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 Third Quarter 2024 Universal Health Service Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question and answer session. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Steve Fulton, Executive Vice President and CFO. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to this review of Universal Health Services results for the Q3 ended September 30, 2024. During the conference call, I'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 December 31, 2023 and our Form 10 Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2024. I'd 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 recorded net income attributable to UHS per diluted share of $3.80 for the Q3 of 2024. 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 $3.71 for the quarter ended September 30, 2024. As we anticipated, acute care volumes have moderated somewhat and have gradually begun to resemble the patterns we experienced before the pandemic. Adjusted admissions to our acute hospitals increased 1.5% year over year with surgical growth slowing. Overall revenue growth was still a solid 8.6% excluding the impact of our insurance subsidiary.

Meanwhile, expenses were well controlled. Specifically, the amount of premium pay in the 3rd quarter was $60,000,000 reflecting a 12% decline from the prior year quarter. Included in our operating results during the Q3 of 2024 were aggregate net incremental reimbursements of approximately $20,000,000 recorded in connection with various state supplemental Medicaid programs, approximately half of which was earned by our acute care hospitals. These net reimbursements were in excess of the supplemental program projections included in our earnings guidance for the full year of 2024 as revised on July 24, 2024. On a same facility basis, EBITDA at our acute care hospitals increased 36% during the Q3 of 2024 as compared to the comparable prior year quarter and the increase was 17% when excluding the impact of the incremental Medicaid supplemental payments earned in Nevada during the Q3 of 2024.

The increase in operating income comparison to last year's Q3 for our acute hospitals is a further step towards a more extended margin recovery we hope to sustain for the next several periods. In our acute segment, physician expense, which was a significant headwind in 2023, has stabilized at approximately 7.2 percent of revenues thus far in 2024. During the Q3, same facility revenues at our behavioral health hospitals increased by 10.5%, primarily driven by an 8.5% increase in revenue per adjusted patient day. Even after adjusting for Medicaid supplemental payments not included in our original 2024 guidance, facility revenues increased 8.3% and same facility EBITDA increased 9.6% in the Q3 of 2024 as compared to the comparable prior year period. As a result of unfavorable trends experienced during the last several years, during the Q3 of 2024, we recorded a $30,000,000 increase to our reserves for self insured, professional and general liability claims.

Our cash generated from operating activities was $1,400,000,000 during the 1st 9 months of 2024 as compared to $815,000,000 during the same period in 2023. In the 1st 9 months of 2024, we spent $698,000,000 on capital expenditures and acquired 1,700,000 of our own shares at a total cost of approximately $350,000,000 Since 2019, we have repurchased approximately 31% of the company's outstanding shares. As of September 30, 2024, we had $1,010,000,000 aggregate available borrowing capacity pursuant to our $1,300,000,000 revolving credit facility. In our Acute Care segment, we continue to develop additional inpatient and ambulatory care capacity. Construction continues on our de novo acute care hospitals consisting of the 150 Bed West Henderson Hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is expected to open shortly the 136 Bed Cedar Hill Regional Medical Center in Washington, D.

C, which is expected to open in the spring of 2025 and the 150 Bed Allen B. Miller Medical Center in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which is expected to open in the spring of 2026. In our Behavioral Health segment, we recently opened the 128 Bed River Vista Behavioral Health Hospital in Madera, California, and we are developing the 96 Bed Southridge Behavioral Health Hospital in West Michigan, a joint venture with Trinity Health Michigan, which is expected to open in the spring of 2025. The approval processes continue in connection with new Medicaid supplemental payment programs in Tennessee and Washington, D. C.

As well as a proposed funding increase to the existing program in Nevada. Although we cannot provide assurance that any or all of these programs or program changes will ultimately be approved by CMS or the timing of such approvals, which may not occur until 2025, if approved in their current forms, the Tennessee program with estimated annual net benefit of $40,000,000 to $56,000,000 would be effective July 1, 2024. The Washington DC program with estimated annual net benefit of approximately $85,000,000 would be effective October 1, 2024. And the funding increase to the existing Nevada program with estimated annual net incremental benefit of approximately $56,000,000 would be effective July 1, 2024. Our previously provided earnings guidance for the full year of 2024 as revised on July 24, 2024 did not include the estimated incremental net benefit related to any of these programs.

I'd be pleased to answer your questions at this time.

Thank you. And our first question is going to come from the line of Josh Raskin with Nephron Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. This is actually Marco on for Josh. Appreciate you taking the question. I was just wondering if you could speak to any changes you may be seeing in the behavior of managed care plans during the quarter, including activity around patient denials or downgrades across both the acute and behavioral segments? And then it would also be helpful if you just give some color on what trends you're seeing between commercial and MA plans and whether this activity is focused around any specific areas like 2 midnight?

Sure. So I think if you go back and review some of our transcripts and other commentary from late in 2022 and early into 2023, we first began to note, I think more aggressive behavior on the part of our managed care payers, especially coming off of the initial years of the pandemic 2020, 2021, 2022, where clearly we felt like payers had become less aggressive, I think in response to a large degree to the significant decreases in utilization during the early stages of the pandemic. So since then, since I would say late 2022, early 2023, again, we've seen I think payer behavior become more aggressive as it relates to denials, as it relates to patient status changes, length of stay management when patients are in the facility, etcetera. I don't believe that we saw a dramatic change in the current quarter. I think, again, the more aggressive behavior that we've been citing, I think, has been ongoing for more like a year or 4 or 6 quarters, but wouldn't necessarily suggest that we saw dramatic change in the current quarter.

As far as weather and behavior is focused on any particular area, you specifically asked about the 2 midnight rule. Again, I think we've made a comment that we've been focused on the 2 Midnight Rule and the appropriate coding consistent with the 2 Midnight Rule and appeals consistent with the 2 Midnight Rule for several years. We've been using a third party firm to help us properly code admissions. We've been using that same firm to help us with denial appeals, etcetera. And so I don't think we've seen again some of the perhaps significant difference in how 2 Midnight Rules 2 Midnight coding claims are being handled with our claims as maybe some of our peers have really changed their behavior as a result of the recent clarifications that CMS issued in terms of 2 Midnight Rule.

Thanks. Appreciate all the color on that. And then just to squeeze in one more quick one. I was wondering if you could just give a quick update on physician recruitment and turnover trends in the acute behavioral segments, especially as it relates to opening up additional capacity? And then whether you're seeing any more incremental competition in that area?

Yes. So I think there's been much discussion about physicians and especially as it related to hospital based physicians. Last year when there was a significant increase for almost all providers in the expense of hospital based physicians, in our case, especially emergency room physicians and anesthesiologists. I think that increased expense was more a result of billing changes and I think specifically the No Surprise Billing Act and the constraints that put on those specialties emergency room anesthesiology in terms of their ability to bill for out of network patients. So I think the pressures on those expenses were driven more by those billing changes than they were by a lack of or scarcity of those sort of physicians.

I don't think that there is a derivative of physicians nor do I think there's a glut necessarily in every market, different specialties are more challenging, etcetera. But I don't think we would describe physician recruitment as particularly difficult in the current period. I don't think it's changed much over the last several years.

Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Anne Hayes with Mizuho. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Heading into 2025, are there any maybe major headwinds and tailwinds you want to call out? And to that, I know it sounds like you're getting incremental, provider stuff in 2024. Is there anything we should be on the lookout for 2025?

So I think for us, Ann, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we will have 2 new facilities open in 2025, our West Henderson facility in Las Vegas, which will open late this year and then our hospital in the District of Columbia, which will open in the spring. I don't believe and we'll be more precise about this when we give our detailed 2025 guidance in February, but I don't believe that either of those facilities will create a significant drag on EBITDA. There will be some opening expenses and some ramp up, but I think both are well positioned, so that again, they should not create much of a drag. I think otherwise, for the two businesses, we are expecting the continued margin recovery that again I alluded to in my opening comments. And then finally, the major tailwinds are the ones that I mentioned again in my remarks, the specific ones in terms of Tennessee, District of Columbia, Nevada.

These are either new or additional supplemental programs that have been submitted to CMS for approval. There's been some reporting and some things have been written about programs either new or expanded programs in California and Florida that could be effective next year. But those I think are in sort of earlier stages of development. So I think broadly, there are some significant potential tailwinds in the Medicaid supplemental area, some of which we've disclosed in some detail, others which I think are a little bit more or not quite as precise at this point. But those to me seem to be the big puts and takes for 2025 at this point.

Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Andrew Mok with Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Wanted to focus on the acute volumes. Maybe if you just take a step back and comment on the volume progression in that business. And

that we've established a more normal baseline for volumes, like what's the outlook in the acute care segment for volume growth? Thanks.

Andrew, I think we've been pretty clear and consistent in our commentary in this regard and that is, we've been saying for some time that we expected broadly acute care growth to return to sort of more normal, I'll call them pre COVID levels. So same store revenue growth in the 6% to 7% range that would be split pretty evenly between price and volume. I think if you actually look at our year to date metrics in acute care, I think our adjusted admissions are up 3%. I think our pricing per revenue per adjusted admission is up 5 percent. I think if you adjust out for the Nevada Medicaid supplemental, you're sort of in that range of 6% to 7% revenue growth split pretty evenly between price and volume.

I think that's been our view for a while. I know that some of the commentary from our peers have been a little bit more bullish about what acute care volume may look like and suggesting that there have been some structural changes in the business that would result in elevated acute care volume growth for the foreseeable future. We haven't seen that yet. And obviously, I think if there are a lot of these structural changes, we would benefit from them as would the average acute care hospital. We just haven't seen really evidence of that just yet.

The other issue, which I kind of alluded to earlier is, I think a number of acute care hospitals are anticipating a fairly significant benefit from the 2 Midnight Rule change and a consequent change in the way they're coding these things, etcetera. As I've indicated again, I think pretty clearly and consistently for a while now, we think we've been focused on that issue for several years now and as a consequence don't necessarily anticipate an incremental benefit from that. So again, I think we view acute care volumes or the future of acute care volume growth and I think broadly acute care revenue growth is something that should be solid, etcetera. But that some of the really elevated acute care volume growth that we've seen over the last several years has been a result of the catch up in postponed and deferred procedures or during the pandemic. And by definition, I think those were sort of a one time thing and I think we're largely past that at this point.

Great. And then your corporate expenses tracked a bit higher than our estimates in the quarter. Can you help us understand any one time items there or other drivers of the increase in the corporate segment? Thanks.

Yes. We had a $5,000,000 loss on the extinguishment of debt related to our refinancing that we did during the quarter. We probably had another $5,000,000 settlements of miscellaneous smaller lawsuits. So that $10,000,000 of corporate expense, I would clearly characterize as non recurring in the quarter.

And our next question is going to come from the line of Justin Lake with Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Dylan on for Justin. Thanks for the question. Just had a couple of quick ones for you. Is there any color you can provide on the trajectory of volumes in the behavioral business in the quarter?

And then second, behavioral pricing clearly remains a strength. Are you expecting to see similar opportunities heading into 2025? Or do you expect that to moderate? Thank you.

So as far as the trajectory of behavioral volumes, again, think for the last several quarters, we've been talking about our sense that while we originally guided to 3% same store patient day growth for behavioral for the full year of 2024. That growth was occurring more slowly than we originally anticipated and we sort of revised that view to we'd be able to exit the year at that sort of 3% level. We were able to exit the Q3 at that 3% level and that's despite a little bit of drag from the hurricane impact in South Carolina and Georgia on some of our facilities at the very end of the quarter, Hurricane Aleen. So yes, I think we remain confident that we should be able to exit the 4th quarter at that at least 3% patient day growth rate and remain confident that we can do so. As far as behavioral pricing, behavioral pricing, as people know, has been quite strong for several years now throughout most of the pandemic.

We attribute that to some degree to our efforts to leverage better pricing from some of our lower paying payers, particularly managed Medicaid payers. And I think in an environment where there's not a great deal of excess capacity in the behavioral industry writ large. That's been an effective sort of strategy. We've been suggesting for some time that behavioral pricing is likely to moderate at some point, and we continue to believe that. But to be fair, it is hanging in there very robustly, very strongly at the current time.

And obviously, we're not doing anything to try and reduce that. But we do believe that behavioral pricing, which has been running at historically high levels, will moderate at some point, but still should track in sort of that 4% to 5% range for the foreseeable future.

Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Sarah James with Cantor. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey guys, this is Gabby on for Sarah. You had a nice beat on acute revenue per admission. Could you just walk us through the drivers there? And was any of that related to the extra day in the quarter?

Yes. I mean, the extra day, I think, is a mechanical sort of thing. We tend not to really focus on that largely because I think in the end, obviously, the longer the period, if you look at the full year, all that comes out in the wash. I think more importantly, we had a difficult acute care comparison. I think our same store adjusted admissions in last year's Q3 were up close to 7%.

But I think even more importantly, if you go back and you listen to our or read our commentary from last year's Q3, we attribute a lot of that to, again, this catch up in the deferred and postponed procedures than those procedures that had been postponed or deferred during the pandemic. And as a consequence, if you go back, while our volumes, both admissions and surgical volumes were strong in the Q3 of last year, they tended to be skewed towards those lower acuity, kind of more discretionary procedures that people have the ability to defer during the pandemic. And so when you're looking at now that comparison of 24 to 23, you see volumes sort of look unfavorable, may have come down some, but acuity has come up because so much of that activity last year's quarter was due to the lower acuity, lower revenue sorts of procedures.

Okay, awesome. And then any color on the inpatient surgical trend?

Yes. As I noted in my prepared remarks, surgeries were soft and they were probably down slightly in the quarter. And again, I think it's a lot of the same dynamic that surgeries were quite strong in the Q3 of last year, but that was skewed towards a lot of what I'll describe as sort of catch up lower acuity, more discretionary, more elective sorts of procedures.

Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of A. J. Rice with UBS.

everybody. Maybe just to ask about the labor, you commented that your use of premium pay was down to $60,000,000 12% down year to year. Any more broad comments on what you're seeing in both business lines and labor? Are we sort of at a stable point at this point? And if you can sort of hold your SWB ratio as a percent of revenues going forward?

Or do you think there's still further opportunities?

Yes. What I think has happened, A. J, is that, again, we're in sort of now this post pandemic environment in which wage inflation, I think, has stabilized. It is clearly lower than it was at the height of the pandemic. Obviously, our use of premium pay has diminished dramatically, although it is also, I think, starting to stabilize and sort of flatten out.

And I think that should continue. That's benefiting us, obviously, in an environment where the revenue growth in both businesses has been quite robust. It's contributing to the margin recovery that salaries are somewhat stable. And I will say, people have noted to me that on the behavioral side, salaries as a percentage of revenue did sequentially increase from Q2 to Q3. And I've asked about whether that's kind of an emerging trend, and I would say not.

I think that that's a function probably of the impact of the hurricane that we saw at the very end of the quarter where a number of our facilities, particularly in the Georgia, South Carolina markets, saw diminished volumes. But also, it's a double whammy because we see diminished volumes, but we're also paying overtime, etcetera, to keep people in the facility and make sure it's properly staffed. But I think outside of that, I would say that labor trends have stabilized substantially in both business segments.

Okay. Maybe just thinking about growth, development, capital deployment, etcetera. Any comment on the behavioral side, the JV pipeline, your pace of new bed additions as you start to think about 25%. And then obviously to the extent there is free cash flow beyond any of that, whether there's M and A opportunities or should we think that most of that cash flow is going to go to stock buybacks from here?

Yes. I mean, we continue with a pretty aggressive and robust capital expenditure program. I talked about some of the big spends in my prepared remarks, but we've started or maybe more properly, I would say we've restarted to add beds to our behavioral business. We've been doing that pretty consistently prior to the pandemic. During the pandemic, we paused many of those expansion activities with the sort of logic being we were struggling to staff the existing beds we had.

There was no point in building new beds. But now that, again, the labor market has stabilized, we're looking in those markets where there is an opportunity to increase volumes by adding beds. Now to be fair, our overall occupancy in the labor is still in the low 70s, so there are plenty of facilities where we should have the potential for upside volume without having to add any new beds. But there are some facilities that are running at higher occupancies than that. And in those facilities, we are again either resurrecting or entertaining new programs to build beds, and we'll continue to do that.

As far as opportunities for M and A, I think we often comment that we are presented with opportunities reasonably regularly. We have found, if you look at our last 5, 7 years, not a great deal of those opportunities to be very compelling, although we'll continue to look at them. And so my guess, because this is M and A, I think, can be hard to predict, but my guess is that, as you think about it, our capital deployment will remain focused probably on capital expenditures and on share repurchase much as it has been for the last 5 to 7 years.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Pito Chickpere with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning guys. I'm looking at same store occupancy here. That's a fun metric because it probably underestimates the busier days Monday through Wednesday for the electric procedures. So my question is, what is the max occupancy for the portfolio before it impacts same store mission growth? And as you think about hospital occupancy, if you can't sort of expand beds fast enough, does this sort of create a more aggressive conversations with your lowest yielding MA pairs like you did a few years ago when you're max capacity in behavioral?

Yes. So, Pito, I'm not sure if your question was specific to 1 or both of the segments. So I'll try and answer for both. I think on the acute side, occupancy over the years has become a somewhat less relevant metric. Obviously, it measures your occupied inpatient beds.

But my experience is I've been in the hospital any number of times that maybe at 2 thirds occupancy from an inpatient bed perspective, but you walk through the emergency room and there are stretchers in the hallway or you walk through the OR and you've got a real busy schedule at the cath lab, that sort of thing. So I think that acute care inpatient occupancy is not as relevant sort of a metric as it used to be or one time it was. There are, I think, a number of other equally important variables in measuring sort of the efficiency and the output of an acute care hospital. I think in terms of the broader question, I don't know that we have too many hospitals that we're really at max capacity in any of those areas. We're certainly not there in terms of inpatient beds, but I don't think we're necessarily there in terms of emergency room capacity or cath labs or ORs, etcetera.

And 2 is agree that we are. I think we're responding to that with capital improvement and expansion programs that address that. On the behavioral side, I do think that inpatient occupancy or an inpatient bed occupancy number is more relevant. There are sort of fewer ancillary sorts of procedures in a behavioral hospital that account for that, although obviously outpatient activity needs to be measured as well. But the same thing, I mean, as I said, for the most part, I don't think we have physical capacity constraints in our behavioral business, but there certainly are facilities and geographies where that is an issue and those are the places where we're doing debt expansions or at least contemplating debt expansions.

Great. And follow-up here is on physician expenses. You talked about sort of that being stable at like 70%, 7.2% of revenue. Are there other areas like radiology and NICU which have not been pressure points in the past, which could be asking for subsidies going forward or pretty much across portfolio across all different groups of physicians that's stable? Thanks so much.

Yes. So the answer is yes. And I would say in the portfolio, I can find examples in almost every specialty where we've had requests for greater subsidies or increased expense, etcetera. As I noted in comments earlier, I think for us, the biggest pressure by far, the most expansive has been in the emergency room and anesthesia areas. But yes, we have, I think, one off situations where we've seen pressure from hospitalists or laborers or radiologists, as you asked about.

But they clearly, I think, have accounted for much less pressure than ER and anesthesiology. And I think broadly, while we continue to sort of deal with those issues every day, I think that situation, which was such a headwind in 2023, has largely stabilized.

Thank you. And one moment as we move on to our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Joanna Gajuk with BofA Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Thank you so much for taking the question. So I guess first to clarify the commentary around the outlook for psych business into next year. So you sort of alluded to the idea of maybe price thing excluding supplementals growing 4%, 5%. And I guess you still expect to exit that 3% volume growth.

So is that sort of the trajectory to expect next year in terms of growth for that segment?

Yes. So Joanna, I mean, we're not we're going to give sort of precise 2025 guidance on this call. We don't do that until our Q4 call in February. But I think we have broadly described our expected sort of trajectory growth in the behavioral business is same store revenue growth in the kind of mid to upper single digits, 6%, 7%, 8%, probably skewed a little bit more to pricing. So 4% to 5% pricing, 3% to 3.5% volume.

But I'm not suggesting that that's going to be our precise guidance for next year. But I think in terms of thinking about next year, that's I think how we start. And then obviously to the degree that there's any significant Medicaid supplemental programs, etcetera, that would be sort of incremental to that.

Right. And I guess, on-site, in terms of volumes, so this quarter maybe wasn't very close to 3%, but I guess you still expect to kind of exit that year. But as we think about all these different tailwinds, so can you kind of walk us through what you're seeing out there in the market? So obviously, there's a mental health parity with some field that has, I guess, more teeth requiring to actually execute on this mental health parity. And also, it sounds like states are adding more benefits.

So are you seeing higher demand? And I guess, are you able to meet that demand? I guess, is there something to be said about increased rates to be able to then staff for that volume?

Yes. So, Joanne, I apologize. I'm having a little trouble hearing you, but I think I got the crux of your question. I'll say this, we as I indicated in some earlier comments, I think our volume recovery in behavioral has I think we've been candid about saying it's taken a little bit longer than we expected. We've cited a number of issues that have been challenges, Labor scarcity issues in specific pockets and specific geographies has been 1.

We had a handful of residential facilities that struggled with some very sort of unique issues that they've been recovering from. And then I think over the last year or so, we've talked about the impact of Medicaid disenrollments and the sort of challenges that that's created even for those patients who have been able to re enroll or enroll in commercial exchange products. While that I think tends to be a benefit on the acute side, I don't think it tends to be as much of a benefit on the behavioral side because the large co pays and deductibles that generally come with those commercial plans have sort of been challenging. But I think for the most part, the recovery in our behavioral volumes and our optimism about being able to sustain that recovery in the Q4 is really about the improvement of all these issues. We continue to be able to hire more staff and have more adequate staff to allow us to take more patients.

The residential facilities that have struggled are continuing to improve and the Medicaid disenrollment impact continues to dissipate as either patients are able to re enroll in Medicaid or get commercial exchange coverage and they exhaust their co pays and deductibles. So I think it's the improvement in those areas that's really contributing to the behavioral improvement. I think you specifically asked about whether we're seeing or anticipating a significant benefit from the Biden administration's sort of tightening of rules on mental health parity. Mental health parity, which was implemented any number of years ago, sort of the great fanfare and I think expectation that we would really benefit from that. I think we've benefited to some degree, but I think the payers and the payer community broadly has been challenging in terms of really getting them to comply with I think both the spirit and the actual intent of mental health parity.

I do think that the strengthened government regulations are helpful, but I don't know that they're likely to really create a landscape change. I think where they're helpful is as we appeal these things, as we appeal denials and that sort of thing, strength in government regulations are often helpful in that regard. But I don't think that's going to drive a huge increase in bagel volumes.

And if I may squeeze a very last, I guess, clarification question or comments on the 2024 guidance. So I assume no change. So you pulled out $20,000,000 I guess, good guide in the quarter from supplemental that wasn't in there, but then there was a $10,000,000 bad guide I guess for this debt and debt costs and I guess settlement, so roughly no change to your 2024 guidance? I just want to confirm that. Thank you.

Yes. There is no change to our revised 2024 guidance.

Thank you. And one moment as we move on to our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Jamie Purce with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, thank you. Good morning, Steve. I just wanted to go back to acute care volumes in the quarter at 1.5%. I appreciate you've been expecting some normalization, but that was just weaker than expected. And want to get a sense of if you saw any change across the quarter, any call outs by payer class, if you can give us any detail on how some of the larger payer classes grew relative to that?

And then as we think about normalization, is this what the new normal looks like? Or are there any dynamics in the Q3 that make this not representative of the go forward?

Yes. So on this one, Jamie, I think I'm just going to have to repeat comments that I've already made. I think the most significant sort of dynamic in the quarter is the difficult comparison to last year, which I will say we have clearly and consistently pointed out during the quarter and tried to manage people's expectations. But more importantly is that difficult comparison to last year, I think was really related to the fact and I mean if you go back and read or listen to our commentary from last year, it was this sort of exhaustion of deferred and postponed procedures, which we did view as a one time thing. What I also said earlier was I thought that if you looked at the year to date performance of the acute business, 3% adjusted admission growth, 5% revenue per adjusted admission growth.

And if you x out the impact of the Nevada supplementals, you start to get an acute care model that in my mind, A, was reflected or is reflective on our historical model, but also our expectations for the future, which is kind of mid single digit, 6%, 7% same store revenue growth split pretty evenly between price and volume.

Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe just a bit of a longer term question. We've been in a pretty unique environment really for the last 5 years or so. Number of structural dynamics have either emerged or maybe intensified over that period, ASC utilization, aggressive payer tactics, probably impacts administrative burden, growth in MA and HICS.

I guess just as you think about the next 5 years, can you level set us on strategy and in particular internal investment priorities going forward?

Yes. I mean, it's a pretty broad question and one that I'm sure we could speak for an extended period of time about sort of all the dynamics that you mentioned. I think broadly, the way I would answer the question, which seems to be an acute care center question is, we have a view that the care continuum has clearly been expanded and payers are looking to ensure that patients can be treated in the most cost effective settings of care, which has resulted in a growth of ambulatory surgery facilities and freestanding imaging facilities and much greater access points. We've had great success with our penetration of freestanding emergency departments as an example. But broadly, I think we are trying to participate in that in the investment in that broader continuum, whether it's again ASCs, freestanding imaging, freestanding EDs, etcetera, that's certainly one component of it.

The other I think is a continued alignment with our physicians, whether that's through accountable care organizations, we have at least one of those in every single market in which we operate, whether it's employed physicians, which we have in virtually all of our markets, etcetera. But I think we view that as we sort of continue into a pretty challenging environment and where utilization is going to be viewed carefully by payers and by the government, we think being properly aligned with our physicians is sort of most important dynamic. So to me, I would cite those two issues, the continued emphasis on physician alignment in a bunch of different ways and the continued expansion of the care continuum as 2 of our major focuses as we think about the next five years.

Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Our next question is going to come from the line of Ryan Langston with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, Steve. Thank you. Quick one and then maybe more broad one. First, does the SDP program benefit you called out for DC, does that include the new facility that you're opening?

Yes, it does. Although I think for the most part, it's been difficult to predict what the impact on the new facility is because obviously we have no track record of utilization etcetera. So the number that we've given is largely based on the historic performance of our acute care hospital in the district as well as we do have a behavioral hospital in the district that would have a smaller benefit from this program. But the new hospital will participate in any new Medicaid supplemental program that's approved.

be some upside potentially to what you've ranged already, I guess, maybe modest?

Universal Health Services (UHS) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants