal investigation in November 2006 when we became aware of an allegation of possible reimbursement irregularities at one or more of our facilities. This investigation focused on 12 facilities, and included all six of the facilities which were covered by the warrants served in December 2008. We retained outside counsel to assist us in looking into these matters. We and our outside counsel concluded this investigation in February 2008 without identifying any systemic or patterns and practices of fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We made observations at certain facilities regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our recordkeeping and billing practices and have implemented measures, some of which were already underway before the investigation began, that we believe will strengthen our recordkeeping and billing processes. None of these additional findings or observations appears to be rooted in fraudulent or intentional misconduct. We continue to evaluate the measures we have implemented for effectiveness, and we are continuing to seek ways to improve these processes.
As a byproduct of our investigation we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located or for which other billing deficiencies existed. We, with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing, completed a billing review on these claims. To the extent missing documentation was not located, we treated the claims as overpayments. Consistent with healthcare industry accounting practices, we record any charge for refunded payments against revenue in the period in which the claim adjustment becomes known.
From time to time our systems and controls highlight potential compliance issues, which we investigate as they arise. As a result of the detection by management at one of our facilities, and their Service Center support personnel, of possible recordkeeping and related irregularities at that facility, we initiated an internal inquiry in the second quarter of 2010.
We concluded the investigatory phase of this inquiry and completed a billing review of potentially affected claims in the third quarter of 2010. As a result of our billing reviews, we identified a limited number of selected Medicare claims for which adequate backup documentation could not be located, or for which other billing deficiencies existed. Where accepted procedures and necessary data for reviewing and calculating potential overpayments were available, we followed such procedures and completed a billing review. Where such procedures and/or data were not available we developed a methodology for making a good faith estimate of potential overpayments with the assistance of independent consultants experienced in Medicare billing. The issues detected appear to be isolated to one facility and one department within that facility. During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, we remitted payment of approximately $0.5 million, plus interest, for the estimated overpayments described above, with a resulting impact to net income of approximately $0.3 million.
 
In addition, we made observations at the facility regarding areas of potential improvement in some of our historical recordkeeping and billing practices and have identified measures, some of which had already been implemented

30


before the inquiry began, that we believe have strengthened, and can strengthen further, our recordkeeping and billing processes.
 
If additional reviews result in identification and quantification of additional amounts to be refunded, we would accrue additional liabilities for claim costs and interest, and repay any amounts due in normal course. If future investigations ultimately result in findings of significant billing and reimbursement noncompliance which could require us to record significant additional provisions or remit payments, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
 
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of our board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the stockholders' interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring our response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
We may be unable to complete future facility acquisitions at attractive prices or at all, which may adversely affect our revenue; we may also elect to dispose of underperforming or non-strategic operations, which would also decrease our revenue.
To date, our revenue growth has been significantly driven by our acquisition of new facilities. Subject to general market conditions and the availability of essential resources and leadership within our company, we continue to seek both single-and multi-facility acquisition opportunities that are consistent with our geographic, financial and operating objectives.
We face competition for the acquisition of facilities and expect this competition to increase. Based upon factors such as our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, the purchase price of the facilities, prevailing market conditions, the availability of leadership to manage new facilities and our own willingness to take on new operations, the rate at which we have historically acquired facilities has fluctuated significantly. In the future, we anticipate the rate at which we may acquire facilities will continue to fluctuate, which may affect our revenue.
We have also historically acquired a few facilities, either because they were included in larger, indivisible groups of facilities or under other circumstances, which were or have proven to be non-strategic or less desirable, and we may consider disposing of such facilities or exchanging them for facilities which are more desirable. To the extent we dispose of such a facility without simultaneously acquiring a facility in exchange, our revenues might decrease.
We may not be able to successfully integrate acquired facilities into our operations, and we may not achieve the benefits we expect from any of our facility acquisitions.
We may not be able to successfully or efficiently integrate new acquisitions with our existing operations, culture and systems. The process of integrating acquired facilities into our existing operations may result in unforeseen operating difficulties, divert management's attention from existing operations, or require an unexpected commitment of staff and financial resources, and may ultimately be unsuccessful. Existing facilities available for acquisition frequently serve or target different markets than those that we currently serve. We also may determine that renovations of acquired facilities and changes in staff and operating management personnel are necessary to successfully integrate those facilities into our existing operations. We may not be able to recover the costs incurred to reposition or renovate newly acquired facilities. The financial benefits we expect to realize from many of our acquisitions are largely dependent upon our ability to improve clinical performance, overcome regulatory deficiencies, rehabilitate or improve the reputation of the facilities in the community, increase and maintain occupancy, control costs, and in some cases change the patient acuity mix. If we are unable to accomplish any of these objectives at facilities we acquire, we will not realize the anticipated benefits and we may experience lower than anticipated profits, or even losses.
In the year ended December 31, 2010, we acquired four skilled nursing facilities, one assisted living facility which also offers independent living services and one home health and hospice operation with a total of 650 operational beds. In 2009 we acquired twelve skilled nursing facilities, one skilled nursing facility which also offers independent living and

31


hospice services, one skilled nursing facility which also offers assisted living and independent living services and one assisted living facility with a total of 1,777 operational beds. This growth has placed and will continue to place significant demands on our current management resources. Our ability to manage our growth effectively and to successfully integrate new acquisitions into our existing business will require us to continue to expand our operational, financial and management information systems and to continue to retain, attract, train, motivate and manage key employees, including facility-level leaders and our local directors of nursing. We may not be successful in attracting qualified individuals necessary for future acquisitions to be successful, and our management team may expend significant time and energy working to attract qualified personnel to manage facilities we may acquire in the future. Also, the newly acquired facilities may require us to spend significant time improving services that have historically been substandard, and if we are unable to improve such facilities quickly enough, we may be subject to litigation and/or loss of licensure or certification. If we are not able to successfully overcome these and other integration challenges, we may not achieve the benefits we expect from any of our facility acquisitions, and our business may suffer.
In undertaking acquisitions, we may be adversely impacted by costs, liabilities and regulatory issues that may adversely affect our operations.
In undertaking acquisitions, we also may be adversely impacted by unforeseen liabilities attributable to the prior providers who operated those facilities, against whom we may have little or no recourse. Many facilities we have historically acquired were underperforming financially and had clinical and regulatory issues prior to and at the time of acquisition. Even where we have improved operations and patient care at facilities that we have acquired, we still may face post-acquisition regulatory issues related to pre-acquisition events. These may include, without limitation, payment recoupment related to our predecessors' prior noncompliance, the imposition of fines, penalties, operational restrictions or special regulatory status. Further, we may incur post-acquisition compliance risk due to the difficulty or impossibility of immediately or quickly bringing non-compliant facilities into full compliance. Diligence materials pertaining to acquisition targets, especially the underperforming facilities that often represent the greatest opportunity for return, are often inadequate, inaccurate or impossible to obtain, sometimes requiring us to make acquisition decisions with incomplete information. Despite our due diligence procedures, facilities that we have acquired or may acquire in the future may generate unexpectedly low returns, may cause us to incur substantial losses, may require unexpected levels of management time, expenditures or other resources, or may otherwise not meet a risk profile that our investors find acceptable. For example, in July of 2006 we acquired a facility that had a history of intermittent noncompliance. Although the facility had already been surveyed once by the local state survey agency after being acquired by us, and that survey would have met the heightened requirements of the special focus facility program, based upon the facility's compliance history prior to our acquisition, in January 2008, state officials nevertheless recommended to CMS that the facility be placed on special focus facility status. In addition, in October of 2006, we acquired a facility which had a history of intermittent non-compliance. This facility was surveyed by the local state survey agency during the third quarter of 2008 and passed the heightened survey requirements of the special focus facility program. Both facilities have successfully graduated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Special Focus program. We currently have two facilities remaining on special focus facility status.
In addition, we might encounter unanticipated difficulties and expenditures relating to any of the acquired facilities, including contingent liabilities. For example, when we acquire a facility, we generally assume the facility's existing Medicare provider number for purposes of billing Medicare for services. If CMS later determined that the prior owner of the facility had received overpayments from Medicare for the period of time during which it operated the facility, or had incurred fines in connection with the operation of the facility, CMS could hold us liable for repayment of the overpayments or fines. If the prior operator is defunct or otherwise unable to reimburse us, we may be unable to recover these funds. We may be unable to improve every facility that we acquire. In addition, operation of these facilities may divert management time and attention from other operations and priorities, negatively impact cash flows, result in adverse or unanticipated accounting charges, or otherwise damage other areas of our company if they are not timely and adequately improved.
We also incur regulatory risk in acquiring certain facilities due to the licensing, certification and other regulatory requirements affecting our right to operate the acquired facilities. For example, in order to acquire facilities on a predictable schedule, or to acquire declining operations quickly to prevent further pre-acquisition declines, we frequently acquire such facilities prior to receiving license approval or provider certification. We operate such facilities as the interim manager for the outgoing licensee, assuming financial responsibility, among other obligations for the facility. To the extent that we may be unable or delayed in obtaining a license, we may need to operate the facility under a management agreement from the prior operator. Any inability in obtaining consent from the prior operator of a target acquisition to utilizing its license in this manner could impact our ability to acquire additional facilities. If we were subsequently denied licensure or certification for any reason, we might not realize the expected benefits of the acquisition and would likely incur unanticipated costs and

32


other challenges which could cause our business to suffer.
Potential sanctions and remedies based upon alleged regulatory deficiencies could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We have received notices of potential sanctions and remedies based upon alleged regulatory deficiencies from time to time, and such sanctions have been imposed on some of our facilities. CMS has included two of our facilities on its recently released list of special focus facilities, which are described above, and other facilities may be identified for such status in the future, the sanctions for which involve increased scrutiny in the form of more frequent inspection visits from state regulators. From time to time, we have opted to voluntarily stop accepting new patients pending completion of a new state survey, in order to avoid possible denial of payment for new admissions during the deficiency cure period, or simply to avoid straining staff and other resources while retraining staff, upgrading operating systems or making other operational improvements. In the past, some of our facilities have been in denial of payment status due to findings of continued regulatory deficiencies, resulting in an actual loss of the revenue associated with the Medicare and Medicaid patients admitted after the denial of payment date. Additional sanctions could ensue and, if imposed, these sanctions, entailing various remedies up to and including decertification, would further negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
The intensified and evolving enforcement environment impacts providers like us because of the increase in the scope or number of inspections or surveys by governmental authorities and the severity of consequent citations for alleged failure to comply with regulatory requirements. We also divert personnel resources to respond to federal and state investigations and other enforcement actions. The diversion of these resources, including our management team, clinical and compliance staff, and others take away from the time and energy that these individuals could otherwise spend on routine operations. As noted, from time to time in the ordinary course of business, we receive deficiency reports from state and federal regulatory bodies resulting from such inspections or surveys. The focus of these deficiency reports tends to vary from year to year. Although most inspection deficiencies are resolved through an agreed-upon plan of corrective action, the reviewing agency typically has the authority to take further action against a licensed or certified facility, which could result in the imposition of fines, imposition of a provisional or conditional license, suspension or revocation of a license, suspension or denial of payment for new admissions, loss of certification as a provider under state or federal healthcare programs, or imposition of other sanctions, including criminal penalties. In the past, we have experienced inspection deficiencies that have resulted in the imposition of a provisional license and could experience these results in the future. We currently have no facilities operating under provisional licenses which were the result of inspection deficiencies.
Furthermore, in some states, citations in one facility impact other facilities in the state. Revocation of a license at a given facility could therefore impair our ability to obtain new licenses or to renew existing licenses at other facilities, which may also trigger defaults or cross-defaults under our leases and our credit arrangements, or adversely affect our ability to operate or obtain financing in the future. If state or federal regulators were to determine, formally or otherwise, that one facility's regulatory history ought to impact another of our existing or prospective facilities, this could also increase costs, result in increased scrutiny by state and federal survey agencies, and even impact our expansion plans. Therefore, our failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements in any single facility could negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations as a whole.
Termination of our patient admission agreements and the resulting vacancies in our facilities could cause revenue at our facilities to decline.
Most state regulations governing skilled nursing and assisted living facilities require written patient admission agreements with each patient. Several of these regulations also require that each patient have the right to terminate the patient agreement for any reason and without prior notice. Consistent with these regulations, all of our skilled nursing patient agreements allow patients to terminate their agreements without notice, and all of our assisted living resident agreements allow residents to terminate their agreements upon thirty days' notice. Patients and residents terminate their agreements from time to time for a variety of reasons, causing some fluctuations in our overall occupancy as patients and residents are admitted and discharged in normal course. If an unusual number of patients or residents elected to terminate their agreements within a short time, occupancy levels at our facilities could decline. As a result, beds may be unoccupied for a period of time, which would have a negative impact on our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.

33


 
We face significant competition from other healthcare providers and may not be successful in attracting patients and residents to our facilities.
 
The skilled nursing and assisted living industries are highly competitive, and we expect that these industries may become increasingly competitive in the future. Our skilled nursing facilities compete primarily on a local and regional basis with many long-term care providers, from national and regional multi-facility providers that have substantially greater financial resources to small providers who operate a single nursing facility. We also compete with other skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and with inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, home healthcare and other similar services and care alternatives. Increased competition could limit our ability to attract and retain patients, attract and retain skilled personnel, maintain or increase private pay and managed care rates or expand our business. Our ability to compete successfully varies from location to location depending upon a number of factors, including:
 
•    
our ability to attract and retain qualified facility leaders, nursing staff and other employees;
 
•    
the number of competitors in the local market;
 
•    
the types of services available;
 
•    
our local reputation for quality care of patients;
 
•    
the commitment and expertise of our staff;
 
•    
our local service offerings;
 
•    
the cost of care in each locality; and
 
•    
the physical appearance, location, age and condition of our facilities.
We may not be successful in attracting patients to our facilities, particularly Medicare, managed care, and private pay patients who generally come to us at higher reimbursement rates. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than us, may have greater brand recognition and may be more established in their respective communities than we are. Competing skilled nursing companies may also offer newer facilities or different programs or services than we do and may thereby attract current or potential patients. Other competitors may have lower expenses or other competitive advantages, and, therefore, present significant price competition for managed care and private pay patients. In addition, some of our competitors operate on a not-for-profit basis or as charitable organizations and have the ability to finance capital expenditures on a tax-exempt basis or through the receipt of charitable contributions, neither of which are available to us.
If we do not achieve and maintain competitive quality of care ratings from CMS and private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, or if the frequency of CMS surveys and enforcement sanctions increases, our business may be negatively affected.
CMS, as well as certain private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, provides comparative data available to the public on its web site, rating every skilled nursing facility operating in each state based upon quality-of-care indicators. These quality-of-care indicators include such measures as percentages of patients with infections, bedsores and unplanned weight loss. In addition, CMS has undertaken an initiative to increase Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to require state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified. For example, two of our facilities are now surveyed every nine months instead of every 12 to 15 months as a result of historical survey results that may date back to prior operators. We have found a correlation between negative Medicaid and Medicare surveys and the incidence of professional liability litigation. From time to time, we experience a higher than normal number of negative survey findings in some of our facilities.
In December 2008, CMS introduced the Five-Star Quality Rating System to help consumers, their families and caregivers compare nursing homes more easily. The Five-Star Quality Rating System gives each nursing home a rating of between one and five stars in various categories. In cases of acquisitions, the previous operator's clinical ratings are

34


included in our overall Five-Star Quality Rating. The prior operator's results will impact our rating until we have sufficient clinical measurements subsequent to the acquisition date. If we are unable to achieve quality of care ratings that are comparable or superior to those of our competitors, our ability to attract and retain patients could be adversely affected.
In some states, the law prohibits or limits insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional liability and general liability claims or litigation. Coverage for punitive damages is also excluded under some insurance policies. As a result, we may be liable for punitive damage awards in these states that either are not covered or are in excess of our insurance policy limits. Claims against us, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, also could inhibit our ability to attract patients or expand our business, and could require our management to devote time to matters unrelated to the day-to-day operation of our business.
If we are unable to obtain insurance, or if insurance becomes more costly for us to obtain, our business may be adversely affected.
 
It may become more difficult and costly for us to obtain coverage for resident care liabilities and other risks, including property and casualty insurance. For example, the following circumstances may adversely affect our ability to obtain insurance at favorable rates:
 
•    
we experience higher-than-expected professional liability, property and casualty, or other types of claims or losses;
 
•    
we receive survey deficiencies or citations of higher-than-normal scope or severity;
 
•    
we acquire especially troubled operations or facilities that present unattractive risks to current or prospective insurers;
 
•    
insurers tighten underwriting standards applicable to us or our industry; or
 
•    
insurers or reinsurers are unable or unwilling to insure us or the industry at historical premiums and coverage levels.
If any of these potential circumstances were to occur, our insurance carriers may require us to significantly increase our self-insured retention levels or pay substantially higher premiums for the same or reduced coverage for insurance, including workers compensation, property and casualty, automobile, employment practices liability, directors and officers liability, employee healthcare and general and professional liability coverages.
With few exceptions, workers' compensation and employee health insurance costs have also increased markedly in recent years. To partially offset these increases, we have increased the amounts of our self-insured retention (SIR) and deductibles in connection with general and professional liability claims. We also have implemented a self-insurance program for workers compensation in California, and elected non-subscriber status for workers compensation in Texas. If we are unable to obtain insurance, or if insurance becomes more costly for us to obtain, or if the coverage levels we can economically obtain decline, our business may be adversely affected.
Our self-insurance programs may expose us to significant and unexpected costs and losses.
We have maintained general and professional liability insurance since 2002 and worker's compensation insurance since 2005 through a wholly-owned subsidiary insurance company, Standardbearer Insurance Company, Ltd. (Standardbearer), to insure our SIR and deductibles as part of a continually evolving overall risk management strategy. We establish the insurance loss reserves based on an estimation process that uses information obtained from both company-specific and industry data. The estimation process requires us to continuously monitor and evaluate the life cycle of the claims. Using data obtained from this monitoring and our assumptions about emerging trends, we, along with an independent actuary, develop information about the size of ultimate claims based on our historical experience and other available industry information. The most significant assumptions used in the estimation process include determining the trend in costs, the expected cost of claims incurred but not reported and the expected costs to settle or pay damages with respect to unpaid claims. It is possible, however, that the actual liabilities may exceed our estimates of loss. We may also experience an unexpectedly large number of successful claims or claims that result in costs or liability significantly in excess of our projections. For these and other reasons, our self-insurance reserves could prove to be inadequate, resulting in liabilities in excess of our available insurance and self-insurance. If a successful claim is made against us and it is not covered by our insurance or exceeds the insurance policy limits, our business may be negatively and materially impacted.

35


Further, because our SIR under our general and professional liability and workers compensation programs applies on a per claim basis, there is no limit to the maximum number of claims or the total amount for which we could incur liability in any policy period.
In May 2006, we began self-insuring our employee health benefits. With respect to our health benefits self-insurance, our reserves and premiums are computed based on a mix of company specific and general industry data that is not specific to our own company. Even with a combination of limited company-specific loss data and general industry data, our loss reserves are based on actuarial estimates that may not correlate to actual loss experience in the future. Therefore, our reserves may prove to be insufficient and we may be exposed to significant and unexpected losses.
The geographic concentration of our facilities could leave us vulnerable to an economic downturn, regulatory changes or acts of nature in those areas.
Our facilities located in California and Arizona account for the majority of our total revenue. As a result of this concentration, the conditions of local economies, changes in governmental rules, regulations and reimbursement rates or criteria, changes in demographics, state funding, acts of nature and other factors that may result in a decrease in demand and/or reimbursement for skilled nursing services in these states could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our revenue, costs and results of operations. Moreover, since approximately 40% of our facilities are located in California, we are particularly susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes or mudslides. In addition, to the extent we acquire additional facilities in Texas, we become more susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by hurricanes or flooding. Any significant loss due to a natural disaster may not be covered by insurance or may exceed our insurance limits and may also lead to an increase in the cost of insurance.
The actions of a national labor union that has pursued a negative publicity campaign criticizing our business in the past may adversely affect our revenue and our profitability.
We continue to maintain our right to inform our employees about our views of the potential impact of unionization upon the workplace generally and upon individual employees. With one exception, to our knowledge the staffs at our facilities that have been approached to unionize have uniformly rejected union organizing efforts. If employees decide to unionize, our cost of doing business could increase, and we could experience contract delays, difficulty in adapting to a changing regulatory and economic environment, cultural conflicts between unionized and non-unionized employees, strikes and work stoppages, and we may conclude that affected facilities or operations would be uneconomical to continue operating.
The unwillingness on the part of both our management and staff to accede to union demands for “neutrality” and other concessions has resulted in a negative labor campaign by at least one labor union, the Service Employees International Union. From 2002 to 2007, this union, and individuals and organizations allied with or sympathetic to this union actively prosecuted a negative retaliatory publicity action, also known as a “corporate campaign,” against us and filed, promoted or participated in multiple legal actions against us. The union's campaign asserted, among other allegations, poor treatment of patients, inferior medical services provided by our employees, poor treatment of our employees, and health code violations by us. In addition, the union has publicly mischaracterized actions taken by the DHS against us and our facilities. In numerous cases, the union's allegations created the false impression that violations and other events that occurred at facilities prior to our acquisition of those facilities were caused by us. Since a large component of our business involves acquiring underperforming and distressed facilities, and improving the quality of operations at these facilities, we may have been associated with the past poor performance of these facilities. To the extent this union or another elects to directly or indirectly prosecute a corporate campaign against us or any of our facilities, our business could be negatively affected.
 
It has issued in the past, and may again issue in the future, public statements alleging that we or other for-profit skilled nursing operators have engaged in unfair, questionable or illegal practices in various areas, including staffing, patient care, patient evaluation and treatment, billing and other areas and activities related to the industry and our operations. We continue to anticipate similar criticisms, charges and other negative publicity from such sources on a regular basis, particularly in the current political environment and following the recent December 2010 OIG report entitled “Questionable Billing by Skilled Nursing Facilities,” which found, among other things, that for-profit skilled nursing facilities were more likely to bill for higher paying therapy RUGs, particularly in the ultra high therapy categories, than government and not-for-profit operators, and that for-profit skilled nursing facilities showed a higher incidence of patients using RUGs with higher ADL scores, and had a longer average length of stay among Part A beneficiaries, than their government and not-for-profit counterparts. Even though no specific facility is named in the report, such reports provide unions and their allies with additional opportunities to make negative statements about, and to encourage regulators to seek investigatory and enforcement actions against, the industry in

36


general and non-union operators like us specifically. Although we believe that our operations and business practices substantially conform to applicable laws and regulations, we cannot predict the extent to which we might be subject to adverse publicity or calls for increased regulatory scrutiny from union and union ally sources, or what effect, if any, such negative publicity would have on us, but to the extent they are successful, our revenue may be reduced, our costs may be increased and our profitability and business could be adversely affected.
This union has also attempted to pressure hospitals, doctors, insurers and other healthcare providers and professionals to cease doing business with or referring patients to us. If this union or another union is successful in convincing our patients, their families or our referral sources to reduce or cease doing business with us, our revenue may be reduced and our profitability could be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to attract and retain qualified staff due to negative public relations efforts by this or other union organizations, our quality of service and our revenue and profits could decline. Our strategy for responding to union allegations involves clear public disclosure of the union's identity, activities and agenda, and rebuttals to its negative campaign.
Our ability to respond to unions, however, may be limited by some state laws, which purport to make it illegal for any recipient of state funds to promote or deter union organizing. For example, such a state law passed by the California Legislature was successfully challenged on the grounds that it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, only to have the challenge overturned by the Ninth Circuit in 2006 before being ultimately upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2008. In addition, proposed legislation making it more difficult for employees and their supervisors to educate co-workers and oppose unionization, such as the proposed Employee Free Choice Act which would allow organizing on a single “card check” and without a secret ballot and similar changes to federal law, regulation and labor practice being advocated by unions and considered by Congress and the National Labor Relations Board, could make it more difficult to maintain union-free workplaces in our facilities. If proponents of these and similar laws are successful in facilitating unionization procedures or hindering employer responses thereto, our ability to oppose unionization efforts could be hindered, and our business could be negatively affected.
A number of our facilities are operated under master lease arrangements or leases that contain cross-default provisions, and in some cases the breach of a single facility lease could subject multiple facilities to the same risk.
We currently occupy approximately 7% of our facilities under agreements that are structured as master leases. Under a master lease, we may lease a large number of geographically dispersed properties through an indivisible lease. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord. Failure to comply with Medicare or Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of our master lease and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in our outstanding debt arrangements and other leases, which would have a negative impact on our capital structure and our ability to generate future revenue, and could interfere with our ability to pursue our growth strategy.
In addition, we occupy approximately 13% of our facilities under individual facility leases that are held by the same or related landlords, the largest of which covers five of our facilities. These leases typically contain cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to one or more other locations, potentially subjecting us to the various remedies available to the landlords under each of the related leases.
Failure to generate sufficient cash flow to cover required payments or meet operating covenants under our long-term debt, mortgages and long-term operating leases could result in defaults under such agreements and cross-defaults under other debt, mortgage or operating lease arrangements, which could harm our operations and cause us to lose facilities or experience foreclosures.
At December 31, 2010, we had $143.6 million of outstanding indebtedness under our Fourth Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (the Amended Term Loan), our Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the Revolver), promissory notes, bonds and mortgage notes, plus $141.5 million of operating lease obligations. We intend to continue financing our facilities through mortgage financing, long-term operating leases and other types of financing, including borrowings under our lines of credit and future credit facilities we may obtain.
We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover required interest, principal and lease payments. In addition, from time to time the financial performance of one or more of our mortgaged facilities may not comply with the required operating covenants under the terms of the mortgage. Any non-payment, noncompliance or other default under our financing arrangements could, subject to cure provisions, cause the lender to foreclose upon the facility or facilities securing such indebtedness or, in the case of a lease, cause the lessor to terminate the lease, each with a consequent loss of revenue and asset value to us or a loss of property. Furthermore, in many cases, indebtedness is secured by both a mortgage

37


on one or more facilities, and a guaranty by us. In the event of a default under one of these scenarios, the lender could avoid judicial procedures required to foreclose on real property by declaring all amounts outstanding under the guaranty immediately due and payable, and requiring us to fulfill our obligations to make such payments. If any of these scenarios were to occur, our financial condition would be adversely affected. For tax purposes, a foreclosure on any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds, which would negatively impact our earnings and cash position. Further, because our mortgages and operating leases generally contain cross-default and cross-collateralization provisions, a default by us related to one facility could affect a significant number of other facilities and their corresponding financing arrangements and operating leases.
Because our term loan, promissory notes, bonds, mortgages and lease obligations are fixed expenses and secured by specific assets, and because our revolving loan obligations are secured by virtually all of our assets, if reimbursement rates, patient acuity mix or occupancy levels decline, or if for any reason we are unable to meet our loan or lease obligations, we may not be able to cover our costs and some or all of our assets may become at risk. Our ability to make payments of principal and interest on our indebtedness and to make lease payments on our operating leases depends upon our future performance, which will be subject to general economic conditions, industry cycles and financial, business and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases, we may be required, among other things, to seek additional financing in the debt or equity markets, refinance or restructure all or a portion of our indebtedness, sell selected assets, reduce or delay planned capital expenditures or delay or abandon desirable acquisitions. Such measures might not be sufficient to enable us to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases. The failure to make required payments on our debt or operating leases or the delay or abandonment of our planned growth strategy could result in an adverse effect on our future ability to generate revenue and sustain profitability. In addition, any such financing, refinancing or sale of assets might not be available on terms that are economically favorable to us, or at all.
Our existing credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and any default under such facilities or loans could result in a freeze on additional advances, the acceleration of indebtedness, the termination of leases, or cross-defaults, any of which would negatively impact our liquidity and inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue.
Our outstanding credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and require us to maintain or satisfy specified coverage tests on a consolidated basis and on a facility or facilities basis. These restrictions and operating covenants include, among other things, requirements with respect to occupancy, debt service coverage and project yield. The debt service coverage ratios are generally calculated as revenue less operating costs, including an implied management fee and a reserve for capital expenditures, divided by the outstanding principal and accrued interest under the debt. These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain additional advances under existing credit facilities or to obtain new financing or to engage in other business activities, which may inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue. At times in the past we have failed to timely deliver audited financial statements to our lender as required under our loan covenants. In each such case, we obtained waivers from our lender. In addition, in December 2000, we were unable to make balloon payments due under two mortgages on one of our facilities, but we were able to negotiate extensions with both lenders, and paid off both loans in January 2001 as required by the terms of the extensions. If we fail to comply with any of our loan requirements, or if we experience any defaults, then the related indebtedness could become immediately due and payable prior to its stated maturity date. We may not be able to pay this debt if it becomes immediately due and payable.
If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health or hospice industries, we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience.
The majority of our facilities have historically been skilled nursing facilities. If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health and hospice industries or other relevant long term care service, our existing overall business model would change and we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience. Although assisted living operations generally have lower costs and higher margins than skilled nursing, they typically generate lower overall revenue than skilled nursing operations. In addition, assisted living revenue is derived primarily from private payors as opposed to government reimbursement. In most states, skilled nursing, assisted living, home health and hospice are regulated by different agencies, and we have less experience with the agencies that regulate assisted living, home health and hospice. In general, we believe that assisted living is a more competitive industry than skilled nursing. If we decided to expand our presence in the assisted living, home health and hospice industries, we might have to adjust part

38


of our existing business model, which could have an adverse effect on our business.
If our referral sources fail to view us as an attractive skilled nursing provider, or if our referral sources otherwise refer fewer patients, our patient base may decrease.
We rely significantly on appropriate referrals from physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers in the communities in which we deliver our services to attract appropriate residents and patients to our facilities. Our referral sources are not obligated to refer business to us and may refer business to other healthcare providers. We believe many of our referral sources refer business to us as a result of the quality of our patient care and our efforts to establish and build a relationship with our referral sources. If we lose, or fail to maintain, existing relationships with our referral resources, fail to develop new relationships, or if we are perceived by our referral sources as not providing high quality patient care, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer. In addition, if any of our referral sources have a reduction in patients whom they can refer due to a decrease in their business, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer.
We may need additional capital to fund our operations and finance our growth, and we may not be able to obtain it on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which may limit our ability to grow.
Our ability to maintain and enhance our facilities and equipment in a suitable condition to meet regulatory standards, operate efficiently and remain competitive in our markets requires us to commit substantial resources to continued investment in our facilities and equipment. We are sometimes more aggressive than our competitors in capital spending to address issues that arise in connection with aging and obsolete facilities and equipment. In addition, continued expansion of our business through the acquisition of existing facilities, expansion of our existing facilities and construction of new facilities may require additional capital, particularly if we were to accelerate our acquisition and expansion plans. Financing may not be available to us or may be available to us only on terms that are not favorable. In addition, some of our outstanding indebtedness and long-term leases restrict, among other things, our ability to incur additional debt. If we are unable to raise additional funds or obtain additional funds on terms acceptable to us, we may have to delay or abandon some or all of our growth strategies. Further, if additional funds are raised through the issuance of additional equity securities, the percentage ownership of our stockholders would be diluted. Any newly issued equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of our common stock.
The condition of the financial markets, including volatility and deterioration in the capital and credit markets, could limit the availability of debt and equity financing sources to fund the capital and liquidity requirements of our business.
Financial markets experienced significant disruptions from 2008 through 2010. These disruptions impacted liquidity in the debt markets, making financing terms for borrowers less attractive and, in certain cases, significantly reducing the availability of certain types of debt financing. As a result of these market conditions, the cost and availability of credit has been and may continue to be adversely affected by illiquid credit markets and wider credit spreads. Concern about the stability of the markets has led many lenders and institutional investors to reduce, and in some cases, cease to provide credit to borrowers. These factors have led to a decrease in spending by businesses and consumers alike. Continued turbulence in the U.S. and prolonged declines in business and consumer spending may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition. Though we anticipate that the cash amounts generated internally, together with amounts available under the Revolver, will be sufficient to implement our business plan for the foreseeable future, we may need additional capital if a substantial acquisition or other growth opportunity becomes available or if unexpected events occur or opportunities arise. We cannot assure you that additional capital will be available or available on terms favorable to us. If capital is not available, we may not be able to fund internal or external business expansion or respond to competitive pressures or other market conditions.
Delays in reimbursement may cause liquidity problems.
If we experience problems with our information systems or if issues arise with Medicare, Medicaid or other payors, we may encounter delays in our payment cycle. From time to time, we have experienced such delays as a result of government payors instituting planned reimbursement delays for budget balancing purposes or as a result of prepayment reviews. For example, in 2008, California delayed any reimbursement subsequent to the end of July until such time as the budget was enacted. Further, and independent to the budget impasse, the State of California delayed all August 2008 payments until September. We cannot predict whether similar reimbursement delays will continue in future fiscal years. Medi-Cal had also delayed the release of the reimbursement rates which were announced in January 2010. These rate increases were put in place on a retrospective basis, effective August 1, 2009. In January 2009, the State of California announced expected cash shortages in February which impacted payments to Medi-Cal providers from late March through

39


April. Any future timing delay may cause working capital shortages. As a result, working capital management, including prompt and diligent billing and collection, is an important factor in our results of operations and liquidity. Our working capital management procedures may not successfully ameliorate the effects of any delays in our receipt of payments or reimbursements. Accordingly, such delays could have an adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition.
Compliance with the regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may require us to make unanticipated expenditures which could increase our costs.
Four of our facilities are currently subject to regulatory agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that give the Commissioner of HUD broad authority to require us to be replaced as the operator of those facilities in the event that the Commissioner determines there are operational deficiencies at such facilities under HUD regulations. In 2006, one of our HUD-insured mortgaged facilities did not pass its HUD inspection. Following an unsuccessful appeal of the decision, we requested a re-inspection. The re-inspection occurred in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the facility passed its HUD re-inspection. Compliance with HUD's requirements can often be difficult because these requirements are not always consistent with the requirements of other federal and state agencies. Appealing a failed inspection can be costly and time-consuming and, if we do not successfully remediate the failed inspection, we could be precluded from obtaining HUD financing in the future or we may encounter limitations or prohibitions on our operation of HUD-insured facilities.
Failure to comply with existing environmental laws could result in increased expenditures, litigation and potential loss to our business and in our asset value.
Our operations are subject to regulations under various federal, state and local environmental laws, primarily those relating to the handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of medical waste; the identification and warning of the presence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, as well as the encapsulation or removal of such materials; and the presence of other substances in the indoor environment.
Our facilities generate infectious or other hazardous medical waste due to the illness or physical condition of the patients. Each of our facilities has an agreement with a waste management company for the proper disposal of all infectious medical waste, but the use of a waste management company does not immunize us from alleged violations of such laws for operations for which we are responsible even if carried out by a third party, nor does it immunize us from third-party claims for the cost to cleanup disposal sites at which such wastes have been disposed.
Some of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may have asbestos-containing materials. Federal regulations require building owners and those exercising control over a building's management to identify and warn their employees and other employers operating in the building of potential hazards posed by workplace exposure to installed asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials in their buildings. Significant fines can be assessed for violation of these regulations. Building owners and those exercising control over a building's management may be subject to an increased risk of personal injury lawsuits. Federal, state and local laws and regulations also govern the removal, encapsulation, disturbance, handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials when such materials are in poor condition or in the event of construction, remodeling, renovation or demolition of a building. Such laws may impose liability for improper handling or a release into the environment of asbestos containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials and may provide for fines to, and for third parties to seek recovery from, owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or improper work exposure associated with asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials. The presence of asbestos-containing materials, or the failure to properly dispose of or remediate such materials, also may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain patients and staff, to borrow when using such property as collateral or to make improvements to such property.
The presence of mold, lead-based paint, underground storage tanks, contaminants in drinking water, radon and/or other substances at any of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may lead to the incurrence of costs for remediation, mitigation or the implementation of an operations and maintenance plan and may result in third party litigation for personal injury or property damage. Furthermore, in some circumstances, areas affected by mold may be unusable for periods of time for repairs, and even after successful remediation, the known prior presence of extensive mold could adversely affect the ability of a facility to retain or attract patients and staff and could adversely affect a facility's market value and ultimately could lead to the temporary or permanent closure of the facility.
If we fail to comply with applicable environmental laws, we would face increased expenditures in terms of fines and remediation of the underlying problems, potential litigation relating to exposure to such materials, and a potential decrease in value to our business and in the value of our underlying assets.
In addition, because environmental laws vary from state to state, expansion of our operations to states where we

40


do not currently operate may subject us to additional restrictions in the manner in which we operate our facilities.
If we fail to safeguard the monies held in our patient trust funds, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties.
Each of our facilities is required by federal law to maintain a patient trust fund to safeguard certain assets of their residents and patients. If any money held in a patient trust fund is misappropriated, we are required to reimburse the patient trust fund for the amount of money that was misappropriated. In 2005 we became aware of two separate and unrelated instances of employees misappropriating an aggregate of approximately $380,000 in patient trust funds, some of which was recovered from the employees and some of which we were required to reimburse from our funds. If any monies held in our patient trust funds are misappropriated in the future and are unrecoverable, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties pursuant to federal and state laws.
We are a holding company with no operations and rely upon our multiple independent operating subsidiaries to provide us with the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations. Liabilities of any one or more of our subsidiaries could be imposed upon us or our other subsidiaries.
We are a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. Each of our facilities is operated through a separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiary, which has its own management, employees and assets. Our principal assets are the equity interests we directly or indirectly hold in our multiple operating and real estate holding subsidiaries. As a result, we are dependent upon distributions from our subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and pay dividends. Our subsidiaries are legally distinct from us and have no obligation to make funds available to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us will depend substantially on their respective operating results and will be subject to restrictions under, among other things, the laws of their jurisdiction of organization, which may limit the amount of funds available for distribution to investors or shareholders, agreements of those subsidiaries, the terms of our financing arrangements and the terms of any future financing arrangements of our subsidiaries.
Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock
We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends and the failure to do so would adversely affect our stock price.
Our ability to pay and maintain cash dividends is based on many factors, including our ability to make and finance acquisitions, our ability to negotiate favorable lease and other contractual terms, anticipated operating cost levels, the level of demand for our beds, the rates we charge and actual results that may vary substantially from estimates. Some of the factors are beyond our control and a change in any such factor could affect our ability to pay or maintain dividends. In addition, the Revolver with the Lender restricts our ability to pay dividends to stockholders if we receive notice that we are in default under this agreement.
While we do not have a formal dividend policy, we currently intend to continue to pay regular quarterly dividends to the holders of our common stock, but future dividends will continue to be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on many factors, including our results of operations, financial condition and capital requirements, earnings, general business conditions, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements including pursuant to the loan and security agreement governing our revolving line of credit, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. From 2002 through 2010, we paid aggregate annual dividends equal to approximately 5% to 15% of our net income. We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends, and we may at any time elect not to pay dividends but to retain cash for other purposes. We also cannot assure you that the level of dividends will be maintained or increase over time or that increases in demand for our beds and monthly patient fees will increase our actual cash available for dividends to stockholders. It is possible that we may pay dividends in a future period that may exceed our net income for such period. The failure to pay or maintain dividends could adversely affect our stock price.
If the ownership of our common stock continues to be highly concentrated, it may prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and may result in conflicts of interest that could cause our stock price to decline.
Our current executive officers, directors and their affiliates, if they act together, will have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors' perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.

41


If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.
The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for our stockholders.
The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. On some occasions in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending or settling the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management from our business.
Future offerings of debt or equity securities by us may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by offering debt or additional equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, series of preferred shares or shares of our common stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares, and lenders with respect to other borrowings, would receive a distribution of our available assets prior to any distribution to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their shareholdings in us. We also intend to continue to actively pursue acquisitions of facilities and may issue shares of stock in connection with these acquisitions.
Any shares issued in connection with our acquisitions, the exercise of outstanding stock options or otherwise would dilute the holdings of the investors who purchase our shares.
Failure to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could result in a restatement of our financial statements, cause investors to lose confidence in our financial statements and our company and have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.
We produce our consolidated financial statements in accordance with the requirements of GAAP. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports to help mitigate the risk of fraud and to operate successfully as a publicly traded company. As a public company, we are required to document and test our internal control procedures in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, which requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting.
Testing and maintaining internal controls can divert our management's attention from other matters that are important to our business. We may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able or willing to issue an unqualified report if we conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective. If either we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified report as required by Section 404, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and our company, which could result in a decline in the market price of our common stock, and cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations in the future, which in turn could impact our ability to raise additional financing if needed in the future.
The requirements of being a public company, including compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, may strain our resources, increase our costs and distract management, and we may be unable to comply with these

42


requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner.
As a public company, we need to comply with laws, regulations and requirements, certain corporate governance provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, related regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and requirements of NASDAQ. As a result, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. Complying with these statutes, regulations and requirements occupies a significant amount of the time of our board of directors and management, requires us to have additional finance and accounting staff, makes it difficult to attract and retain qualified officers and members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee, and makes some activities difficult, time consuming and costly.
 
If we are unable to fulfill the requirements related to being a public company in a timely and effective fashion, our ability to comply with our financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired. If our finance and accounting personnel insufficiently support us in fulfilling these public-company compliance obligations, or if we are unable to hire adequate finance and accounting personnel, we could face significant legal liability, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, if we identify any issues in complying with those requirements (for example, if we or our independent registered public accountants identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting), we could incur additional costs rectifying those issues, and the existence of those issues could adversely affect us, our reputation or investor perceptions of us.
 
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage transactions resulting in a change in control, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.
 
In addition to the effect that the concentration of ownership by our significant stockholders may have, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that may enable our management to resist a change in control. These provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a change in the ownership of our company or a change in our management, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. In addition, these provisions could limit the price that investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Such provisions set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws include:
 
•    
our board of directors are authorized, without prior stockholder approval, to create and issue preferred stock, commonly referred to as “blank check” preferred stock, with rights senior to those of common stock;
 
•    
advance notice requirements for stockholders to nominate individuals to serve on our board of directors or to submit proposals that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings;
 
•    
our board of directors are classified so not all members of our board are elected at one time, which may make it more difficult for a person who acquires control of a majority of our outstanding voting stock to replace our directors;
 
•    
stockholder action by written consent is limited;
 
•    
special meetings of the stockholders are permitted to be called only by the chairman of our board of directors, our chief executive officer or by a majority of our board of directors;
 
•    
stockholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for the election of directors;
 
•    
newly created directorships resulting from an increase in the authorized number of directors or vacancies on our board of directors are filled only by majority vote of the remaining directors;
 
•    
our board of directors is expressly authorized to make, alter or repeal our bylaws; and
 
•    
stockholders are permitted to amend our bylaws only upon receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of our outstanding common stock.
These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could discourage acquisition proposals and make it more difficult or expensive for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delaying or impeding a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving us. Any delay or prevention

43


of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
 
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
 
None.

44


 
Item 2. Properties
 
Service Center.  We currently lease 29,829 square feet of office space in Mission Viejo, California for our Service Center pursuant to a lease that expires in August 2019. We have two options to extend our lease term at this location for an additional five-year term for each option.
 
 
Facilities.  As of December 31, 2010, we operated 82 facilities in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Idaho, with the operational capacity to serve approximately 9,500 residents. Of the 82 facilities that we operated, we owned 52 facilities and leased 30 facilities pursuant to operating leases, eight of which contain purchase options that provide us with the right to purchase or agreements to purchase the facility in the future, which we believe will enable us to better control our occupancy costs over time. We currently do not manage any facilities for third parties and do not actively seek to manage facilities for others, except on a short-term basis pending receipt of new operating licenses by our operating subsidiaries.
 
 
The following table provides summary information regarding the number of operational beds at our facilities at December 31, 2010:
 
State
 
Leased without a Purchase Option
 
Purchase Agreement or Leased with a Purchase Option
 
Owned
 
Total Operational Beds
California
 
1,703
 
 
869
 
 
1,130
 
 
3,702
 
Arizona
 
579
 
 
 
 
1,235
 
 
1,814
 
Texas
 
112
 
 
 
 
1,957
 
 
2,069
 
Utah
 
222
 
 
 
 
745
 
 
967
 
Colorado
 
 
 
 
 
463
 
 
463
 
Washington
 
 
 
 
 
278
 
 
278
 
Idaho
 
 
 
88
 
 
158
 
 
246
 
Total
 
2,616
 
 
957
 
 
5,966
 
 
9,539
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Skilled nursing
 
2,616
 
 
887
 
 
5,211
 
 
8,714
 
Assisted living
 
 
 
70
 
 
608
 
 
678
 
Independent living
 
 
 
 
 
147
 
 
147
 
Total
 
2,616
 
 
957
 
 
5,966
 
 
9,539
 
 
 
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
        
 
In March 2007, we and certain of our officers received a series of notices from our bank indicating that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California had issued an authorized investigative demand, a request for records similar to a subpoena, to our bank. The U.S. Attorney subsequently rescinded that demand. The rescinded demand requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. Subsequently, in June 2007, the U.S. Attorney sent a letter to one of our current employees requesting a meeting. The letter indicated that the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General were conducting an investigation of claims submitted to the Medicare program for rehabilitation services provided at unspecified facilities. Although both we and the employee offered to cooperate, the U.S. Attorney later withdrew its meeting request.
 
 
On December 17, 2007, we were informed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, that the U.S. Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on Deloitte & Touche LLP, relating to The Ensign Group, Inc., and several of our operating subsidiaries. The subpoena confirmed our previously reported belief that the U.S. Attorney was conducting an investigation involving facilities operated by certain of our operating subsidiaries. All together, the March 2007 authorized investigative demand and the December 2007 subpoena specifically covered information from a total of 18 of our 82 facilities. In February 2008, the U.S. Attorney contacted two additional current employees. We also continue to sporadically receive anecdotal reports of former employees who have been contacted by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's office. Based on these events, we believe that the U.S. Attorney may be conducting parallel criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving The Ensign Group, Inc. and one or more of our skilled nursing facilities.
 
 
Pursuant to these investigations, on December 17, 2008, representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

45


served search warrants on our Service Center and six of our Southern California skilled nursing facilities. Following the execution of the warrants on the six facilities, a subpoena was issued covering eight additional facilities. Among other things, the warrants covered specific patient records at the six facilities. On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Attorney served a second subpoena requesting additional patient records on the same patients who were covered by the original warrants. We have worked with the U.S. Attorney's office to produce information responsive to both subpoenas. We and our regulatory counsel continue to actively work with the U.S. Attorney's office and respond to requests for information as they are received relative to the investigation.
 
 
We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office, and intend to continue working with them to the extent they will allow us to help move their inquiry forward. To our knowledge, however, neither The Ensign Group, Inc. nor any of our operating subsidiaries or employees has been formally charged with any wrongdoing. We cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigation or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any qui tam litigation that may follow, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, we have not recorded any related accruals. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter, or if the investigation has been instigated by a qui tam relator who elects to pursue the matter, and we are subjected to or alleged to be liable for claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.
 
In September 2010, the board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of “independent directors” as such term is defined in Marketplace Rule 5605(b)(1) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules. The membership of the special committee includes all of the independent directors of our board of directors. The special committee was formed to represent the board’s, the Company’s and the stockholders' interests in addressing allegations and related matters arising from or in connection with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The special committee has been empowered to act on behalf of the board of directors with respect to these matters, and has been granted authority to, among other things, retain independent legal counsel and other third-party consultants to facilitate its work. The board’s quality assurance and compliance committee has been monitoring our response with respect to the DOJ investigation prior to the appointment of this special committee, and is expected to continue working with the board of directors, the special committee and management to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The special committee will dissolve at the time the DOJ investigation is concluded, or such earlier time as the board of directors determines that it is no longer necessary.
 
 
We are party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings and are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims that our services have resulted in injury or death to the residents of our facilities and claims related to employment and commercial matters. Although we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters, there can be no assurance that the outcomes of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In certain states in which we have or have had operations, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from general and professional liability litigation may not be available due to state law public policy prohibitions. There can be no assurance that we will not be liable for punitive damages awarded in litigation arising in states for which punitive damage insurance coverage is not available.
 
 
We operate in an industry that is extremely regulated. As such, in the ordinary course of business, we are continuously subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny, supervision and control. Such regulatory scrutiny often includes inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, site visits and surveys, some of which are non-routine. In addition to being subject to direct regulatory oversight of state and federal regulatory agencies, our industry is frequently subject to the regulatory practices, which could subject us to civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or restitutionary relief, and reimbursement authorities could also seek the suspension or exclusion of the provider or individual from participation in their program. We believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Adverse discriminations in legal proceedings or governmental investigations, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Item 4. (Removed and Reserved)
 

46


    
PART II.
 
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
 
Market Information
 
 
Our common stock has been traded under the symbol “ENSG” on the NASDAQ Global Select Market since our initial public offering on November 8, 2007. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table shows the high and low sale prices for the common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the periods indicated:
 
 
High
 
Low
Fiscal 2010
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
18.79
 
 
$
15.32
 
Second Quarter
18.98
 
 
16.51
 
Third Quarter
18.85
 
 
15.01
 
Fourth Quarter
26.97
 
 
17.47
 
Fiscal 2009
 
 
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
18.90
 
 
$
12.58
 
Second Quarter
16.50
 
 
12.50
 
Third Quarter
16.34
 
 
12.94
 
Fourth Quarter
15.70
 
 
13.50
 
 
 
During fiscal 2010, we declared aggregate cash dividends of $0.205 per share of common stock, for a total of approximately $4.3 million.
 
 
As of February 15, 2011, there were approximately 110 holders of record of our common stock.
 

47


The graph below shows the cumulative total stockholder return of an investment of $100 (and the reinvestment of any dividends thereafter) on November 9, 2007 in (i) our common stock, (ii) the Skilled Nursing Facilities Peer Group 1 and (iii) the NASDAQ Market Index. Our stock price performance shown in the graph below is not indicative of future stock price performance.
 
COMPARISON OF 38 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Ensign Group, the NASDAQ Composite Index
and a Peer Group
*$100 invested on 11/9/07 in stock or 10/31/07 in index, including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending December 31.
 
Comparison of 38 month cumulative total return among The Ensign Group, Inc., NASDAQ Market Index, Skilled Nursing Facilities
 
12/31/2007
12/31/2008
12/31/2009
12/31/2010
The Ensign Group, Inc. 
$
89.47
 
$
105.39
 
$
97.97
 
$
160.26
 
NASDAQ Market Index
$
92.69
 
$
54.85
 
$
79.65
 
$
93.63
 
Peer Group
$
100.28
 
$
64.56
 
$
64.83
 
$
86.64
 
 
 
The current composition of SIC Code 8051 - Skilled Nursing Facilities - is as follows:
 
 
AdCare Health Systems, Inc., Advocat, Inc., Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., Capital Senior Living Corp., Five Star Quality Care, Inc., National Healthcare Corporation, Sabra Healthcare, Inc., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., The Ensign Group, Inc.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

48


Dividend Policy
 
 
The following table summarizes common stock dividends declared to shareholders during the two most recent fiscal years:
 
 
Dividend per Share
 
Aggregate Dividend Declared
 
 
 
(in thousands)
2009
 
 
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
0.045
 
 
$
926
 
Second Quarter
$
0.045
 
 
$
927
 
Third Quarter
$
0.045
 
 
$
928
 
Fourth Quarter
$
0.050
 
 
$
1,032
 
2010
 
 
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
0.050
 
 
$
1,037
 
Second Quarter
$
0.050
 
 
$
1,039
 
Third Quarter
$
0.050
 
 
$
1,042
 
Fourth Quarter
$
0.055
 
 
$
1,150
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
We do not have a formal dividend policy but we currently intend to continue to pay regular quarterly dividends to the holders of our common stock. From 2002 to 2010, we paid aggregate annual dividends equal to approximately 5% to 15% of our net income. However, future dividends will continue to be at the discretion of our board of directors, and we may or may not continue to pay dividends at such rate. We expect that the payment of dividends will depend on many factors, including our results of operations, financial condition and capital requirements, earnings, general business conditions, legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. The loan and security agreement governing our revolving line of credit with General Electric Capital Corporation restricts our ability to pay dividends to stockholders if we receive notice that we are in default under this agreement. In addition, we are a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. As a result, we are dependent upon distributions from our independent operating subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and pay dividends. It is possible that in certain quarters, we may pay dividends that exceed our net income for such period as calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
 
 
Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities
 
 
We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2010, nor issue any securities that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.

49


 
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
 
The following selected consolidated financial data for the periods indicated have been derived from our consolidated financial statements. The financial data set forth below should be read in connection with Item 7 - “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and with our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto:
 
 
December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
2007
 
2006
 
(In thousands, except per share data)
Revenue
$
649,532
 
 
$
542,002
 
 
$
469,372
 
 
$
411,318
 
 
$
358,574
 
Expense:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost of services (exclusive of facility rent and depreciation and amortization shown separately below)
516,668
 
 
434,318
 
 
376,742
 
 
335,014
 
 
284,847
 
Facility rent - cost of services
14,478
 
 
14,703
 
 
14,932
 
 
16,675
 
 
16,404
 
General and administrative expense
26,099
 
 
20,767
 
 
20,017
 
 
15,945
 
 
14,210
 
Depreciation and amortization
16,633
 
 
13,276
 
 
9,026
 
 
6,966
 
 
4,221
 
Total expenses
573,878
 
 
483,064
 
 
420,717
 
 
374,600
 
 
319,682
 
Income from operations
75,654
 
 
58,938
 
 
48,655
 
 
36,718
 
 
38,892
 
Other income (expense):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest expense
(9,123
)
 
(5,691
)
 
(4,784
)
 
(4,844
)
 
(2,990
)
Interest income
248
 
 
279
 
 
1,374
 
 
1,558
 
 
772
 
Other expense, net
(8,875
)
 
(5,412
)
 
(3,410
)
 
(3,286
)
 
(2,218
)
Income before provision for income taxes
66,779
 
 
53,526
 
 
45,245
 
 
33,432
 
 
36,674
 
Provision for income taxes
26,253
 
 
21,040
 
 
17,736
 
 
12,905
 
 
14,125
 
Net income
$
40,526
 
 
$
32,486
 
 
$
27,509
 
 
$
20,527
 
 
$
22,549
 
Net income per share(1):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
1.95
 
 
$
1.58
 
 
$
1.34
 
 
$
1.39
 
 
$
1.66
 
Diluted
$
1.92
 
 
$
1.55
 
 
$
1.33
 
 
$
1.17
 
 
$
1.34
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
20,744
 
 
20,603
 
 
20,520
 
 
14,497
 
 
13,366
 
Diluted
21,159
 
 
20,925
 
 
20,715
 
 
17,470
 
 
16,823
 
(1) See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
2007
 
2006
 
(In thousands, except per share data)
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$
72,088
 
 
38,855
 
 
$
41,326
 
 
$
51,732
 
 
$
25,491
 
Working capital
76,642
 
 
45,559
 
 
46,811
 
 
62,969
 
 
28,281
 
Total assets
479,892
 
 
391,348
 
 
296,901
 
 
267,389
 
 
190,531
 
Long-term debt, less current maturities
139,451
 
 
107,401
 
 
59,489
 
 
60,577
 
 
63,587
 
Redeemable, convertible preferred stock
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2,725
 
Stockholders' equity
228,203
 
 
187,559
 
 
156,021
 
 
129,677
 
 
51,147
 
Cash dividends declared per common share
$
0.205
 
 
0.185
 
 
$
0.165
 
 
$
0.160
 
 
$
0.130
 
 
On December 31, 2010, we executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for a $35.0 million term loan (RBS Term Loan). See the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section below for further details.
 
 

50


 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
2007
 
2006
 
(In thousands)
Other Non-GAAP Financial Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EBITDA(1)
$
92,287
 
 
$
72,214
 
 
$
57,681
 
 
$
43,684
 
 
$
43,113
 
EBITDAR(1)
$
106,765
 
 
$
86,917
 
 
$
72,613
 
 
$
60,359
 
 
$
59,517
 
 
 
(1)    
EBITDA and EBITDAR are supplemental non-GAAP financial measures. Regulation G, Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures, and other provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, define and prescribe the conditions for use of certain non-GAAP financial information. We calculate EBITDA as net income before (a) interest expense, net, (b) provision for income taxes, and (c) depreciation and amortization. We calculate EBITDAR by adjusting EBITDA to exclude facility rent - cost of services. These non-GAAP financial measures are used in addition to and in conjunction with results presented in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures should not be relied upon to the exclusion of GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures reflect an additional way of viewing aspects of our operations that, when viewed with our GAAP results and the accompanying reconciliations to corresponding GAAP financial measures, provide a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting our business.
 
We believe EBITDA and EBITDAR are useful to investors and other external users of our financial statements in evaluating our operating performance because:
 
•    
they are widely used by investors and analysts in our industry as a supplemental measure to evaluate the overall operating performance of companies in our industry without regard to items such as interest expense, net and depreciation and amortization, which can vary substantially from company to company depending on the book value of assets, capital structure and the method by which assets were acquired; and
 
•    
they help investors evaluate and compare the results of our operations from period to period by removing the impact of our capital structure and asset base from our operating results.
 
 
 
We use EBITDA and EBITDAR:
 
•    
as measurements of our operating performance to assist us in comparing our operating performance on a consistent basis;
 
•    
to allocate resources to enhance the financial performance of our business;
 
•    
to evaluate the effectiveness of our operational strategies; and
 
•    
to compare our operating performance to that of our competitors.
 
 
 
We typically use EBITDA and EBITDAR to compare the operating performance of each skilled nursing and assisted living facility. EBITDA and EBITDAR are useful in this regard because they do not include such costs as net interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense, and, with respect to EBITDAR, facility rent - cost of services, which may vary from period-to-period depending upon various factors, including the method used to finance facilities, the amount of debt that we have incurred, whether a facility is owned or leased, the date of acquisition of a facility or business, or the tax law of the state in which a business unit operates. As a result, we believe that the use of EBITDA and EBITDAR provide a meaningful and consistent comparison of our business between periods by eliminating certain items required by GAAP.
 
 
We also establish compensation programs and bonuses for our facility level employees that are partially based upon the achievement of EBITDAR targets.
 
 
Despite the importance of these measures in analyzing our underlying business, designing incentive compensation and for our goal setting, EBITDA and EBITDAR are non-GAAP financial measures that have no standardized meaning defined by GAAP. Therefore, our EBITDA and EBITDAR measures have limitations as analytical tools, and they should not be considered in isolation, or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported in accordance with GAAP. Some of these limitations are:
 
•    
they do not reflect our current or future cash requirements for capital expenditures or contractual commitments;
 

51


•    
they do not reflect changes in, or cash requirements for, our working capital needs;
 
•    
they do not reflect the net interest expense, or the cash requirements necessary to service interest or principal payments, on our debt;
 
•    
they do not reflect any income tax payments we may be required to make;
 
•    
although depreciation and amortization are non-cash charges, the assets being depreciated and amortized will often have to be replaced in the future, and EBITDA and EBITDAR do not reflect any cash requirements for such replacements; and
 
•    
other companies in our industry may calculate these measures differently than we do, which may limit their usefulness as comparative measures.
 
 
 
We compensate for these limitations by using them only to supplement net income on a basis prepared in accordance with GAAP in order to provide a more complete understanding of the factors and trends affecting our business.
 
 
Management strongly encourages investors to review our consolidated financial statements in their entirety and to not rely on any single financial measure. Because these non-GAAP financial measures are not standardized, it may not be possible to compare these financial measures with other companies' non-GAAP financial measures having the same or similar names. For information about our financial results as reported in accordance with GAAP, see our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this document.
 
 
The table below reconciles net income to EBITDA and EBITDAR for the periods presented:
 
 
December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
2007
 
2006
 
(In thousands)
Consolidated Statement of Income Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income
$
40,526
 
 
$
32,486
 
 
$
27,509
 
 
$
20,527
 
 
$
22,549
 
Interest expense, net
8,875
 
 
5,412
 
 
3,410
 
 
3,286
 
 
2,218
 
Provision for income taxes
26,253
 
 
21,040
 
 
17,736
 
 
12,905
 
 
14,125
 
Depreciation and amortization
16,633
 
 
13,276
 
 
9,026
 
 
6,966
 
 
4,221
 
EBITDA
$
92,287
 
 
$
72,214
 
 
$
57,681
 
 
$
43,684
 
 
$
43,113
 
Facility rent - cost of services
14,478
 
 
14,703
 
 
14,932
 
 
16,675
 
 
16,404
 
EBITDAR
$
106,765
 
 
$
86,917
 
 
$
72,613
 
 
$
60,359
 
 
$
59,517
 

52


 
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
 
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, which appear elsewhere in this Annual Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. See Item 1A. - “Risk Factors.”
 
 
Overview
 
 
We are a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care services through the operation of 85 facilities located in California, Arizona, Texas, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. All of these facilities are skilled nursing facilities, other than four stand-alone assisted living facilities in Arizona, Colorado and Texas and seven campuses that offer both skilled nursing and assisted living, independent living or hospice care services in California, Arizona, Utah and Texas. Our facilities provide a broad spectrum of skilled nursing and assisted living services, physical, occupational and speech therapies, and other rehabilitative and healthcare services, for both long-term residents and short-stay rehabilitation patients. We encourage and empower our facility leaders and staff to make their facility the “facility of choice” in the community it serves. This means that our facility leaders and staff are generally free to discern and address the unique needs and priorities of healthcare professionals, customers and other stakeholders in the local community or market, and then work to create a superior service offering and reputation for that particular community or market to encourage prospective customers and referral sources to choose or recommend the facility. As of December 31, 2010, we operated 82 facilities, of which we owned 52 and operated an additional 30 facilities under long-term lease arrangements, and had options to purchase for eight of those 30 facilities. The following table summarizes our facilities and licensed and independent living beds by ownership status as of December 31, 2010:
 
 
Owned
 
Leased (with a Purchase Option)
 
Leased (without a Purchase Option)
 
Total
 
Number of facilities
52
 
 
8
 
 
22
 
 
82
 
 
Percent of total
63.4
 
%
9.8
 
%
26.8
 
%
100.0
 
%
Operational skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living beds
5,966
 
 
957
 
 
2,616
 
 
9,539
 
 
Percent of total
62.6
 
%
10.0
 
%
27.4
 
%
100.0
 
%
 
 
The Ensign Group, Inc. is a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. All of our facilities are operated by separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiaries, which have their own management, employees and assets. In addition, one of our wholly-owned independent subsidiaries, which we call our Service Center, provides centralized accounting, payroll, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management and other services to each operating subsidiary through contractual relationships between such subsidiaries. In addition, we have the Captive that provides some claims-made coverage to our operating subsidiaries for general and professional liability, as well as for certain workers’ compensation insurance liabilities. References herein to the consolidated “Company” and “its” assets and activities, as well as the use of the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and similar verbiage in this annual report is not meant to imply that The Ensign Group, Inc. has direct operating assets, employees or revenue, or that any of the facilities, the Service Center or the Captive are operated by the same entity.
 
 
Acquisitions and Developments
 
 
On January 1, 2010, we purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Idaho for $7.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 158 operational skilled nursing beds to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as a part of this transaction.
 
On May 1, 2010, we purchased two skilled nursing facilities in Texas for approximately $8.5 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added approximately 277 operational skilled nursing beds to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1.5 million was recognized in goodwill as a part of this transaction.
 
On May 1, 2010, we purchased a home health and hospice operation in Idaho for approximately $2.7 million, which was paid in cash. The acquisition did not have an impact on our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction. Approximately $1.6 million and $0.7 million was recognized

53


as goodwill and other indefinite lived intangibles, respectively, as a part of this transaction.
 
On November 1, 2010, we purchased an assisted living facility in Colorado for approximately $2.4 million, which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 215 assisted living beds to our operational bed count. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior owner as part of this transaction.
 
On December 31, 2010, four of our real estate holding subsidiaries executed a promissory note with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (RBS) as Lender for an aggregate of $35.0 million (RBS Loan). The RBS Loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.04%. Amounts borrowed under the Loan may be prepaid starting after the second anniversary of the note subject to certain prepayment fees. The term of the RBS Loan is for seven years, with monthly principal and interest payments commencing on February 1, 2011 and the balance due on January 1, 2018. As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had $35.0 million outstanding on the RBS Loan.
 
On January 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility which also provides assisted living and independent living services and one independent living facility in Texas for approximately $14.6 million, which was paid in cash. These acquisitions added 123 operational skilled nursing beds, 77 assisted living units, 72 independent living units and 20 independent living cottages to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
 
On February 1, 2011, we purchased one skilled nursing facility in Utah, which also has the capacity to provide assisted living and independent living services for approximately $16.6 million which was paid in cash. This acquisition added 221 operational skilled nursing beds, 48 operational assisted living units and 60 independent living apartments to our operations. We also entered into a separate operations transfer agreement with the prior tenant as part of this transaction.
 
 
See further discussion of facility acquisitions in Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements below.
 
Key Performance Indicators
 
 
We manage our skilled nursing business by monitoring key performance indicators that affect our financial performance. These indicators and their definitions include the following:
 
•    
Routine revenue:  Routine revenue is generated by the contracted daily rate charged for all contractually inclusive services. The inclusion of therapy and other ancillary treatments varies by payor source and by contract. Services provided outside of the routine contractual agreement are recorded separately as ancillary revenue, including Medicare Part B therapy services, and are not included in the routine revenue definition
 
•    
Skilled revenue:  The amount of routine revenue generated from patients in our skilled nursing facilities who are receiving higher levels of care under Medicare, managed care, Medicaid, or other skilled reimbursement programs. The other skilled residents that are included in this population represent very high acuity residents who are receiving high levels of nursing and ancillary services which are reimbursed by payors other than Medicare or managed care. Skilled revenue excludes any revenue generated from our assisted living services.
 
•    
Skilled mix:  The amount of our skilled revenue as a percentage of our total routine revenue. Skilled mix (in days) represents the number of days our Medicare, managed care, or other skilled patients are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities divided by the total number of days patients (less days from assisted living services) from all payor sources are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities for any given period (less days from assisted living services).
 
•    
Quality mix:  The amount of routine non-Medicaid revenue as a percentage of our total routine revenue. Quality mix (in days) represents the number of days our non-Medicaid patients are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities divided by the total number of days patients from all payor sources are receiving services at our skilled nursing facilities for any given period (less days from assisted living services).
 
•    
Average daily rates:  The routine revenue by payor source for a period at our skilled nursing facilities divided by actual patient days for that revenue source for that given period.
 
•    
Occupancy percentage (operational beds):  The total number of residents occupying a bed in a skilled nursing, assisted living or independent living facility as a percentage of the beds in a facility which are available for occupancy during the

54


measurement period.
 
•    
Number of facilities and operational beds:  The total number of skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living facilities that we own or operate and the total number of operational beds associated with these facilities.
 
 
Skilled and Quality Mix.  Like most skilled nursing providers, we measure both patient days and revenue by payor. Medicare, managed care and other skilled patients, whom we refer to as high acuity patients, typically require a higher level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care. Accordingly, Medicare and managed care reimbursement rates are typically higher than from other payors. In most states, Medicaid reimbursement rates are generally the lowest of all payor types. Changes in the payor mix can significantly affect our revenue and profitability.
 
 
The following table summarizes our overall skilled mix and quality mix for the periods indicated as a percentage of our total routine revenue (less revenue from assisted living services) and as a percentage of total patient days (less days from assisted living services):
 
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
Skilled Mix:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Days
25.0
%
24.6
 
%
25.1
 
%
Revenue
49.1
%
48.2
 
%
48.8
 
%
Quality Mix:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Days
36.7
%
37.3
 
%
37.8
 
%
Revenue
57.8
%
57.7
 
%
58.2
 
%
 
 
Occupancy. We define occupancy as the ratio of actual patient days (one patient day equals one resident occupying one bed for one day) during any measurement period to the number of beds in facilities which are available for occupancy during the measurement period. The number of licensed and independent living beds in a skilled nursing, assisted living or independent living facility that are actually operational and available for occupancy may be less than the total official licensed bed capacity. This sometimes occurs due to the permanent dedication of bed space to alternative purposes, such as enhanced therapy treatment space or other desirable uses calculated to improve service offerings and/or operational efficiencies in a facility. In some cases, three- and four-bed wards have been reduced to two-bed rooms for resident comfort, and larger wards have been reduced to conform to changes in Medicare requirements. These beds are seldom expected to be placed back into service. We define occupancy in operational beds as the ratio of actual patient days during any measurement period to the number of available patient days for that period. We believe that reporting occupancy based on operational beds is consistent with industry practices and provides a more useful measure of actual occupancy performance from period to period.
 
 
The following table summarizes our occupancy statistics for the periods indicated:
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
Occupancy:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operational beds at end of period
9,539
 
 
8,948
 
 
7,324
 
 
Available patient days
3,389,313
 
 
2,965,401
 
 
2,634,183
 
 
Actual patient days
2,706,543
 
 
2,353,087
 
 
2,135,662
 
 
Occupancy percentage (based on operational beds)
79.9
 
%
79.4
 
%
81.1
 
%
 

55


 
Revenue Sources
 
 
Our total revenue represents revenue derived primarily from providing services to patients and residents of skilled nursing facilities, and to a lesser extent from assisted living facilities and ancillary services. We receive service revenue from Medicaid, Medicare, private payors and other third-party payors, and managed care sources. The sources and amounts of our revenue are determined by a number of factors, including bed capacity and occupancy rates of our healthcare facilities, the mix of patients at our facilities and the rates of reimbursement among payors. Payment for ancillary services varies based upon the service provided and the type of payor. The following table sets forth our total revenue by payor source and as a percentage of total revenue for the periods indicated:
 
 
 
December 31,
 
2010
 
 
2009
 
 
2008
 
 
$
 
%
 
 
$
 
%
 
 
$
 
%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In thousands)
Revenue:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medicaid - custodial
$
259,711
 
 
40.0
%
 
$
219,188
 
 
40.4
 
%
 
$
187,499
 
 
40.0
 
%
Medicare
219,217
 
 
33.7
 
 
174,769
 
 
32.3
 
 
 
154,852
 
 
33.0
 
 
Medicaid - skilled
17,573
 
 
2.7
 
 
12,449
 
 
2.3
 
 
 
8,537
 
 
1.8
 
 
Total
496,501
 
 
76.4