10-K: Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)
Published on February 28, 2020
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM
For the fiscal year ended
For the transition period from to
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
(Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.) |
(Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.) |
(Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.) |
(OHI Healthcare Properties Limited |
(OHI Healthcare Properties Limited |
(OHI Healthcare Properties Limited |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(Commission file number) |
(IRS EmployerIdentification No.) |
(Address of principal executive offices)
(
(Telephone number, including area code)
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Registrant |
|
Title of Each Class |
Trading Symbol (s) |
Name of Exchange on |
|
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
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.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership Yes ◻ |
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Yes ◻ |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership Yes ◻ |
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 twelve 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.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one:)
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
||
Accelerated filer ◻ |
Non-accelerated filer ◻ |
|
Smaller reporting company ◻ |
Emerging growth company ◻ |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership |
||
Large accelerated filer ◻ |
Accelerated filer ◻ |
|
Smaller reporting company ◻ |
Emerging growth company ◻ |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Yes |
OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership Yes |
The aggregate market value of the common stock Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. held by non-affiliates was $
As of February 19, 2020, there were
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than 120 days after December 31, 2019, is incorporated by reference in Part III herein.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (“Omega OP”). Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, (i) references to “Omega” or the “Company” mean Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, (ii) references to “Parent” refer to Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. without regard to its consolidated subsidiaries, and (iii) references to “Omega OP” mean OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership and its consolidated subsidiaries.
Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Omega is structured as an umbrella partnership REIT (“UPREIT”) under which all of Omega’s assets are owned directly or indirectly by, and all of Omega’s operations are conducted directly or indirectly through, its operating partnership subsidiary, Omega OP.
Parent directly owned approximately 97% of the issued and outstanding partnership units in Omega OP (the “Omega OP Units”) at December 31, 2019. Each Omega OP Unit (other than those owned by Parent) is redeemable at the election of the holder for cash equal to the then-fair market value of one share of common stock of Parent, subject to Parent’s election to exchange the Omega OP Units tendered for redemption for common stock of the Parent on a one-for-one basis in an unregistered transaction, subject to adjustment as set forth in the partnership agreement. The management of Parent consists of the same members as the management of Omega OP.
The financial results of Omega OP are consolidated into the financial statements of Omega. Omega has no significant assets other than its investments in Omega OP. Omega and Omega OP are managed and operated as one entity. Omega OP has no significant assets other than its interests in non-guarantor subsidiaries.
We believe it is important for investors to understand the few differences between Omega and Omega OP in the context of how we operate as a consolidated company. Omega acts as the general partner of Omega OP. Net proceeds from equity issuances by Parent are contributed to Omega OP in exchange for additional partnership units. Parent and Omega OP incur indebtedness. The net proceeds of the Parent’s borrowings are loaned to Omega OP. The outstanding senior notes and certain other debt of Parent is guaranteed by Omega OP.
The presentations of debt and related interest, including amounts accrued, stockholders’ equity, owners’ equity and noncontrolling interests, are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of Omega and Omega OP. The differences between debt, stockholders’ equity and owners’ equity result from differences in the debt or equity issued at the Parent and Omega OP levels. With respect to owners’ equity, the units held by the partners in Omega OP other than the Parent are accounted for as owners’ equity in Omega OP’s financial statements and as noncontrolling interests in Omega’s financial statements. Although classified differently, total debt and equity of Omega and Omega OP are the same.
We believe combining the annual reports on Form 10-K of Omega and Omega OP into this single report results in the following benefits:
| ● | combined reports better reflect how management and the analyst community view the business as a single operating unit; |
| ● | combined reports enhance investors’ understanding of Omega and Omega OP by enabling them to view the business as a whole and in the same manner as management; |
| ● | combined reports are more efficient for Omega and Omega OP and result in savings in time, effort and expense; and |
| ● | combined reports are more efficient for investors by reducing duplicative disclosure and providing a single document for their review. |
In order to highlight the differences between Omega and Omega OP, the separate sections in this report for Omega and Omega OP specifically refer to Omega and Omega OP. In the sections that combine disclosure of Omega and Omega OP, this report refers to “we” and “us” and actions or holdings as being “our” actions or holdings. Although Omega OP and its subsidiaries hold all of our assets, we believe that reference to “we,” “us” or “our” in this context is appropriate because the business is one enterprise and we operate substantially all of our business through Omega OP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page |
||
PART I |
||
1 |
||
1 |
||
2 |
||
3 |
||
5 |
||
14 |
||
19 |
||
20 |
||
38 |
||
39 |
||
42 |
||
44 |
||
44 |
||
47 |
||
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
49 |
|
Forward-Looking Statements and Factors Affecting Future Results |
49 |
|
49 |
||
51 |
||
52 |
||
57 |
||
61 |
||
66 |
||
70 |
||
73 |
||
74 |
||
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure |
74 |
|
74 |
||
75 |
||
Directors, Executive Officers of the Registrant and Corporate Governance |
76 |
|
76 |
||
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management |
76 |
|
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence |
76 |
|
76 |
||
77 |
||
78 |
Item 1 – Business
Overview; Recent Events
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (“Omega”) was formed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and incorporated in the State of Maryland on March 31, 1992. Omega is structured as an umbrella partnership REIT (“UPREIT”) under which all of Omega's assets are owned directly or indirectly by, and all of Omega's operations are conducted directly or indirectly through, its operating partnership subsidiary, OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (“Omega OP”). Omega OP was formed as a limited partnership and organized in the State of Delaware on October 24, 2014. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, the terms the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” means Omega and Omega OP, collectively.
The Company has one reportable segment consisting of investments in healthcare-related real estate properties located in the United States (“U.S.”) and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”). Our core business is to provide financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with a particular focus on skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”), and assisted living facilities (“ALFs”), and to a lesser extent, independent living facilities (“ILFs”), and rehabilitation and acute care facilities (“specialty facilities”) and medical office buildings (“MOBs”). Our core portfolio consists of long-term leases and mortgage agreements. All of our leases are “triple-net” leases, which require the operators (we use the term “operator” to refer to our tenants and mortgagors and their affiliates who manage and/or operate our properties) to pay all property-related expenses. Our mortgage revenue derives from fixed rate mortgage loans, which are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. Our other investment income derives from fixed and variable rate loans to our operators to fund working capital and capital expenditures. These loans, which may be either unsecured or secured by the collateral of the borrower, are classified as other investments.
Omega OP is governed by the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership, dated as of April 1, 2015 (the “Partnership Agreement”). Omega has exclusive control over Omega OP’s day-to-day management pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. As of December 31, 2019, Omega owned approximately 97% of the issued and outstanding units of partnership interest in Omega OP (“Omega OP Units”), and other investors owned approximately 3% of the outstanding Omega OP Units.
On May 17, 2019, Omega and Omega OP completed their merger with MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. (“MedEquities”) and its subsidiary operating partnership and the general partner of its subsidiary operating partnership. Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by the First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March 26, 2019, (the “Merger Agreement”) Omega acquired MedEquities and MedEquities was merged with and into Omega (the “Merger”) at the effective time of the Merger with Omega continuing as the surviving company. At the effective time, each outstanding share of MedEquities common stock was converted into the right to receive (i) 0.235 of a share of Omega common stock, plus cash in lieu of fractional shares, and (ii) $2.00 in cash. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, MedEquities declared a special dividend of $0.21 per share of MedEquities common stock (the “Pre-Closing Dividend”) payable to the holders of record of MedEquities common stock as of the trading day immediately prior to the closing date of the Merger, which dividend was payable following the effective time of the Merger together with the cash consideration under the Merger Agreement.
In 2019, we completed the following transactions totaling approximately $1.7 billion in new investments:
| ● | $661 million acquisition by merger of MedEquities. In connection with the MedEquities Merger, we issued approximately 7.5 million shares of Omega common stock and paid approximately $63.7 million of cash consideration to former MedEquities stockholders. We borrowed approximately $350 million under our existing senior unsecured revolving credit facility to fund the cash consideration and the repayment of MedEquities’ previously outstanding debt. As a result of the MedEquities Merger, we acquired 33 facilities subject to operating leases, four mortgages, three other investments and an investment in an unconsolidated joint venture. We also acquired other assets and assumed debt and other liabilities. |
| ● | $757 million Encore portfolio acquisition. We completed the $757 million portfolio acquisition of 60 facilities (the “Encore Portfolio”). Consideration at closing consisted of approximately $369 million of cash and the assumption of approximately $389 million in mortgage loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Our investment primarily consisted of $735 million of real estate assets and escrows. |
1
| ● | $104 million investment in an unconsolidated joint venture in the U.K., inclusive of transaction costs. We purchased a 49% interest in the joint venture from Healthpeak Properties, Inc. The joint venture primarily owns 67 care homes in the U.K. and development and working capital loans. |
| ● | Acquisition of three SNFs for approximately $25 million from an unrelated third party. The facilities are located in North Carolina and Virginia, and were added to an existing operator’s master lease with an initial cash yield of 9.5% with 2.0% annual rent escalators. |
| ● | $192 million of investments in our capital expenditure programs. |
As of December 31, 2019, our portfolio of investments included 987 healthcare facilities located in 40 states and the U.K. and operated by 71 third-party operators and was made up of the following:
| ● | 784 SNFs, 114 ALFs, 28 specialty facilities and two MOBs; |
| ● | fixed rate mortgages on 47 SNFs, two ALFs and four specialty facilities; and |
| ● | six facilities closed and held for sale. |
As of December 31, 2019, our investments in these facilities, net of impairments and allowances, totaled approximately $9.8 billion. In addition, we held other investments of approximately $419.2 million, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators of our facilities and $199.9 million of investment in five unconsolidated joint ventures.
Summary of Financial Information by Asset Category
The following table summarizes our revenues by asset category for 2019, 2018 and 2017. (See Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Note 3 – Properties, Note 4 – Direct Financing Leases, Note 5 – Mortgage Notes Receivable and Note 6 – Other Investments).
Revenues by Asset Category
(in thousands)
Year Ended December 31, |
|||||||||
|
2019 |
|
2018 |
|
2017 |
||||
Real estate related income: |
|||||||||
Rental income |
$ |
804,076 |
$ |
767,340 |
$ |
775,176 |
|||
Income from direct financing leases |
|
1,036 |
|
1,636 |
|
32,336 |
|||
Mortgage interest income |
|
76,542 |
|
70,312 |
|
66,202 |
|||
Total real estate related revenues |
|
881,654 |
|
839,288 |
|
873,714 |
|||
Other investment income |
|
43,400 |
|
40,228 |
|
29,225 |
|||
Miscellaneous income |
|
3,776 |
|
2,166 |
|
5,446 |
|||
Total operating revenues |
$ |
928,830 |
$ |
881,682 |
$ |
908,385 |
|||
2
The following table summarizes our real estate assets by asset category as of December 31, 2019 and 2018:
Assets by Category
(in thousands)
As of December 31, |
||||||
|
2019 |
|
2018 |
|||
Real estate assets: |
||||||
Buildings |
$ |
7,056,106 |
$ |
6,056,820 |
||
Land |
|
901,246 |
|
786,174 |
||
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
515,421 |
|
447,610 |
||
Site improvements |
|
287,655 |
|
250,917 |
||
Construction in progress |
|
225,566 |
|
204,889 |
||
Total real estate assets |
|
8,985,994 |
|
7,746,410 |
||
Investments in direct financing leases - net |
|
11,488 |
|
132,262 |
||
Mortgage notes receivable - net |
|
773,563 |
|
710,858 |
||
Total real estate related assets |
|
9,771,045 |
|
8,589,530 |
||
Other investments |
|
419,228 |
|
504,626 |
||
Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures |
|
199,884 |
|
31,045 |
||
Assets held for sale - net |
|
4,922 |
|
989 |
||
Total investments |
$ |
10,395,079 |
$ |
9,126,190 |
||
Description of the Business
Investment Strategy. We maintain a portfolio of long-term healthcare facilities and mortgages on healthcare facilities located in the U.S. and the U.K. Our investments are generally geographically diverse and operated by a diverse group of established, middle-market healthcare operators that we believe meet our standards for quality and experience of management and creditworthiness. Our criteria for evaluating potential investments includes but is not limited to:
● the quality and experience of management and the creditworthiness of the operator of the facility;
● the facility’s historical and forecasted cash flow and its ability to meet operational needs, capital expenditure requirements and lease or debt service obligations;
● the construction quality, condition and design of the facility;
● the location of the facility;
● the tax, growth, regulatory and reimbursement environment of the applicable jurisdiction;
● the occupancy rate for the facility and demand for similar healthcare facilities in the same or nearby communities; and
● the payor mix of private, Medicare and Medicaid patients at the facility.
As healthcare delivery continues to evolve, we continuously evaluate our assets, our operators and our markets to position our portfolio for long-term success. Our strategy includes applying data analytics to our investment underwriting and asset management, as well as selling or transitioning assets that do not meet our portfolio criteria.
We seek to obtain (i) contractual rent escalations under long-term, non-cancelable, “triple-net” leases and (ii) fixed-rate mortgage loans. We also typically seek to obtain substantial liquidity deposits, covenants regarding minimum working capital and net worth, liens on accounts receivable and other operating assets, and various provisions for cross-default, cross-collateralization and corporate and/or personal guarantees, when appropriate.
We prefer to invest in equity ownership of properties. Due to regulatory, tax or other considerations, we may pursue alternative investment structures. The following summarizes our primary investment structures. The average annualized yields described below reflect obligations under existing contractual arrangements. However, due to the nature of the long-term care industry, we cannot assure that the operators of our facilities will meet their payment obligations in full or when due. Therefore, the annualized yields as of December 31, 2019, set forth below, are not necessarily indicative of future yields, which may be lower.
3
Triple-Net Operating Leases. Triple-net operating leases typically range from 5 to 15 years, plus renewal options. Our leases generally provide for minimum annual rents that are subject to annual escalators. At December 31, 2019, our average annualized yield from operating leases was approximately 9.4%.
Direct Financing Leases. In addition to our typical lease agreements, two of our leases are being accounted for as direct financing leases with annual escalators. At December 31, 2019, our average annualized yield from the direct financing leases was approximately 9.0%.
Fixed-Rate Mortgages. Our mortgages typically have a fixed interest rate for the mortgage term and are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. At December 31, 2019, our average annualized yield on these investments was approximately 10.1%.
The table set forth in Item 2 – Properties contains information regarding our properties and investments as of December 31, 2019.
Borrowing Policies. We generally attempt to match the maturity of our indebtedness with the maturity of our investment assets and employ long-term, fixed-rate debt to the extent practicable in view of market conditions in existence from time to time.
We may use the proceeds of new indebtedness to finance our investments in additional healthcare facilities. In addition, we may invest in properties subject to existing loans, secured by mortgages, deeds of trust or similar liens on properties.
Policies With Respect To Certain Activities. With respect to our capital requirements, we typically rely on equity offerings, debt financing and retention of cash flow (subject to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) concerning taxability of undistributed REIT taxable income), or a combination of these methods. Our financing alternatives include bank borrowings, publicly or privately placed debt instruments, purchase money obligations to the sellers of assets or securitizations, any of which may be issued as secured or unsecured indebtedness.
We have the authority to issue our common stock or other equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our securities.
Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income and asset tests necessary for REIT qualification, we may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.
We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments. We do not underwrite the securities of other issuers.
Our officers and directors may change any of these policies without a vote of our stockholders. In the opinion of our management, our properties are adequately covered by insurance.
Competition. The healthcare industry is highly competitive and will likely become more competitive in the future. We face competition in making and pricing new investments from other public and private REITs, investment companies, private equity and hedge fund investors, healthcare operators, lenders, developers and other institutional investors, some of whom have greater resources and lower costs of capital than us. We believe our use of data analytics to underwrite investments and manage our portfolio may provide us a competitive advantage. Our operators compete on a local and regional basis with operators of facilities that provide comparable services. The basis of competition for our operators includes, amongst other factors, the quality of care provided, reputation, the physical appearance of a facility, price, the range of services offered, family preference, alternatives for healthcare delivery, the supply of competing properties, physicians, staff, referral sources, location and the size and demographics of the population and surrounding areas.
Increased competition makes it more challenging for us to identify and successfully capitalize on opportunities that meet our objectives. Our ability to compete is also impacted by national and local economic trends, availability of investment alternatives, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, existing laws and regulations, new legislation and population trends.
4
Taxation of Omega
The following is a general summary of the material United States federal income tax considerations applicable to (i) us, (ii) the holders of our securities and (iii) our election to be taxed as a REIT. It is not tax advice. This summary is not intended to represent a detailed description of the United States federal income tax consequences applicable to a particular holder of our securities in view of any person’s particular circumstances, nor is it intended to represent a detailed description of the United States federal income tax consequences applicable to holders of our securities subject to special treatment under the federal income tax laws such as insurance companies, tax-exempt organizations, financial institutions, securities broker-dealers, non-U.S. persons, persons holding our securities as part of a hedge, straddle, or other risk reduction, constructive sales or conversion transaction, investors in pass-through entities, expatriates and taxpayers subject to alternative minimum taxation.
The following discussion, to the extent it constitutes matters of law or legal conclusions (assuming the facts, representations and assumptions upon which the discussion is based are accurate), represents some of the material United States federal income tax considerations relevant to ownership of our securities. The sections of the Code relating to the qualification and operation as a REIT are highly technical and complex. The following discussion sets forth certain material aspects of those sections. The information in this section is based on, and is qualified in its entirety by the Code; the Tax Act (as defined in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” below); current, temporary and proposed Treasury Regulations (“Treasury Regulations”) promulgated under the Code; the legislative history of the Code; current administrative interpretations and practices of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); and court decisions, in each case, as of the date of this report. In addition, the administrative interpretations and practices of the IRS include its practices and policies as expressed in private letter rulings, which are not binding on the IRS, except with respect to the particular taxpayers who requested and received those rulings. For purposes of the discussion below, the “Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate” means 21% for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and 35% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018.
General. We have elected to be taxed as a REIT, under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code, beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 1992. We believe that we were organized and have operated in such a manner as to qualify for taxation as a REIT. We intend to continue to operate in a manner that will allow us to maintain our qualification as a REIT, but no assurance can be given that we have operated or will be able to continue to operate in a manner so as to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT. Omega OP is a pass through entity for United States federal income tax purposes.
5
If we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal corporate income taxes on our net income that is currently distributed to stockholders. However, we will be subject to certain federal income taxes as follows. First, we will be taxed at regular corporate rates on any undistributed REIT taxable income, including undistributed net capital gains; provided, however, that if we have a net capital gain, we will be taxed at regular corporate rates on our undistributed REIT taxable income, computed without regard to net capital gain and the deduction for capital gains dividends, plus a 21% (35% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) tax on undistributed net capital gain, if our tax as thus computed is less than the tax computed in the regular manner. Second, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, under certain circumstances, we may have been subject to the “alternative minimum tax” on our items of tax preference that we do not distribute or allocate to our stockholders. Third, if we have (i) net income from the sale or other disposition of “foreclosure property,” which is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, or (ii) other nonqualifying income from foreclosure property, we will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate on such income. Fourth, if we have net income from prohibited transactions (which are, in general, certain sales or other dispositions of property (other than foreclosure property) held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business by us (i.e., when we are acting as a dealer), such income will be subject to a 100% tax. Fifth, if we should fail to satisfy the 75% gross income test or the 95% gross income test (as discussed below), but nonetheless have maintained our qualification as a REIT because certain other remedial requirements have been met, we will be subject to a 100% tax on an amount equal to (a) the gross income attributable to the greater of the amount by which we fail the 75% or 95% test, multiplied by (b) a fraction intended to reflect our profitability. Sixth, if we should fail to distribute by the end of each year at least the sum of (i) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for such year, (ii) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for such year, and (iii) any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, we will be subject to a 4% excise tax on the excess of such required distribution over the amounts actually distributed. Seventh, we will be subject to a 100% excise tax on transactions with a taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Eighth, if we acquire any asset that is defined as a “built-in gain asset” from a C corporation that is not a REIT (i.e., generally a corporation subject to full corporate-level tax) in a transaction in which the basis of the built-in gain asset in our hands is determined by reference to the basis of the asset (or any other property) in the hands of the C corporation, and we recognize gain on the disposition of such asset (for dispositions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016) during the 5-year period beginning on the date on which such asset was acquired by us (such period, the “recognition period”), then, to the extent of the built-in gain (i.e., the excess of (a) the fair market value of such asset on the date such asset was acquired by us over (b) our adjusted basis in such asset on such date), our recognized gain will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate. The results described above with respect to the recognition of built-in gain assume that we will not make an election pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.337(d)-7(c)(5).
Requirements for Qualification. The Code defines a REIT as a corporation, trust or association: (1) which is managed by one or more trustees or directors; (2) the beneficial ownership of which is evidenced by transferable shares, or by transferable certificates of beneficial interest; (3) which would be taxable as a domestic corporation, but for Sections 856 through 859 of the Code; (4) which is neither a financial institution nor an insurance company as defined in provisions of the Code; (5) the beneficial ownership of which is held by 100 or more persons; (6) during the last half year of each taxable year not more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities); and (7) which meets certain other tests, described below, regarding the nature of its income and assets and the amount of its annual distributions to stockholders. The Code provides that conditions (1) to (4) inclusive, must be met during the entire taxable year and that condition (5) must be met during at least 335 days of a taxable year of twelve months, or during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than twelve months. For purposes of conditions (5) and (6), pension funds and certain other tax-exempt entities are treated as individuals, subject to a “look-through” exception in the case of condition (6). We may avoid disqualification as a REIT for a failure to satisfy any of these tests if such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and we pay a penalty of $50,000 for each such failure.
Income Tests. To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income requirements on an annual basis. First, at least 75% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions) for each taxable year must be derived directly or indirectly from investments relating to real property or mortgages on real property (including generally “rents from real property,” interest on mortgages on real property, and gains on sale of real property and real property mortgages, other than property described in Section 1221(a)(1) of the Code) and income derived from certain types of temporary investments. Second, at least 95% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions) for each taxable year must be derived from such real property investments, dividends, interest and gain from the sale or disposition of stock or securities other than property held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business.
6
Rents received by us will qualify as “rents from real property” in satisfying the gross income requirements for a REIT described above only if several conditions are met. First, the amount of the rent must not be based in whole or in part on the net income or profits of any person. However, any amount received or accrued generally will not be excluded from the term “rents from real property” solely by reason of being based on a fixed percentage or percentages of gross receipts or sales. Second, the Code provides that rents received from a tenant (other than rent from a tenant that is a TRS that meets the requirements described below) will not qualify as “rents from real property” in satisfying the gross income tests if we, or an owner (actually or constructively) of 10% or more of the value of our stock, actually or constructively owns 10% or more of such tenant, which is defined as a related party tenant taking into account certain complex attribution rules. Third, if rent attributable to personal property, leased in connection with a lease of real property, is greater than 15% of the total rent received under the lease, then the portion of rent attributable to such personal property will not qualify as “rents from real property.” Finally, for rents received to qualify as “rents from real property,” we generally must not operate or manage the property, or furnish or render services to the tenants of such property, other than through an independent contractor from which we derive no revenue. We may, however, directly perform certain services that are “usually or customarily rendered” in connection with the rental of space for occupancy only and are not otherwise considered “rendered to the occupant” of the property. In addition, we may directly provide a minimal amount of “non-customary” services to the tenants of a property as long as our income from the services does not exceed 1% of our income from the related property. Furthermore, we may own up to 100% of the stock of a TRS, which may provide customary and non-customary services to our tenants without tainting our rental income from the related properties.
The term “interest” generally does not include any amount received or accrued (directly or indirectly) if the determination of such amount depends in whole or in part on the net income or profits of any person. However, an amount received or accrued generally will not be excluded from the term “interest” solely by reason of being based on a fixed percentage or percentages of gross receipts or sales. In addition, an amount that is based on the net income or profits of a debtor will be qualifying interest income as long as the debtor derives substantially all of its income from the real property securing the debt from leasing substantially all of its interest in the property, but only to the extent that the amounts received by the debtor would be qualifying “rents from real property” if received directly by a REIT.
If a loan contains a provision that entitles us to a percentage of the borrower’s gain upon the sale of the real property securing the loan or a percentage of the appreciation in the property’s value as of a specific date, income attributable to that loan provision will be treated as gain from the sale of the property securing the loan, which generally is qualifying income for purposes of both gross income tests.
Interest on debt secured by mortgages on real property or on interests in real property generally is qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. However, if the highest principal amount of a loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan as of the date we agreed to originate or acquire the loan, a portion of the interest income from such loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. The portion of the interest income that will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test will be equal to the portion of the principal amount of the loan that is not secured by real property. Further, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, such allocation is required only if the fair market value of the personal property exceeds 15% of the value of the property. We do not expect the rules requiring the allocation of mortgage interest to have an impact on our ability to satisfy either of the gross income tests going forward.
A modification of a mortgage loan, if it is deemed significant for income tax purposes, could be considered to be the deemed issuance of a new mortgage loan that is subject to re-testing under these rules, with the possible re-characterization of the mortgage interest on such loan as non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test (but not the 95% gross income test, which is discussed below), as well as non-qualifying assets under the asset test (discussed below) and the deemed exchange of the modified loan for the new loan could result in imposition of the 100% prohibited transaction tax (also discussed below). IRS guidance provides relief in the case of certain existing mortgage loans held by a REIT that are modified in response to these market conditions such that (i) the modified mortgage loan need not be re-tested for purposes of determining whether the income from the mortgage loan continues to be qualified income for purposes of the 75% gross income test or whether the mortgage loan retains its character as a qualified REIT asset for purposes of the asset test (discussed below), and (ii) the modification of the loan will not be treated as a prohibited transaction. At present, we do not hold any mortgage loans that have been modified, which would require us to take advantage of these rules for special relief. We monitor our mortgage loans and direct financing leases for compliance with the above rules.
7
Prohibited Transactions. We will incur a 100% tax on the net income derived from any sale or other disposition of property, other than foreclosure property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. We believe that none of our assets are primarily held for sale to customers and that a sale of any of our assets would not be in the ordinary course of our business. Whether a REIT holds an asset primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business depends, however, on the facts and circumstances in effect from time to time, including those related to a particular asset. The Code provides a set of “safe-harbor provisions,” which, if met, generally will exempt a sale or disposition of property by us from being subject to the 100% tax on sales to customers in the ordinary course of our trade or business. In connection with the sale of any of our assets, we generally attempt to comply with the terms of safe-harbor provisions in the Code so as to minimize the risk that a sale of property by us would be characterized as a prohibited transaction and subject to the 100% tax on any gain from such sale. The Code also provides a number of alternative exceptions from the 100% tax on “prohibited transactions” if certain requirements have been satisfied with respect to property disposed of by a REIT. These requirements relate primarily to the number and/or amount of properties disposed of by a REIT, the period of time the property has been held by the REIT, and/or aggregate expenditures made by the REIT with respect to the property being disposed of. The conditions needed to meet these requirements have been lowered several times through amendments to the Code. However, we cannot assure that we will be able to comply with the safe-harbor provisions or that we would be able to avoid the 100% tax on prohibited transactions if we were to dispose of an owned property that otherwise may be characterized as property that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business.
Foreclosure Property. We will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate on any income from foreclosure property, other than income that otherwise would be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, less expenses directly connected with the production of that income. However, gross income from foreclosure property is treated as qualifying for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests. Foreclosure property is any real property, including interests in real property, and any personal property incident to such real property:
| ● | that is acquired by a REIT as the result of (i) the REIT having bid on such property at foreclosure, or having otherwise reduced such property to ownership or possession by agreement or process of law, after there was a default, or (ii) default was imminent on a lease of such property or on indebtedness that such property secured; |
| ● | for which the related loan or lease was acquired by the REIT at a time when the default was not imminent or anticipated; and |
| ● | for which the REIT makes a proper election to treat the property as foreclosure property. |
Such property generally ceases to be foreclosure property at the end of the third taxable year following the taxable year in which the REIT acquired the property, or longer (for a total of up to six years) if an extension is granted by the Secretary of the Treasury. In the case of a “qualified health care property” acquired solely as a result of termination of a lease, but not in connection with default or an imminent default on the lease, the initial grace period terminates on the second (rather than the third) taxable year following the year in which the REIT acquired the property (unless the REIT establishes the need for and the Secretary of the Treasury grants one or more extensions, not exceeding six years in total, including the original two-year period, to provide for the orderly leasing or liquidation of the REIT’s interest in the qualified health care property). This grace period terminates and foreclosure property ceases to be foreclosure property on the first day:
| ● | on which a lease is entered into for the property that, by its terms, will give rise to income that does not qualify for purposes of the 75% gross income test, or any amount is received or accrued, directly or indirectly, pursuant to a lease entered into on or after such day that will give rise to income that does not qualify for purposes of the 75% gross income test; |
| ● | on which any construction takes place on the property, other than completion of a building or any other improvement, where more than 10% of the construction was completed before default became imminent; or |
| ● | which is more than 90 days after the day on which the REIT acquired the property and the property is used in a trade or business that is conducted by the REIT, other than through an independent contractor from whom the REIT itself does not derive or receive any income, through a TRS. |
8
The definition of foreclosure property includes any “qualified health care property,” as defined in Code Section 856(e)(6) acquired by us as the result of the termination or expiration of a lease of such property. We have from time to time operated qualified healthcare facilities acquired in this manner for up to two years (or longer if an extension was granted). However, we do not currently own any property with respect to which we have made foreclosure property elections. Properties that we had taken back in a foreclosure or bankruptcy and operated for our own account were treated as foreclosure properties for income tax purposes, pursuant to Code Section 856(e). Gross income from foreclosure properties was classified as “good income” for purposes of the annual REIT income tests upon making the election on the tax return. Once made, the income was classified as “good” for a period of three years, or until the properties were no longer operated for our own account. In all cases of foreclosure property, we utilized an independent contractor to conduct day-to-day operations to comply with certain REIT requirements. In certain cases, we operated these facilities through a taxable REIT subsidiary. For those properties operated through the taxable REIT subsidiary, we utilized an eligible independent contractor to conduct day-to-day operations to comply with certain REIT requirements. As a result of the foregoing, we do not believe that our participation in the operation of nursing homes increased the risk that we would fail to qualify as a REIT. Through our 2018 taxable year, we had not paid any tax on our foreclosure property because those properties had been producing losses. We cannot predict whether, in the future, our income from foreclosure property will be significant and whether we could be required to pay a significant amount of tax on that income.
Hedging Transactions. Our hedging activities may include entering into interest rate swaps, caps and floors, options to purchase these items and futures and forward contracts. To the extent that we enter into an interest rate swap or cap contract, option, futures contract, forward rate agreement, or any similar financial instrument for the purpose of hedging our indebtedness incurred to acquire or carry “real estate assets,” any periodic income or gain from the disposition of that contract should be qualifying income and excluded from the computations determining compliance with the 95% and 75% gross income tests. As described in Item 7A – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, we have entered into certain interest rate swap agreements to hedge our risk against fluctuations in interest rates and the swaps have been structured to satisfy the requirements of the tax treatment outlined above. Accordingly, our income and gain from our interest rate swap agreements generally is qualifying income and may be excluded from our computations in determining compliance with the 95% and 75% gross income tests. To the extent that we hedge with other types of financial instruments, or in other situations, it is not entirely clear how the income from those transactions will be treated for purposes of the gross income tests. We believe that we have structured and intend to continue to structure any hedging transactions in a manner that does not jeopardize our status as a REIT.
TRS Income. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. If a TRS owns directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock of another corporation, the other corporation also will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs (for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, the limitation on ownership of TRS stock was 25%). A TRS is permitted to own or lease a health care facility provided that the facility is operated and managed by an “eligible independent contractor.” A TRS will pay income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the new rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT or the REIT’s operators that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. As stated above, we do not lease any of our facilities to any of our TRSs.
Failure to Satisfy Income Tests. If we fail to satisfy one or both of the 75% or 95% gross income tests for any taxable year, we may nevertheless qualify as a REIT for such year if we are entitled to relief under certain relief provisions of the Code. These relief provisions will be generally available if (1) our failure to meet such tests was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, (2) we attach a schedule of the sources of our income to our tax return, and (3) any incorrect information on the schedule was not due to fraud with intent to evade tax. It is not possible, however, to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to the benefit of these relief provisions. Even if these relief provisions apply, we would incur a 100% tax on the gross income attributable to the greater of the amounts by which we fail the 75% and 95% gross income tests, multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability and we would file a schedule with descriptions of each item of gross income that caused the failure.
9
Asset Tests. At the close of each quarter of our taxable year, we must also satisfy the following tests relating to the nature of our assets. First, at least 75% of the value of our total assets must be represented by real estate assets (including (i) our allocable share of real estate assets held by partnerships in which we own an interest and (ii) stock or debt instruments held for less than one year purchased with the proceeds of a stock offering or long-term (at least five years) debt offering of our company), cash, cash items and government securities. Second, of our investments not included in the 75% asset class, the value of our interest in any one issuer’s securities may not exceed 5% of the value of our total assets. Third, we may not own more than 10% of the voting power or value of any one issuer’s outstanding securities. Fourth, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets may be represented by nonqualified publicly offered REIT debt instruments. Fifth, no more than 20% of the value of our total assets may consist of the securities of one or more TRSs (25% in the case of a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018). Sixth, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets may consist of the securities of TRSs and other non-TRS taxable subsidiaries, or other assets that are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test.
For purposes of the second and third asset tests described above the term “securities” does not include our equity or debt securities of a qualified REIT subsidiary, a TRS, or an equity interest in any partnership, since we are deemed to own our proportionate share of each asset of any partnership of which we are a partner. Furthermore, for purposes of determining whether we own more than 10% of the value of only one issuer’s outstanding securities, the term “securities” does not include: (i) any loan to an individual or an estate; (ii) any Code Section 467 rental agreement; (iii) any obligation to pay rents from real property; (iv) certain government issued securities; (v) any security issued by another REIT; and (vi) our debt securities in any partnership, not otherwise excepted under (i) through (v) above, (A) to the extent of our interest as a partner in the partnership or (B) if 75% of the partnership’s gross income is derived from sources described in the 75% income test set forth above.
We may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. However, overall, no more than 20% (or 25% with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) of the value of our assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs, and no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of the securities of TRSs and other non-TRS taxable subsidiaries (including stock in non-REIT C corporations) and other assets that are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test. We believe that the value of our TRSs is substantially less than 20% of the value of our assets and we do not expect the value of our TRSs to increase materially in the future.
If the outstanding principal balance of a mortgage loan exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan, a portion of such loan likely will not be a qualifying real estate asset for purposes of the 75% test. The nonqualifying portion of that mortgage loan will be equal to the portion of the loan amount that exceeds the value of the associated real property. Further, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, such allocation is required only if the fair market value of the personal property exceeds 15% of the value of the property. We do not expect the rules requiring allocation of mortgage loan balances between qualifying and non-qualifying assets to have an impact on our ability to satisfy either of the asset tests going forward. As discussed under the 75% gross income test (see above), the IRS provided relief from re-testing certain mortgage loans held by a REIT that have been modified as a result of distressed market conditions with respect to real property. At present, we do not hold any mortgage loans that have been modified, which would require us to take advantage of these rules for special relief for purposes of the asset tests.
After initially meeting the asset tests at the close of any quarter, we will not lose our status as a REIT for failure to satisfy any of the asset tests at the end of a subsequent quarter solely by reason of changes in asset values. If the failure to satisfy the asset tests results from an acquisition of securities or other property during a quarter, the failure can be cured by disposition of sufficient nonqualifying assets within 30 days after the close of that quarter.
Subject to certain de minimis exceptions, we may avoid REIT disqualification in the event of certain failures under the asset tests, provided that (i) we file a schedule with a description of each asset that caused the failure, (ii) the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, (iii) we dispose of the assets within 6 months after the last day of the quarter in which the identification of the failure occurred (or the requirements of the rules are otherwise met within such period) and (iv) we pay a tax on the failure equal to the greater of (A) $50,000 per failure and (B) the product of the net income generated by the assets that caused the failure for the period beginning on the date of the failure and ending on the date we dispose of the asset (or otherwise satisfy the requirements) multiplied by the Highest Corporate Tax Rate.
10
Annual Distribution Requirements. To qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (A) the sum of (i) 90% of our “REIT taxable income” (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain) and (ii) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of certain items of noncash income. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain, or distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our “REIT taxable income,” as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates.
Furthermore, if we fail to distribute during a calendar year, or by the end of January following the calendar year in the case of distributions with declaration and record dates falling in the last three months of the calendar year, at least the sum of:
| ● | 85% of our REIT ordinary income for such year; |
| ● | 95% of our REIT capital gain income for such year; and |
| ● | any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, |
we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the excess of such required distribution over the amounts we actually distribute. We may elect to retain and pay income tax on the net long-term capital gain we receive in a taxable year. If we so elect, we will be treated as having distributed any such retained amount for purposes of the 4% excise tax described above. We have made, and we intend to continue to make, timely distributions sufficient to satisfy the annual distribution requirements. We may also be entitled to pay and deduct deficiency dividends in later years as a relief measure to correct errors in determining our taxable income. Although we may be able to avoid income tax on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends, we will be required to pay interest to the IRS based upon the amount of any deduction we take for deficiency dividends.
The availability to us of, among other things, depreciation deductions with respect to our owned facilities (which reduce our taxable income and the amount of our required dividend distributions) depends upon the determination that, for federal income tax purposes, we are the true owner of such facilities for federal income tax purposes, which is dependent on the classification of the leases to operators or our facilities as “true leases” rather than financing arrangements for federal income tax purposes. The determinations of whether (1) we are the owner of such facilities, and (2) the leases are true leases, for federal tax purposes are essentially factual matters. With the exception of certain financing arrangements for federal income tax purposes, we believe that we will be treated as the owner of each of the facilities that we lease, and such leases will be treated as true leases for federal income tax purposes. However, no assurances can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge our status as the owner of our facilities subject to leases, and the status of such leases as true leases, asserting that the purchase of the facilities by us and the leasing of such facilities merely constitute steps in secured financing transactions in which the lessees are owners of the facilities and we are merely a secured creditor. In such event, we would not be entitled to claim depreciation deductions with respect to any of the affected facilities. Other changes included in the Tax Act that could impact the amount of our taxable income for our taxable year ended December 31, 2019, include the limitation of the deduction for interest expense, the limitation on the deduction for certain compensation paid to certain of our executive officers, and the changes to the Code expanding the definitions of “lobbying and political expenditures” and “fines, penalties, and other amounts” for purposes of determining whether expenditures of these types continue to qualify as ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses that may be deducted in computing taxable income. Since we are engaged in a qualified real property trade or business, we may elect out of the limitations on the deduction for interest expenses. If we determine the need to make such an election, we will be required to use a longer depreciable life for certain of our real property, which will reduce the amount we may claim currently as depreciation expense for purposes of computing our taxable income. The result of any of the above could cause us to fail to meet the 90% distribution requirement or, if such requirement is met, we might be subject to corporate income tax or the 4% excise tax.
Reasonable Cause Savings Clause. We may avoid disqualification in the event of a failure to meet certain requirements for REIT qualification if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and if the REIT pays a penalty of $50,000 for each such failure. This reasonable cause safe harbor is not available for failures to meet the 95% and 75% gross income tests or the assets tests.
11
Failure to Qualify. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and the reasonable cause relief provisions do not apply, we will be subject to tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify will not be deductible, and our failure to qualify as a REIT would reduce the cash available for distribution by us to our stockholders. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders will be taxable as dividend income, to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. However, in such a case, subject to certain limitations of the Code, corporate distributees may be eligible for the dividends received deduction with respect to dividends that we make, and in the case of an individual, trust, or an estate, dividends are treated the same as capital gain income, which currently is subject to a maximum income tax rate that is lower than regular income tax rates. In addition, in the case of an individual, trust or an estate, to the extent such taxpayer’s unearned income (including dividends) exceeds certain threshold amounts, the Medicare Tax on unearned income also will apply to dividend income. Unless entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we would also be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost. It is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to such statutory relief. Failure to qualify could result in our incurring indebtedness or liquidating investments to pay the resulting taxes.
Our Subsidiaries. We own and operate a number of properties through subsidiaries and the classification of such subsidiaries varies for federal income tax purposes as described in this section. Some of the subsidiaries elected to be taxed as REITs beginning with the calendar year ending December 31, 2015. The stock of the REIT subsidiaries, and dividends received from the REIT subsidiaries, will qualify under the asset tests and income tests, respectively, as described above, provided that such subsidiaries maintain their REIT qualification.
Some of the subsidiaries are classified as qualified REIT subsidiaries, which we refer to as QRSs. Code Section 856(i) provides that a corporation that is a QRS shall not be treated as a separate corporation, and all assets, liabilities, and items of income, deduction, and credit of a qualified REIT subsidiary shall be treated as assets, liabilities and such items (as the case may be) of the REIT. Thus, in applying the tests for REIT qualification described above, the QRSs will be ignored, and all assets, liabilities and items of income, deduction, and credit of such QRSs will be treated as our assets, liabilities and items of income, deduction, and credit.
Some of the subsidiaries are classified as TRSs. As described above, a TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT; however, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs (25% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018). One or more of our TRSs hold a number of assets that cannot be owned directly by a REIT. We believe that the value of the securities of our TRSs is far less than the permitted percentage thresholds described in this section.
Some of the subsidiaries are classified as partnerships. In the case of a REIT that is a partner in a partnership, such REIT is treated as owning its proportionate share of the assets of the partnership and as earning its allocable share of the gross income of the partnership for purposes of the applicable REIT qualification tests. Thus, our proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, and items of income of any partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company that is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes in which we own an interest, directly or indirectly, will be treated as our assets and gross income for purposes of applying the various REIT qualification requirements. See Tax Aspects of Our Investments in our Operating Partnership and Subsidiary Partnerships below.
Tax Aspects of Investments in our Operating Partnership and Subsidiary Partnerships
The following discussion summarizes certain federal income tax considerations applicable to our direct or indirect investments in our operating partnership and any subsidiary partnerships or limited liability companies that we form or acquire including such subsidiary partnerships or limited liability companies that are treated as disregarded for income tax purposes (collectively, “Omega OP”). This discussion does not cover state or local tax laws or any federal tax laws other than income tax laws.
12
Classification as Partnerships. We will be entitled to include in our income our distributive share of each item of Omega OP’s income and to deduct our distributive share of each item of Omega OP’s expense or loss only if Omega OP is classified for federal income tax purposes as a partnership (or an entity that is disregarded for federal income tax purposes if the entity is treated as having only one owner for federal income tax purposes) rather than as a corporation or an association taxable as a corporation. An unincorporated entity with at least two owners or members will be classified as a partnership, rather than as a corporation, for federal income tax purposes if it:
| ● | is treated as a partnership under the Treasury Regulations relating to entity classification (the “check-the-box regulations”); and |
| ● | is not a “publicly-traded partnership.” |
Under the check-the-box regulations, an unincorporated entity with at least two owners or members may elect to be classified either as an association taxable as a corporation or as a partnership. If such an entity fails to make an election, it generally will be treated as a partnership (or an entity that is disregarded for federal income tax purposes if the entity is treated as having only one owner for federal income tax purposes) for federal income tax purposes. Omega OP intends to be classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and will not elect to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation under the check-the-box regulations.
A publicly traded partnership is a partnership whose interests are traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof. A partnership whose interests are traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof, and thus, characterized as a publicly traded partnership that is taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, may nevertheless avoid characterization as a corporation for any taxable year if for each taxable year in which it was classified as a publicly traded partnership, 90% or more of the partnership’s gross income for such year consists of certain passive-type income, including real property rents, gains from the sale or other disposition of real property, interest, and dividends (the “Qualifying Income Exception”). The Treasury Regulations provide limited safe harbors under which certain transfers of interests in the partnership may be ignored or not taken into account in the determination of whether a partnership’s interests are considered to be readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof (the “PTP Transfer Exceptions”). Omega OP’s partnership agreement contains provisions enabling its general partner to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the issuance and transfers of interests in Omega OP that do not satisfy one of the PTP Transfer Exceptions, and thus, cause Omega OP to be treated as a publicly traded partnership. To date, we believe that all transfers of Omega OP Units have satisfied one of the PTP Transfer Exceptions. However, even if the transfers of Omega OP Units failed to qualify for any of the PTP Transfer Exceptions, and Omega OP was considered to be a publicly traded partnership, we believe that Omega OP would have sufficient qualifying income to satisfy the Qualifying Income Exception, and therefore, would not be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
We have not requested, and do not intend to request, a ruling from the IRS that Omega OP will be classified as a partnership and not as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. If for any reason the Omega OP were taxable as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we likely would not be able to qualify as a REIT unless we qualified for certain relief provisions. See the discussions entitled “Failure to Satisfy Income Tests,” “Asset Tests” and “Failure to Qualify” set forth above. In addition, any change in a partnership’s status for tax purposes might be treated as a taxable event, in which case we might incur tax liability without any related cash distribution. See Annual Distribution Requirements above. Further, items of income and deduction of such partnership would not pass through to its partners, and its partners would be treated as stockholders for tax purposes. Consequently, such partnership would be required to pay income tax at corporate rates on its net income, and distributions to its partners would constitute dividends that would not be deductible in computing such partnership’s taxable income.
Partners, Not the Partnerships, Subject to Tax. A partnership is not a taxable entity for federal income tax purposes. Rather, we are required to take into account our allocable share of each item of Omega OP’s income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit for any taxable year of Omega OP ending within or with our taxable year, without regard to whether we have received or will receive any distribution from Omega OP.
Partnership Allocations. Although a partnership agreement generally will determine the allocation of income and losses among partners, such allocations will be disregarded for tax purposes if they do not comply with the provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations governing partnership allocations. If an allocation is not recognized for federal income tax purposes, the item subject to the allocation will be reallocated in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership, which will be determined by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances relating to the economic arrangement of the partners with respect to such item.
13
Tax Allocations With Respect to Partnership Properties. Income, gain, loss, and deduction attributable to property that has appreciated or depreciated that is contributed to a partnership in exchange for an interest in the partnership must be allocated in a manner such that the contributing partner is charged with, or benefits from, respectively, the unrealized gain or unrealized loss associated with the property at the time of the contribution (the “704(c) Allocations”). The amount of such unrealized gain or unrealized loss, referred to as “built-in gain” or “built-in loss”, generally is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the contributed property at the time of contribution and the adjusted tax basis of such property at the time of contribution (a “book-tax difference”). Allocations with respect to book-tax differences are solely for federal income tax purposes and do not affect the book capital accounts or other economic or legal arrangements among the partners. A book-tax difference attributable to depreciable property generally is decreased on an annual basis as a result of the allocation of depreciation deductions to the contributing partner for book purposes but not for tax purposes. The Treasury Regulations require entities taxed as partnerships to use a “reasonable method” for allocating items with respect to which there is a book-tax difference and outline several reasonable allocation methods.
Any gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of contributed properties will be allocated first to the partners of Omega OP who contributed such properties to the extent of their built-in gain or loss on those properties for federal income tax purposes. The partners’ built-in gain or loss on such contributed properties will equal the difference between the partners’ proportionate share of the book value of those properties and the partners’ tax basis allocable to those properties at the time of the contribution as reduced for any decrease in the book-tax difference. Any remaining gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of the contributed properties, and any gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of the other properties, generally will be allocated among the partners in accordance with the partnership agreement, unless such allocations and agreement do not satisfy the requirements of applicable Treasury Regulations, in which case the allocation will be made in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.
Omega OP has, in the past, received contributions of properties having a “carryover” tax basis that is different from the basis of such properties as determined for book or financial accounting purposes. As a result, such properties had significant built-in gain or loss subject to Section 704(c) of the Code. As the general partner of Omega OP, we are required to account for the book-tax difference with respect to the properties contributed to Omega OP under a method approved by Section 704(c) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations, which could result in an allocation of an amount of taxable income from the ownership, or gain or loss from the disposition, of such properties by Omega OP to holders of OP units that contributed such properties that varies from allocations of financial accounting income or gain realized as a result of the ownership and/or disposition of such properties.
Sale of a Partnership’s Property. Generally, any gain realized by a partnership on the sale of property held by the partnership for more than one year will be long-term capital gain, except for any portion of such gain that is treated as depreciation or cost recovery recapture. Our share of any gain realized by Omega OP on the sale of any property held by Omega OP as inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of Omega OP’s trade or business will be treated as income from a prohibited transaction that is subject to a 100% penalty tax. Such prohibited transaction income also may have an adverse effect upon our ability to satisfy the income tests for REIT status. See Income Tests above. We do not presently intend to acquire or hold or to allow Omega OP to acquire or hold any property that represents inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of Omega OP’s trade or business.
Government Regulation and Reimbursement
The healthcare industry is heavily regulated. Our operators are subject to extensive and complex federal, state and local healthcare laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent and substantial changes resulting from the adoption of new legislation, rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes, which may be applied retroactively, cannot be predicted. Changes in laws and regulations impacting our operators, in addition to regulatory non-compliance by our operators, can have a significant effect on the operations and financial condition of our operators, which in turn may adversely impact us. There is the potential that we may be subject directly to healthcare laws and regulations because of the broad nature of some of these regulations, such as the Anti-kickback Statute and False Claims Act, among others. The following is a discussion of certain laws and regulations generally applicable to our operators, and in certain cases, to us.
14
Healthcare Reform. A substantial amount of rules and regulations have been issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively referred to as the “Healthcare Reform Law”). The current administration has brought several Congressional efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. We expect additional rules, regulations and judicial interpretations in response to legal and other constitutional challenges to be issued that may materially affect our operators’ financial condition and operations. Even if the Healthcare Reform Law is not ultimately amended or repealed, the current administration or Congress could propose changes impacting implementation of the Healthcare Reform Law. The ultimate composition and timing of any legislation enacted under the current administration that would impact the current implementation of the Healthcare Reform Law remains uncertain. Given the complexity of the Healthcare Reform Law and the substantial requirements for regulation thereunder, the impact of the Healthcare Reform Law on our operators or their ability to meet their obligations to us cannot be predicted, whether in its current form or as amended, repealed or interpreted.
Reform Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities. On October 4, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule modifying the conditions of participation in Medicare and Medicaid for SNFs. The extensive changes included provisions related to staff training, discharge planning, infection prevention and control programs, and pharmacy services, among others. While many of the regulations have become effective, the implementation and enforcement of some provisions, particularly with respect to the Quality Assurance Program Improvement (“QAPI”) and compliance and ethics related requirements of the Phase 3 regulations, did not become effective until November 28, 2019.
Trump Administration Budget Proposal. The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed by the Trump administration on February 10, 2020 contains several provisions which have the potential to impact long-term care providers. The proposed budget contains cuts of approximately $920 billion to the Medicaid program over ten years, and additionally contains a proposed unified payment system policy for post-acute care providers, including skilled nursing facilities. While we believe it is likely that the budget will be significantly revised from the initial proposal before approval by Congress, the potential impact of these proposed budget initiatives on the long-term care industry is currently being analyzed by industry stakeholders and could have a material adverse effect on our operators.
Reimbursement Generally. A significant portion of our operators’ revenue is derived from government-funded reimbursement programs, consisting primarily of Medicare and Medicaid. As federal and state governments continue to focus on healthcare reform initiatives, efforts to reduce costs by government payors will likely continue, which may result in reductions in reimbursement at both the federal and state levels. Additionally, new and evolving payor and provider programs, including but not limited to Medicare Advantage, dual eligible, accountable care organizations, and bundled payments could adversely impact our tenants’ and operators’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. Significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and/or reductions of reimbursement rates could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which could adversely affect our operators’ ability to meet their obligations to us. On February 10, 2020, the current administration proposed the budget for fiscal year 2021, which contains several provisions that have the potential to impact long-term care providers. The proposed budget contains cuts of approximately $920 billion to the Medicaid program over ten years, and additionally contains a proposed unified payment system policy for post-acute care providers, including skilled nursing facilities. While the likelihood of the budget passing in its current form seems unlikely, the potential impact of these proposed budget initiatives on the long-term care industry is currently being analyzed by industry stakeholders and could have a material adverse effect on our operators.
Medicaid. State budgetary concerns, coupled with the implementation of rules under the Healthcare Reform Law, or prospective changes to the Healthcare Reform Law under the current administration or Congress, may result in significant changes in healthcare spending at the state level. Since our operators’ profit margins on Medicaid patients are generally relatively low, more than modest reductions in Medicaid reimbursement or an increase in the percentage of Medicaid patients could adversely affect our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which in turn could negatively impact us.
In the state of Florida, the average Medicaid reimbursement rate for SNFs decreased 4.5% effective July 1, 2019, resulting from the loss of one-time discretionary funding applied to October 1, 2018 Florida Medicaid reimbursement rates to cover the impact of hold-harmless provisions in the new, price-based Prospective Payment System (“PPS”) enacted by Florida at that time. However, the net impact of this rate decrease was to revert the average rate approximately to the pre-PPS, cost-based level as of September 30, 2018, which we believe operators can generally address with operational adjustments to maintain coverage levels. A smaller discretionary increase effective October 1, 2019 will increase the average rate by 0.7%. When the transition hold-harmless provisions expire on September 30, 2021, the PPS rates will no longer be dependent on discretionary funding levels. At December 31, 2019, 15% of our investments were in Florida.
15
Texas, which represents 10% of our investments as of December 31, 2019, presents a difficult operating environment for SNF operators as a result of lower statewide occupancy levels, as compared to other states, and a Medicaid rate reimbursement that we believe is among the lowest in the United States. Several of our operators have experienced lower operating margins on their SNFs in Texas, as compared to other states, as a result of the foregoing and labor costs.
Additionally, in mid-November 2019, CMS proposed the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Rule (“MFAR”), which would modify and refine the current federal portion of Medicaid funding for two programs commonly referred to as the upper payment limit (“UPL”) and provider taxes. We have operators in two states, Indiana and Texas, that participate in UPL programs and operators in 36 states who receive provider tax reimbursements as of December 31, 2019. Based on our analysis of MFAR and discussions with our operators and other industry leaders, we believe MFAR as proposed would eliminate the incremental UPL funds and that most, if not all, states are or will be able to become compliant under the revised provider tax program. If finalized, MFAR would become effective two years after the rule is finalized for the Indiana program and three years after the rule is finalized for most of the other states. It is too early to estimate the ultimate potential impact of MFAR on our facilities in Indiana and Texas as we expect any reductions in revenues may be at least partially offset by expense reductions. In general, if implemented, MFAR could reduce reimbursement to our operators in those states affected by the rule, which could ultimately have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of those operators.
Medicare. On July 30, 2019, CMS issued a final rule regarding the government fiscal year (“FY”) 2020 Medicare payment rates and quality payment programs for SNFs, with aggregate payments projected to increase by $851 million, or 2.4 percent, for FY 2020 compared to FY 2019. This estimated reimbursement increase is attributable to a 2.8% market basket increase factor with a 0.4% reduction for the multifactor productivity adjustment mandated by the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (“IMPACT Act”). The annual update is reduced by two percentage points for SNFs that fail to submit required quality data to CMS under the SNF Quality Reporting Program (“QRP”). The CMS also adopted two new quality measures in FY 2020 to assess whether certain health information is provided by the SNF at the time of transfer or discharge. The two measures are: 1) Transfer of Health Information to the Provider-Post-Acute Care and 2) Transfer of Health Information to the Patient-Post-Acute Care.
Payments to providers are being increasingly tied to quality and efficiency. The Patient Driven Payment Model (“PDPM”), which was designed by CMS to improve the incentives to treat the needs of the whole patient, rather than the volume of services the patient receives, became effective October 1, 2019 (FY 2020). The PDPM replaces the previous SNF prospective payment system that utilized the Resource Utilization Group IV case-mix methodology to classify SNF patients based on the volume of services received with a methodology that utilizes the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (“ICD-10”) to classify SNF patients into certain payment groups based on their clinical disease state. Effective October 1, 2019, group therapy is defined as a qualified rehabilitation therapist or therapy assistant treating two to six patients at the same time who are performing the same or similar activities. Also effective October 1, 2019, CMS established a 25% cap for concurrent and group therapy.
While certain of our operators could realize efficiencies and cost savings from increased concurrent and group therapy under PDPM and some have reported some early positive results, it is too early to assess the long-term impacts of these reimbursement changes, including the value-based purchasing programs applicable to SNFs under the 2014 Protecting Access to Medicare Act, which became effective on October 1, 2018, and these reimbursement changes could have an adverse effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, adversely impacting their ability to meet their obligations to us.
In addition to Medicare payment rates, SNFs continue to be impacted by the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,” which extended Medicare sequestration and Medicare reimbursement cuts to providers and plans by 2% across the board, for an additional two years through 2027. Furthermore, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 permanently repealed the therapy caps that applied to Medicare Part B therapy services provided as of January 1, 2018 and reduced the reimbursement rate for Medicare Part B therapy services performed by therapy assistants to 85% of the physician fee schedule beginning January 1, 2022. The former cap amounts were retained as a threshold above which claims must include confirmation that services are medically necessary as justified by appropriate documentation in the medical record.
Quality of Care Initiatives. In addition to quality or value based reimbursement reforms, CMS has implemented a number of initiatives focused on the quality of care provided by long term care facilities that could affect our operators. In December 2008, CMS released quality ratings for all of the nursing homes that participate in Medicare or Medicaid under its “Five Star Quality Rating System.” Facility rankings, ranging from five stars (“much above average”) to one star (“much below average”) are updated on a monthly basis. SNFs are required to provide information for the CMS Nursing Home Compare website regarding staffing and quality measures.
16
In March 2019, CMS announced additional updates to the Nursing Home Care website and the Five Star Quality Rating System beginning in April 2019. These changes include revisions to the inspection process, enhancement of new staffing information, and implementation of new quality measures.
CMS is also setting higher thresholds and evidence-based standards for nursing homes’ staffing levels. Currently, facilities that report seven or more days in a quarter with no registered nurse onsite are automatically assigned a one-star staffing rating. In April 2019, the threshold for the number of days without a registered nurse onsite in a quarter that triggers an automatic downgrade to one-star was reduced from seven days to four days. It is possible that these rating changes or any other ranking system could lead to future reimbursement policies that reward or penalize facilities on the basis of the reported quality of care parameters.
Office of the Inspector General Activities. The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has provided long-standing guidance for SNFs regarding compliance with federal fraud and abuse laws. More recently, the OIG has conducted oversight activities and issued additional guidance regarding its findings related to identified problems with the quality of care and the reporting and investigation of potential abuse or neglect at group homes, nursing homes, and skilled nursing facilities. The OIG has additionally reviewed the staffing levels reported by SNFs as part of its August 2018 and February 2019 Work Plan updates, and included a review of involuntary transfers and discharges from nursing homes in the June 2019 Work Plan updates. Regional Recovery Audit Contractor program auditors along with the OIG and Department of Justice are expected to continue their efforts to evaluate SNF Medicare claims for any excessive therapy charges.
Department of Justice. SNFs are under intense scrutiny for the quality of care being rendered to residents and appropriate billing practices. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) launched ten regional Elder Justice Task Forces in 2016 which are coordinating and enhancing efforts to pursue SNFs that provide grossly substandard care to their residents. These Task Forces are composed of representatives from the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, State Medicaid Fraud Control Units, state and local prosecutors’ offices, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), State Adult Protective Services agencies, Long Term Care Ombudsmen programs, and law enforcement. The DOJ has indicated that it is seeking to enhance the work of the Elder Justice Initiative to identify potential criminal charges when they uncover false claims for government reimbursements of care. The DOJ’s civil division has historically used the False Claims Act to pursue nursing homes that bill the federal government for services not rendered or care that is grossly substandard.
Medicare and Medicaid Program Audits. Governmental agencies and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, as well as the HHS-OIG and HHS-OCR, CMS and state Medicaid programs, may conduct audits of our operators’ billing practices. Under the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) program, CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program, to managed Medicare plans and in the Medicaid program. CMS also employs Medicaid Integrity Contractors (“MICs”) to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. In addition to RACs and MICs, the state Medicaid agencies and other contractors have increased their review activities. Should any of our operators be found out of compliance with any of these laws, regulations or programs, our business, financial position and results of operations could be negatively impacted.
Fraud and Abuse. There are various federal and state civil and criminal laws and regulations governing a wide array of healthcare provider referrals, relationships and arrangements, including laws and regulations prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers. Many of these complex laws raise issues that have not been clearly interpreted by the relevant governmental authorities and courts.
These laws include: (i) federal and state false claims acts, which, among other things, prohibit providers from filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal or state healthcare programs; (ii) federal and state anti-kickback and fee-splitting statutes, including the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-kickback statute, which prohibit the payment or receipt of remuneration to induce referrals or recommendations of healthcare items or services, such as services provided in a SNF; (iii) federal and state physician self-referral laws (commonly referred to as the Stark Law), which generally prohibit referrals by physicians to entities for designated health services (some of which are provided in SNFs) with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship; (iv) the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the knowing presentation of a false or fraudulent claim for certain healthcare services and (v) federal and state privacy laws, including the privacy and security rules contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which provide for the privacy and security of personal health information.
17
Violations of healthcare fraud and abuse laws carry civil, criminal and administrative sanctions, including punitive sanctions, monetary penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and potential exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal or state healthcare programs. Additionally, there are criminal provisions that prohibit filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment or certification under Medicare and Medicaid, as well as failing to refund overpayments or improper payments. Violation of the Anti-kickback statute or Stark Law may form the basis for a federal False Claims Act violation. These laws are enforced by a variety of federal, state and local agencies and can also be enforced by private litigants through, among other things, federal and state false claims acts, which allow private litigants to bring qui tam or whistleblower actions, which have become more frequent in recent years.
Several of our operators have responded to subpoenas and other requests for information regarding their operations in connection with inquiries by the Department of Justice or other regulatory agencies. In addition, MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc., which we acquired in May 2019, has responded to a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice in connection with Lakeway Regional Medical Center. See Note 20 – Commitments and Contingencies.
Privacy. Our operators are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect the confidentiality and security of patient health information, including the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and the corresponding regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively referred to herein as “HIPAA”). The HITECH Act expanded the scope of these provisions by mandating individual notification in instances of breaches of protected health information, providing enhanced penalties for HIPAA violations, and granting enforcement authority to states’ Attorneys General in addition to the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). Additionally, in a final rule issued in January 2013, HHS modified the standard for determining whether a breach has occurred by creating a presumption that any non-permitted acquisition, access, use or disclosure of protected health information is a breach unless the covered entity or business associate can demonstrate through a risk assessment that there is a low probability that the information has been compromised.
Various states have similar laws and regulations that govern the maintenance and safeguarding of patient records, charts and other information generated in connection with the provision of professional medical services. These laws and regulations require our operators to expend the requisite resources to secure protected health information, including the funding of costs associated with technology upgrades. Operators found in violation of HIPAA or any other privacy law or regulation may face significant monetary penalties. In addition, compliance with an operator’s notification requirements in the event of a breach of unsecured protected health information could cause reputational harm to an operator’s business.
Licensing and Certification. Our operators and facilities are subject to various federal, state and local licensing and certification laws and regulations, including laws and regulations under Medicare and Medicaid requiring operators of SNFs and ALFs to comply with extensive standards governing operations. Governmental agencies administering these laws and regulations regularly inspect our operators’ facilities and investigate complaints. Our operators and their managers receive notices of observed violations and deficiencies from time to time, and sanctions have been imposed from time to time on facilities operated by them. In addition, many states require certain healthcare providers to obtain a certificate of need, which requires prior approval for the construction, expansion or closure of certain healthcare facilities, which has the potential to impact some of our operators’ abilities to expand or change their businesses.
Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Our properties must comply with the ADA and any similar state or local laws to the extent that such properties are public accommodations as defined in those statutes. The ADA may require removal of barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. Should barriers to access by persons with disabilities be discovered at any of our properties, we may be directly or indirectly responsible for additional costs that may be required to make facilities ADA-compliant. Noncompliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Our commitment to make readily achievable accommodations pursuant to the ADA is ongoing, and we continue to assess our properties and make modifications as appropriate in this respect.
Other Laws and Regulations. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affect how our operators conduct their operations, including laws and regulations protecting consumers against deceptive practices and otherwise generally affecting our operators’ management of their property and equipment and the conduct of their operations (including laws and regulations involving fire, health and safety; quality of services, including care and food service; residents’ rights, including abuse and neglect laws; and the health standards set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
18
General and Professional Liability. Although arbitration agreements have been effective in limiting general and professional liabilities for SNF and long term care providers, there have been numerous lawsuits challenging the validity of arbitration agreements in long term care settings. CMS prohibited pre-dispute arbitration agreements between SNFs and residents effective November 28, 2016, thereby increasing potential liabilities for SNFs and long-term care providers. Subsequently, the authority of CMS to restrict the rights of these parties to arbitrate was challenged by litigation in various jurisdictions. On July 16, 2019, CMS lifted the ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements offered to residents at the time of admission, but prohibits providers from requiring residents to sign them as a condition for receiving care and requires that arbitration agreements must specifically grant residents the explicit right to rescind the agreement within thirty calendar days of signing.
Information about our Executive Officers
Biographical information regarding our executive officers and their ages as of February 1, 2020 are set forth below:
C. Taylor Pickett (58) is our Chief Executive Officer and has served in this capacity since June 2001. Mr. Pickett has also served as Director of the Company since May 30, 2002. Mr. Pickett has also been a member of the board of trustees of Corporate Office Properties Trust, an office REIT focusing on U.S. government agencies and defense contractors, since November 2013. From January 1993 to June 2001, Mr. Pickett served as a member of the senior management team of Integrated Health Services, Inc., most recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc. Mr. Pickett held various positions at PHH Corporation and KPMG Peat Marwick.
Daniel J. Booth (56) is our Chief Operating Officer and has served in this capacity since October 2001. From 1993 to October 2001, Mr. Booth served as a member of the management team of Integrated Health Services, Inc., most recently serving as Senior Vice President, Finance. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc., Mr. Booth served as a Vice President in the Healthcare Lending Division of Maryland National Bank (now Bank of America).
Steven J. Insoft (55) is our Chief Corporate Development Officer and has served in this capacity since April 1, 2015. Mr. Insoft served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Aviv REIT, Inc. from 2012 until it was acquired by Omega in 2015, while previously serving as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Aviv REIT, Inc. Prior to joining Aviv REIT, Inc. in 2005, Mr. Insoft spent eight years as a Vice President and Senior Investment Officer of Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., a publicly-traded REIT. Before that, he was President and Chief Financial Officer of CMI Senior Housing & Healthcare, Inc., a privately-held nursing home and assisted living facility operations and development company, for seven years.
Robert O. Stephenson (56) is our Chief Financial Officer and has served in this capacity since August 2001. From 1996 to July 2001, Mr. Stephenson served as the Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc., Mr. Stephenson held various positions at CSX Intermodal, Inc., Martin Marietta Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.
Gail D. Makode (44) is our Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and has served in this capacity since September 2019. Previously, she served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of IES Holdings, Inc., from October 2012 to September 2019. Prior to IES, she served in various legal capacities at MBIA Inc., including as General Counsel and Member of the Board at MBIA Insurance Corporation and Chief Compliance Officer of MBIA Inc., from 2006 to 2012. Earlier in her career, she served as Vice President and Counsel for Deutsche Bank AG, and as an associate at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton, where she specialized in public and private securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions.
Michael D. Ritz (51) is our Chief Accounting Officer and has served in this capacity since February 2007. From April 2005 to February 2007, Mr. Ritz served as the Vice President, Accounting & Assistant Corporate Controller of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., and from August 2002 to April 2005, Mr. Ritz served as the Director, Financial Reporting of Newell Rubbermaid Inc. From July 2001 through August 2002, Mr. Ritz served as the Director of Accounting and Controller of Novavax Inc.
As of February 18, 2020, we had 49 full-time employees, including the six executive officers listed above.
19
Available Information
Our website address is www.omegahealthcare.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) are available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with, or furnish them to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Additionally, the SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including us, at www.sec.gov.
Item 1A – Risk Factors
Following are some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause our financial condition, results of operations, business and prospects to differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report or our other filings with the SEC. These risks should be read in conjunction with the other risks described in this report, including but not limited to those described in Taxation and Government Regulation and Reimbursement under Item 1 above. The risks described in this report are not the only risks facing us and there may be additional risks we are not presently aware of or that we currently consider unlikely to significantly impact us. Our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks, and, as a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline.
Risks Related to the Operators of Our Facilities
Our financial position could be weakened and our ability to make distributions and fulfill our obligations with respect to our indebtedness could be limited if our operators, or a portion thereof, become unable to meet their obligations to us or fail to renew or extend their relationship with us as their lease terms expire or their mortgages mature, or if we become unable to lease or re-lease our facilities or make mortgage loans on economically favorable terms. We have no operational control over our operators. Adverse developments concerning our operators could arise due to a number of factors, including those listed below.
The bankruptcy or insolvency of our operators could limit or delay our ability to recover on our investments.
We are exposed to the risk that a distressed or insolvent operator may not be able to meet its lease, loan, mortgage or other obligations to us or other third parties. This risk is heightened during a period of economic or political instability. Although each of our lease and loan agreements typically provides us with the right to terminate, evict an operator, foreclose on our collateral, demand immediate payment and exercise other remedies upon the bankruptcy or insolvency of an operator, title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) would limit or, at a minimum, delay our ability to collect unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents and mortgage payments and to pursue other remedies against a bankrupt operator. While we sometimes have third party guarantees of an operator’s lease or loan obligations, such guarantees can be expensive to enforce, and have their own risks of collection as against the guarantors.
Leases. A bankruptcy filing by one of our lessee operators would typically prevent us from collecting unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents or evicting the operator, absent approval of the bankruptcy court. The Bankruptcy Code provides a lessee with the option to assume or reject an unexpired lease within certain specified periods of time. Generally, a lessee is required to pay all rent that becomes payable between the date of its bankruptcy filing and the date of the assumption or rejection of the lease (although such payments will likely be delayed as a result of the bankruptcy filing). If one of our lessee operators chooses to assume its lease with us, the operator must promptly cure all monetary defaults existing under the lease (including payment of unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents) and provide adequate assurance of its ability to perform its future lease obligations. Even where a lessee operator assumes its lease with us, it will first often threaten to reject that lease to obtain better lease terms from us, and we sometimes have to consider making, or we do make, such economic concessions to avoid rejection of the lease and our taking a closed facility back. If one of our lessee operators opts to reject its lease with us, we would have a claim against such operator for unpaid and future rents payable under the lease, but such claim would be subject to a statutory “cap” under the Bankruptcy Code, and would likely result in a recovery substantially less than the face value of such claim. Although the operator’s rejection of the lease would permit us to recover possession of the leased facility, we would likely face losses, costs and delays associated with repairs and/or maintenance of the facility and then re-leasing the facility to a new operator, or costs associated with selling the facility. In any event, re-leasing a facility or selling it could take a material amount of time, and the pool of interested and qualified tenants or buyers will be limited due to the unique nature of our properties, which may depress values and our eventual recovery. Finally, whether a lease operator in bankruptcy ends up assuming or rejecting our lease, we will incur legal and collection costs, which can be difficult or impossible to recover.
20
Several other factors could impact our rights under leases with bankrupt operators. First, the operator could seek to assign its lease with us to a third party. The Bankruptcy Code disregards anti-assignment provisions in leases to permit the assignment of unexpired leases to third parties (provided all monetary defaults under the lease are promptly cured and the assignee can demonstrate its ability to perform its obligations under the lease). Second, in instances in which we have entered into a master lease agreement with an operator that operates more than one facility, the bankruptcy court could determine that the master lease was comprised of separate, divisible leases (each of which could be separately assumed or rejected), rather than a single, integrated lease (which would have to be assumed or rejected in its entirety). Finally, the bankruptcy court could re-characterize our lease agreement as a disguised financing arrangement, which could require us to receive bankruptcy court approval to foreclose or pursue other remedies with respect to the facility.
Mortgages. A bankruptcy filing by an operator to which we have made a loan secured by a mortgage would typically prevent us from collecting unpaid pre-bankruptcy mortgage payments and foreclosing on our collateral, absent approval of the bankruptcy court. As an initial matter, we could ask the bankruptcy court to order the operator to make periodic payments or provide other financial assurances to us during the bankruptcy case (known as “adequate protection”), but the ultimate decision regarding “adequate protection” (including the timing and amount of any “adequate protection” payments) rests with the bankruptcy court. In addition, we would need bankruptcy court approval before commencing or continuing any foreclosure action against the operator’s collateral (including a facility). The bankruptcy court could withhold such approval, especially if the operator can demonstrate that the facility or other collateral is necessary for an effective reorganization and that we have a sufficient “equity cushion” in the facility or that we are otherwise protected from any diminution in value of the collateral. If the bankruptcy court does not either grant us “adequate protection” or permit us to foreclose on our collateral, we may not receive any loan payments until after the bankruptcy court confirms a plan of reorganization for the operator. In addition, in any bankruptcy case of an operator to which we have made a loan, the operator may seek bankruptcy court approval to pay us (i) over a longer period of time than the terms of our loan, (ii) at a different interest rate, and/or (iii) for only the value of the collateral, instead of the full amount of the loan. Finally, even if the bankruptcy court permits us to foreclose on the facility, we would still be subject to the losses, costs and other risks associated with a foreclosure sale, including possible successor liability under government programs, indemnification obligations and suspension or delay of third-party payments. Should such events occur, our income and cash flow from operations would be adversely affected.
Failure by our operators to comply with various local, state and federal government regulations may adversely impact their ability to make debt or lease payments to us.
Our operators are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those described below, that are subject to frequent and substantial changes (sometimes applied retroactively) resulting from new legislation, adoption of rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law, and any changes in the regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our tenants, operators, guarantors and managers. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes cannot be predicted. These changes may have a dramatic effect on our operators’ costs of doing business and on the amount of reimbursement by both government and other third-party payors. The failure of any of our operators to comply with these laws, requirements and regulations could adversely affect their ability to meet their obligations to us.
| ● | Reimbursement; Medicare and Medicaid. A significant portion of our operators’ revenue is derived from governmentally-funded reimbursement programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Healthcare Reform, Reimbursement Generally, Medicaid, and Medicare, and the risk factors entitled Our operators depend on reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors, and reimbursement rates from such payors may be reduced and Government spending cuts or modifications could lead to a reduction in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for a further discussion on governmental and third-party payor reimbursement and the associated risks presented to our operators. Failure to maintain certification in these programs, or other restrictions on reimbursements, would result in a loss of reimbursement from such programs and could result in a reduction in an operator’s revenues and operating margins, thereby negatively impacting an operator’s ability to meet its obligations to us. |
| ● | Quality of Care Initiatives. The CMS has implemented a number of initiatives focused on the quality of care provided by nursing homes that could affect our operators, including a quality rating system for nursing homes. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Quality of Care Initiatives. Any unsatisfactory rating of our operators under any rating system promulgated by the CMS could result in the loss of our operators’ residents or lower reimbursement rates, which could adversely impact their revenues and our business. |
21
| ● | Licensing and Certification. Our operators and facilities are subject to various federal, state and local licensing and certification laws and regulations, including laws and regulations under Medicare and Medicaid requiring operators of SNFs and ALFs to comply with extensive standards governing operations. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Licensing and Certification. Governmental agencies administering these laws and regulations regularly inspect our operators’ facilities and investigate complaints. Our operators and their managers receive notices of observed violations and deficiencies from time to time, and sanctions have been imposed from time to time on facilities operated by them. Failure to obtain any required licensure or certification, the loss or suspension of any required licensure or certification, or any violations or deficiencies with respect to relevant operating standards may require a facility to cease operations or result in ineligibility for reimbursement until the necessary licenses or certifications are obtained or reinstated, or any such violations or deficiencies are cured. In such event, our revenues from these facilities could be reduced or eliminated for an extended period of time or permanently. Additionally, many states require certain healthcare providers to obtain a certificate of need, which requires prior approval for the construction, expansion, closure or change of ownership of certain healthcare facilities, which has the potential to impact some of our operators’ abilities to expand or change their businesses. Further, Medicare and Medicaid provider approvals, as applicable, may be needed prior to an operator’s change of ownership. |
| ● | Fraud and Abuse Laws and Regulations. There are various federal and state civil and criminal laws and regulations governing a wide array of healthcare provider referrals, relationships and arrangements, including laws and regulations prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers. In addition to our operators, there is the potential that we may become subject directly to healthcare laws and regulations because of the broad nature of some these provisions. Many of these complex laws raise issues that have not been clearly interpreted by the relevant governmental authorities and courts and are subject to change. In addition, federal and state governments are devoting increasing attention and resources to anti-fraud investigations and initiatives against healthcare providers, and provide for, among other things, claims to be filed by qui tam relators. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Fraud and Abuse. The violation by an operator of any of these extensive laws or regulations, including the Anti-kickback Statute, False Claims Act and the Stark Law, could result in the imposition of criminal fines and imprisonment, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and all other federal and state healthcare programs. Such fines or penalties, in addition to expending considerable resources responding to an investigation or enforcement action, could adversely affect an operator’s financial position and jeopardize an operator’s ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us or to continue operating its facility. Additionally, many states have adopted or are considering legislative proposals similar to the federal anti-fraud and abuse laws, some of which extend beyond the Medicare and Medicaid programs to private or other third-party payors, to prohibit the payment or receipt of remuneration for the referral of patients and physician self-referrals, regardless of whether the service was reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. Healthcare providers and facilities may also experience an increase in medical record reviews from a host of government agencies and contractors, including the HHS Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Justice, Zone Program Integrity Contractors, and Recovery Audit Contractors. |
| ● | Privacy and Security Laws. Our operators are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect the privacy and security of patient health information, including HIPAA, among others. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Privacy. These laws and regulations require our operators to expend the requisite resources to protect the confidentiality and security of patient health information, including the funding of costs associated with operational and technology upgrades. Operators found in violation of HIPAA or any other privacy or security law may face significant monetary penalties. In addition, a breach of unsecured protected health information could cause reputational harm to an operator’s business in addition to a material adverse effect on the operator’s financial position and cash flows. |