With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

AI is a major force shaping this year’s list—but it’s far from the only story.

World's Most Admired Companies

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Leaders in all industries rely more than ever on Big Tech—and appreciate the giants that deliver, at scale, without drama.

Industries included in the sector are insurance and managed care, medical products and facilities, pharmacy services, and pharmaceutical companies.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Health Care

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The 26th edition of the list shows how much esteem Big Tech giants command among other business leaders.

The 25th Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies list suggests that tech giants’ peers respect them as much as ever.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

Just as it dominates our economy, Big Tech now dominates Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

After a year in which humanity leaned more heavily than ever on tech giants, see which companies topped Fortune's ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

F500-2021-270-Universal Health Service

The company provides hospital and health care services in the United States, United Kingdom, and Puerto Rico, operating more than 400 acute care hospitals and other facilities.

For an astounding 13th straight year, Apple claims the top spot in Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation, based on a survey of almost 3,800 executives, directors, and analysts.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-281-Universal-Health-Services

The medical management company operates 400 clinics and other health care facilities across the U.S. and U.K.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2019 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2017 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2016 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

Business insiders have spoken: Asked which companies they most admire, more than 4,100 executives, directors, and analysts chose these top 50 All-Stars.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Sector

Industry

Current All-Star Rank

Previous All-Star Rank

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Overall Score

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Universal Health Services is one of the largest providers of hospitals and health care services in the U.S. Since its founding in 1979, the health care giant operates more than 400 acute-care hospitals, behavioral health facilities, emergency departments, and ambulatory surgery centers across the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Universal Health Services also offers an insurance plan, the Prominence Health Plan, including Medicare Advantage plans for members in Florida, Nevada, and Texas. The company served over 3.5 million patients in 2024, operating with nearly 100,000 employees globally. In 2024, the company was ranked by Fortune as one of the World’s Most Admired Companies.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Q3 2024

Universal Health Services (UHS): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Universal Health Services

universal health services

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the UHS twenty twenty five conference call here. At this at this time, all participants are in listen only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press 11 on your telephone.

You will then hear an automated met message advising that your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would like to now hand the conference over to today's speaker, Steve Hilton, executive vice president and chief financial officer. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you. Mark Miller is also joining us this morning. We both welcome you to this review of Universal Health Services results for the first quarter ended 03/31/2025. During the conference call, we'll be using words such as believes, expects, anticipates, estimates and similar words that represent forecast, projections and forward looking statements.

For anyone not familiar with the risks and uncertainties inherent in these forward looking statements, I recommend a careful reading of the section on Risk Factors and Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors in our Form 10 ks for the year ended 12/31/2024. We would like to highlight just a couple of developments and business trends before opening the call up to questions. As discussed in our press release last night, the company reported net income attributable to UHS per diluted share of $4.8 for the first quarter of twenty twenty five. After adjusting for the impact of the items reflected on the supplemental schedule as included with the press release, our adjusted net income attributable to UHS per diluted share was $4.84 for the quarter ended 03/31/2025. During the first quarter of twenty twenty five, on a same facility basis, adjusted admissions to our acute care hospitals increased 2.4% over the first quarter of the prior year.

Same facility net revenues in our Acute Care Hospital segment increased by 5% during the first quarter of twenty twenty five as compared to last year's first quarter after excluding the impact of our insurance subsidiary. Meanwhile, operating expenses continued to be well managed. Other operating expenses on a same facility basis increased by 2.6% over last year's first quarter after excluding the impact of our insurance subsidiary. For the first quarter of twenty twenty five, our solid acute care revenues combined with effective expense controls resulted in a 21% increase in EBITDA after excluding the impact of Medicaid supplemental payments. During the first quarter of twenty twenty five, same facility net revenues at our behavioral health hospitals increased by 5.5%, driven by a 5.8% increase in revenue per adjusted day.

Adjusted patient days were relatively flat compared to the prior year quarter. The year over year patient day growth comparison was negatively impacted by the extra leap day in 2024 and challenging winter weather conditions experienced this year early in the first quarter in certain markets. We did experience a reacceleration of patient day growth in March. Our cash generated from operating activities decreased from $3.96 $6,000,000 during the first quarter of twenty twenty four to $360,000,000 this year due in part to delays in receipt of funds in connection with certain Medicaid supplemental payments in various states. We did receive $82,000,000 of payments related to the Nevada supplemental program in April that were related to revenues recorded in the first quarter.

In the first quarter of twenty twenty five, we spent $239,000,000 on capital expenditures and acquired $1,000,000 of our own shares at a cost of approximately $181,000,000 Since January 2019, we have repurchased approximately 30,300,000.0 shares, representing 33% of our shares outstanding as of that date. As of 03/31/2025, we had $1,020,000,000 of aggregate available borrowing capacity pursuant to our $1,300,000,000 revolving credit facility. I will now turn the call over to Mark Miller, President and CEO, for closing comments.

Thank you, Steve. We are pleased with our first quarter operating results, which on a consolidated basis exceeded our internal expectations. We were particularly encouraged by the control of our operating expenses in both business segments. Our first quarter operating results exclude any supplemental Medicaid revenues in Tennessee and the District Of Columbia pending CMS approval of these new programs. For programs that were originally approved in previous years, we have continued to record those revenues under the assumption that programs will be reapproved.

As these programs have been a recent focal point, I believe it is worth reminding people that these are federally authorized and state approved programs in place for many years and they are designed to allow providers who have been historically underpaid by Medicaid to provide quality care to over 70,000,000 Medicaid recipients nationally. Even where these programs exist, our net Medicaid reimbursement generally remains below both average commercial and Medicare reimbursement. West Henderson Hospital in Las Vegas opened in late twenty twenty four and posted a modestly positive EBITDA in the first quarter. Cedar Hill Regional Medical Center in Washington, D. C.

Opened recently and has experienced strong demand for its emergency room services from the outset. While we acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in our external operating environment, we feel confident in our underlying businesses and based on current reimbursement and operating cost levels reiterate our full year earnings guidance. We're pleased to answer questions at this time.

Alright. Thank you. At this time, we will conduct a question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you just need to press 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press 11 again.

Please stand by while we compile the q and a roster. Our first question comes from the line of Justin Lake of Wolfe Research. Please go ahead, your line is now open.

Thanks, good morning. I appreciate all the details. I wanted to focus on the behavioral side, Steve. I know you talked about leap year, you talked about weather, especially earlier in the year. Maybe you could give us an idea of what you saw in March, given weather would have been past due, the leap year impact would have been past due.

So how did March volume, maybe even early April volume look? And any update on the full year guidance in terms of your thoughts around behavioral volume we should be assuming for the year.

Yep, so our full year guidance that we presented in late February presumed behavioral patient day revenue growth of 2.5% to 3%, and we believe that is still a reasonable target and that remains our embedded target for our guidance. We accelerated from our sort of more muted flattish levels, maybe even negative levels in January and February. I didn't quite get to the 2.5%, three % target in March, but feel like it was indicative of the fact that weather had kind of muted our volumes in for five or six weeks in January and February. April is a little bit hard to say because obviously, we had Easter and spring break in April, But it feels like recent volumes, again, give us confidence that 2.5 to 3% should be achievable for the full year.

Got it. And then maybe, Mark, you could just on the DPP side, it was good to hear that things kind of started up again in Nevada. Any other states that you're kind of focused on in terms of where you're expecting to hear soon and any kind of updates beyond Nevada?

Yes, I just think it's Washington, D. C. And Tennessee. And both cases, the state of Tennessee and the District Of Columbia advised not just us, but their hospital community that they continue to expect approval. That's the message they get from the folks they deal with at CMS.

Obviously, timing is still somewhat up in the air. But again, kind of as your question alludes to, Justin, we're encouraged that after a what seemed like a full pause in any new approvals or re approvals by the Trump administration after they took office, A number of programs have been re approved and there even have been a couple of new programs, none that affect us, but some new programs have been approved. So it feels to us like that process has sort of been resurrected or restarted and we view that as a hopeful sign. And again, most importantly for us, the Nevada program was reapproved. And as I noted in my remarks, we were actually paid for the first quarter revenues in April.

Thank you. Our next question, Tom, is from the line of Sarah James of Cantor Fitzgerald. Your line is now open.

Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on Justin's question a little bit. So, if you're still at two and a half to 3% on behavior volumes for the year, I think that implies a step up for the rest of the year that is above the guide range or above the high end of the guide range. Is that the right way to think about it?

Yeah, mathematically, I think that's correct there.

Okay, got it. And then the Nevada DPP that came in from the quarter, how many months was that related to? Because I think it was approved in April. So should we think about that as four months? And if so, are you running a little bit ahead on your DPP guide for the year?

Yes. So no, that it was just the first quarter payment. That $82,000,000 I will remind people, is the gross payment that we get from the states. It's not net of our provider taxes. We continue to pay the taxes on a regular basis.

So we paid our taxes in Nevada in the first quarter. That gross amount that we received, the 82,000,000 is in April relates to the first quarter. But I think your confusion is you were thinking, if you annualize that 82,000,000 it's a lot more than the net benefit that we described, and it's because it doesn't include the provider tax element.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Mott of Barclays. Your line is now open.

Hi, good morning. Question on tariffs. Can you help us understand what actions you're taking now to prepare for potential tariffs and what your GPO has communicated to you thus far? Thanks.

Yes. So first of all, I'll reiterate, I think, at least one of our peer companies talked about from a tariff perspective, just sort of framing the issue. I think they said that they estimate about 60% of their supply chain purchases are sourced in The U. S. And Canada and Mexico, so at the moment are not subject to tariffs.

Another 15% are pharmaceuticals, which are also at the moment not subject to tariffs. So at the moment and I would say our numbers, we guesstimate, are roughly the same about three quarters of our supply chain purchases are insulated from tariffs. The way we're, protecting ourselves or actively sort of dealing with the issue is we do find some vendors who have fixed contractual prices with us, have started to include things like fees or stipends or I'm not even sure how to describe them on their invoices. We've been sort of ignoring those, etcetera, because I think we believe they're not part of the contract. We continue to monitor any vendors who would tell us that they're considering cancellation of contracts or they're finding availability of products problematic.

We're not really getting any of that feedback yet, but certainly preparing if we do for alternatives other sourcing alternatives, other pricing alternatives, etcetera. But at the moment, it feels like there's not a great deal of pressure, again, in large part because I think a good chunk of our supplies are insulated from tariff impact at the moment.

Got it. And maybe just a follow-up on the behavioral side. Maybe weather aside, are you seeing any changes in your behavioral referral patterns or willingness of JV partners to work with UHS? Thanks.

No, I don't think so. I know you said weather aside, but I would just make the comment about weather. And we talked about this, I think, on the year end earnings call. The weather that we're talking about, winter weather, was in places that I think don't normally experience winter weather, more in the central part of the country, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas. And the challenge, I think, is twofold for us from a winter weather perspective in those places.

Number one, schools are closed. And I think I remember that, I believe, in February, in a number of our Virginia facilities, Schools were supposed to be open, I think for nineteen days that month and were only open for eleven. And so that has a big impact on our child and adolescent population and admissions in our child and adolescent population. And the other thing that the weather impacts is our outpatient programs. Obviously, from an inpatient perspective, we may lose admissions over a two or three or four day period if the weather is bad, but we obviously continue to treat the patients that we have.

But our outpatient programs pretty much closed down during those days where difficult for people to travel and they can't clear the roads, etcetera. So we really see an outsized impact on our outpatient and our child and adolescent business when we experience those winter conditions. Other than that, no. A question about are we seeing really any sort of structural changes in our referral patterns or willingness of referral sources to send us patients, the answer to that is no, which is really why I think ultimately we remain confident that we should be able to reach that two point five percent, three percent target that we set originally.

Thank you. So our next question comes from the line of Ben Hendrix of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Great. Thank you very much. Just following up on that last question, moving to the rate side, the strong 7.2% rate growth there. Just wanted to imagine there's some payer mix dynamics there with redetermination. And then just wanted to also get any other observations you have on payer mix changes or any case mix developments in the behavioral side there driving that rate growth and also when you expect that to normalize out to more long term steady state growth rate?

So our revenue per adjusted day on a same store basis, I think as we disclosed on that in our opening comments, was 5.8%. I think, again, our guidance for the year was in the 4% to 5% range. So we continue to and that 4% to 5% certainly would be a moderation of the rates that we've been getting over the last several years. And I think most of that is not necessarily kind of payer mix or redetermination impacts, etcetera, the things that you mentioned, but just generally better contractual pricing that we've been getting, particularly from our managed Medicaid payers. That number has been moderating some over the last several years, think partly because as we get those prices and we start to anniversary the impact, it's not as significant.

I also think that as capacity increases in the behavioral industry in general, it diminishes a little bit of our leverage over the payers who, I think, right now have to deal with a scarcity of capacity, particularly invasion capacity, where they can send their patients. So again, I think the pattern that we're seeing in terms of strong behavioral pricing is one that we've been seeing for some time. It has moderated a little bit. It is moderating more slowly than maybe we originally anticipated and that our guidance presumed. And I think we would presume that, that would continue to be the case.

So as volumes recover as the year goes on, hopefully, we can if we're short of the 2.5 to 3% target for any period of time, hopefully our pricing will offset that.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steven Baxter of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

more of a philosophical question on the Medicaid supplemental payment programs. Obviously, we don't know what the ultimate outcome is going to be from a legislative or regulatory point of view here, but it does seem like we could be living in a world where there's significant restriction at a minimum on your ability to grow this economic earnings stream going forward. I know that this has only served to, you know, kind of improve your Medicaid reimbursement to, you know, maybe more sustainable levels versus actually make money. But as we think about your p and l leverage to supplemental programs, I mean, how should we think about, you know, a world where maybe that is a more, fixed stream going forward, your ability as a company to still kind of deliver the type of same store revenue and adjusted EBITDA growth rates that you've targeted historically? Thank you.

Yes. I mean, look, I think, honestly, we're already in that world. I mean, I think as you know, our 10 ks, we present a very detailed disclosure on Medicaid supplemental payments. And our projected Medicaid supplemental payments for 2025 were already generally flattish with what they were in 2024. So we certainly are not counting on growth in those programs, and it's certainly possible that we will see some deceleration in those supplemental payments or in other Medicaid reimbursement.

And I think what that really means ultimately is the way we're going to grow the behavioral business in the intermediate and long term is with more volume growth. And that's why it is we acknowledge it's important that we get to that 2.5% to 3% patient day target because ultimately we think going forward, our Medicaid rates in particular are likely to be impacted by legislative action. Travis, I think we can go to the next question.

All right. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Benjamin Rossi of JP Morgan. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So how would you describe, I guess, patient utilization activity during 1Q across acute? And then when parsing those volumes up by payer, how do you frame growth between maybe your traditional managed care book versus your ACA exchange related volumes? Just curious if you're seeing any variation at the regional level for states where enrollment's been faster, like Texas or Florida versus a state like Nevada, where it might be less pronounced?

Yes, I don't so I think specifically, your question about exchange utilization, again, think one of our peers talked about the fact that their exchange volumes were up 20% or so in the first quarter over last year's first quarter. I think we saw a similar increase. Again, these are relatively small numbers on an absolute basis. I think about for us at least, exchange or patients with exchange coverage represent about 6% of our adjusted admissions in our acute care space. That's a little bit of an increase over what we were running.

And if that utilization is coming from anywhere, I think it's probably our Medicaid utilization is probably not growing as fast, and that's probably what's generating most of that exchange increase. But overall, I don't think that patient mix is affecting our pricing or our profitability in any significant way.

Got it. Thanks. And then just as a clarification, on the Medicaid taxes, you said you received the payments in April. Did your 1Q other operating expense contain those related Nevada Medicaid taxes? Or is that a 2Q item?

No. The point that I was trying to make to Sarah before was we continue to pay the provider taxes on a regular basis. So our first quarter provider taxes were in our numbers even though again, the revenue was in there as well. It's just that the cash was not.

Thank you. So our next question comes from the line of Joshua Raskin of Nephron Research. Your line is now open.

Yes, thanks. Good morning. Just back on the behavioral. I'm curious on demand trends outside of weather and some of these other temporal effects. Are you seeing any differences in demand on by acuity, sort of demand for specific services?

And then just a quick follow-up on West Henderson. I know it's very early there, but I'm just curious how you're seeing competitive dynamics impacting the market and maybe just a comment on your other facilities there as well.

Yes. So I'll answer West Henderson question first and come back to behavioral. Yes, I mean, we're very encouraged by our West Henderson results for a hospital basically in its first full quarter of being open to have positive EBITDA really is extraordinary. There's a little bit of cannibalization from our existing hospitals, and we talked about this in our year end call. So I would suggest that a little bit of our same store adjusted admission metrics, a little bit of our same store profitability is sort of muted by the fact that there's been a bit of cannibalization, although I don't think it's terribly significant.

But just generally pleased. That's honestly, while I think it's better than we even expected, the whole reason we built West Henderson and invested in this project is we think that it's a growing part of the Las Vegas market. It would the demand would be there. It has been. And I

we think at West Energy, we'll continue to grow at a brisk pace. We're very encouraged by the early results. As far as your behavioral questions and really sort of if demand has changed, No and again, I think we've said the same thing really for the last several years, which is measured both by sort of macro kind of data, industry wide data that tracks behavioral demand across a variety of diagnoses and services. I think generally that has been strong. Our own sort of micro data, which is our inbound activity of calls and Internet inquiries, etcetera, continues to be quite strong.

And so the challenge is, do we have the physical capacity to meet those demands? Do we have the labor force to meet those demands? I think those situations have improved in the last several years, but can still be challenging in some markets. We also acknowledge there is more competition in some markets. But again, I'll sort of go back to what I said before.

I think because the demand remains strong, because the labor market has stabilized, etcetera, I do think we have the view that 2.5% to three percent patient day growth target is still a very achievable target.

Thank you. So our next question comes from the line of Craig Hettenbach from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.

Great, thank you. On the acute business, can you talk about any trends that stood out just from an acuity perspective? And then outside of volume growth, any levers there that you're looking to potentially pull to continue to improve margins in that segment?

Yes. So from an Acuity perspective, I would say Acuity was muted a little bit in Q1 by the busier flu season. So we had on a sort of relative percentage basis more medical patients than surgical or procedural patients in Q1 because of the busy flu season. I think that will normalize as the year goes on. But our acuity, as measured by our CMI, actually was still relatively strong in Q1, which I think suggests that the procedural business that we did have was still pretty solid and relatively high acuity business.

And obviously, I think after the first quarter, even in March, we saw flu volumes decline dramatically, as you would expect. And so I think as the year goes on, I think it's fair to expect acuity will grow a little bit.

Got it. And then just as a follow-up on just capital deployment, updated thoughts on just kind of CapEx plans for this year versus buybacks and how you're approaching that?

Yes. I mean, our original guidance was for think 800,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 of CapEx. We had $240,000,000 in Q1, a little bit high in Q1 because we still had some costs flowing over from West Henderson. We still have some other whole hospital projects ongoing. So yes, I mean, I think we're on track to be in that range, as we suggested.

I think our share repurchase guidance for the year was in the $600,000,000 range. We had 180,000,000 in the first quarter, so we're tracking a little bit above that. We'll see. But I think as long as there continues to be some level of uncertainty and softness in market and our share price, I suspect we'll continue to be an active acquirer of our shares.

All right. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Gillmor of KeyBanc Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Hey, thanks for the question. I wanted to ask about the expense management topic. Any areas of particular outperformance to call out and sort of how you're feeling about the sustainability of that? And I was particularly interested in the premium labor costs. I think they've been running $60,000,000 per quarter.

Just kind of curious where that's running through the early part of twenty twenty five.

Yes. So as to Premium Pay, Premium Pay in the quarter was, I think, dollars 63,000,000, which I think you suggest, Matthew, we've been running in the low 60s, so pretty consistent. Yes, I think the operating expense controls, which really have been present now for several quarters, are really a reflection of a few different things. I think as the labor markets have settled out, obviously, pay, use of temporary labor has declined and reached kind of a steadier level. I think wage inflation has certainly decelerated from the heights that it had reached during the pandemic.

That's certainly helpful. It limits the amount of sign on bonuses and recruitment bonuses and things that we have to pay in order to attract talent. I also think and we've talked about this on previous calls, we've been more actively managing productivity and appropriate staffing levels, etcetera, post pandemic, because there isn't nearly as much competition for labor. It's still a pretty tight labor market, but not nearly as tight as it was at the height of the pandemic. So it's allowed us to go back to some of the blocking and tackling mechanisms that I think we paused during the pandemic because there was such a lack of staff.

So I think, again, our operating expenses in both business segments really look positive, and I think they should remain so. Obviously, we've talked about some of the exogenous pressures, mainly tariffs, and obviously that's difficult for us to predict. But I think in terms of the things we can control, we think that these expense levels and expense controls are certainly sustainable.

And then, Steve, a quick follow-up on the Medicaid supplemental. All appreciate the level of disclosure you provide. In terms of the expectation for 2025, are you still expecting $997,000,000 from the last disclosure? Or has that number changed at all?

Yes. So we're still compiling that for our first quarter ten Q. But I would suggest that, that number has not changed in any material way.

Thank you. So our next question comes from the line of Michael of Baird. Your line is now open.

Thank you. Just want to follow-up on Sarah's question on behavioral health volume cadence for the rest of the year. It is a pretty big implied step up. So I was wondering if you could elaborate more on cadence quarterly cadence. Are we talking an immediate large step up in 2Q or something more modest and then larger step ups in 3Q, 4Q?

And maybe specifically as it relates to the three big headwinds that impacted volumes last year, how much of that is still redeterminations, labor constraints, those handful of sites, what's the latest update on those? I presume maybe labor is still ongoing, but have we now fully stepped over the other two headwinds? Trying to get a better sense on just volume recovery over the balance of the year. Thanks.

Yes. So Michael, honestly, I think you kind of asked that and answered your own question. I mean, I think of the three that we have talked about historically, the only one that is persistent, I think, is labor. The labor scarcity has certainly improved from, again, when it was really, really extreme during the height of the pandemic. But it's still a tight labor market and we still compete in various markets or find the competition for a variety of kind of staff levels, whether that's nurses or therapists or mental health technicians, to be problematic in certain markets.

And in certain markets, do think it creates kind of a cap on our volumes. But I don't think that's getting worse, and I think we continue to make progress there. I'll make the point that I think a big muting factor in Q1 is simply the leap day comparison that probably has about a little over 100 basis point impact. Obviously, that's something that we know over the year will the impact will diminish. And I think we always assume that the 2.5% to 3% for the year took into account the one week day for the year.

So that will get that comparison will not be as difficult as the year goes on. Yes, I'm not going to make a comment about exactly where we're likely to wind up in Q2. Again, just repeat what I said now a number of times, which is the original guidance of 2.5% to 3% for the year is something we think we can achieve. We acknowledge that it requires a step up from where we were in Q1.

Thank you. And just one more question about California and Florida's proposal. I think they already submitted and filed the CMS to raise the PPP payments to average commercial rates. Any update there? I know historically, I think about six months for approval, but there might've been a bit of a moratorium just given the new administration, but often, Steve, you mentioned a lot of DPC programs that were paused are now being resurrected.

So curious on those two and also maybe more broadly, given this administration's focus on budget, Medicaid, provider taxes, whether you think future proposals to raise EPP to average commercial rates might have maybe less likelihood of being passed over the next few years? Thank you.

And so it feels, Michael, like this is really kind of a two track process at the moment in that there are new programs being submitted. There are new programs that have been submitted, in our case, Tennessee or in Paclitaxel, Tennessee and D. C. That are being considered by CMS. And the impression that we have, again, as your question alluded to, is that there was sort of a pause as the administration changed and the policymakers and CMS changed.

But it feels like the administrative process of reviewing and approving these programs has sort of been restarted. And again, forget about what we're saying. I think what the states who have submitted these programs are saying is that they expect that they're going to go through the normal process, be approved in the normal course, etcetera. That's separate and apart from any legislative action that the House and Senate may take limit these programs in the future, etcetera. So again, I think we're viewing this separately.

We think that the Tennessee and D. C. Programs, based on the feedback we get from those respective governments, are likely to be approved at some point. I think it's difficult to predict. California and Florida have just been submitted.

I think it's even more difficult to predict what the timing of that would be. But that I think is separate and apart then from whatever legislative action may impact those supplemental programs going forward.

Thank you. So our next question comes from the line of Pito Chickering of Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess the

first one here is, can you guys sort of talk about the settlement of the Pavilion case and remind us how much commercial insurance you have for the lawsuits and what is the timing of the Cumberland case?

Yes. So as we disclosed in the press release, we have a tentative settlement in the Pavilion case. Is limited by disclosure is limited by confidentiality. It also requires approval of the court, which we think probably is not coming until next month. When we get that approval in our next filing, we'll disclose how much insurance is still remaining.

But I will say at this point, there is still substantial if this settlement is approved, there will still be substantial commercial insurance for the twenty twenty year remaining. And that's important because the Cumberland cases that you also referenced are twenty twenty cases. But we'll give those details once the settlement is approved by the court. As far as the timing of the Cumberland cases, they've moved the three cases that have been adjudicated are moving slowly. We have not gotten rulings even on the post trial motions, let alone any appeals, etcetera.

Universal Health Services (UHS) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants