NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

1. NATURE OF OPERATIONS, CONSOLIDATION AND PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Amedisys, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries (“Amedisys,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) are a multi-state provider of home health and hospice services with approximately 83% and 84% of our revenue derived from Medicare for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. As of March 31, 2014, we owned and operated 358 Medicare-certified home health care centers, including one care center held for sale, 91 Medicare-certified hospice care centers and one hospice inpatient unit in 37 states within the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Basis of Presentation

In our opinion, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting solely of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly our financial position, our results of operations and our cash flows in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”). Our results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results of our operations for the entire year and have not been audited by our independent auditors.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP have been condensed or omitted from the interim financial information presented. This report should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 12, 2014 (the “Form 10-K”), which includes information and disclosures not included herein.

Use of Estimates

Our accounting and reporting policies conform with U.S. GAAP. In preparing the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, we are required to make estimates and assumptions that impact the amounts reported in the condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could materially differ from those estimates.

Reclassifications and Comparability

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period’s financial statements in order to conform to the current period’s presentation.

Principles of Consolidation

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Amedisys, Inc., and our wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, and business combinations accounted for as purchases have been included in our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements from their respective dates of acquisition. In addition to our wholly owned subsidiaries, we also have certain investments that are accounted for as set forth below.

Investments

We consolidate investments when the entity is a variable interest entity and we are the primary beneficiary or if we have controlling interests in the entity, which is generally ownership in excess of 50%. Third party equity interests in our consolidated joint ventures are reflected as noncontrolling interests in our condensed consolidated financial statements.

We account for investments in entities in which we have the ability to exercise significant influence under the equity method if we hold 50% or less of the voting stock and the entity is not a variable interest entity in which we are the primary beneficiary. The book value of investments that we accounted for under the equity method of accounting was $13.7 million as of March 31, 2014 and $11.9 million as of December 31, 2013. We account for investments in entities in which we have less than a 20% ownership interest under the cost method of accounting if we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence over the investee. The aggregate carrying amount of our cost method investment was and $5.0 million as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Revenue Recognition

We earn net service revenue through our home health and hospice care centers by providing a variety of services almost exclusively in the homes of our patients. This net service revenue is earned and billed either on an episode of care basis, on a per visit basis or on a daily basis depending upon the payment terms and conditions established with each payor for services provided. We refer to home health revenue earned and billed on a 60-day episode of care as episodic-based revenue.

When we record our service revenue, we record it net of estimated revenue adjustments and contractual adjustments to reflect amounts we estimate to be realizable for services provided, as discussed below. We believe, based on information currently available to us and based on our judgment, that changes to one or more factors that impact the accounting estimates (such as our estimates related to revenue adjustments, contractual adjustments and episodes in progress) we make in determining net service revenue, which changes are likely to occur from period to period, will not materially impact our reported consolidated financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or our future financial results.

5

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Home Health Revenue Recognition

Medicare Revenue

Net service revenue is recorded under the Medicare prospective payment system (“PPS”) based on a 60-day episode payment rate that is subject to adjustment based on certain variables including, but not limited to: (a) an outlier payment if our patient’s care was unusually costly (capped at 10% of total reimbursement per provider number); (b) a low utilization payment adjustment (“LUPA”) if the number of visits was fewer than five; (c) a partial payment if our patient transferred to another provider or we received a patient from another provider before completing the episode; (d) a payment adjustment based upon the level of therapy services required (with various incremental adjustments made for additional visits, with larger payment increases associated with the sixth, fourteenth and twentieth visit thresholds); (e) adjustments to payments if we are unable to perform periodic therapy assessments; (f) the number of episodes of care provided to a patient, regardless of whether the same home health provider provided care for the entire series of episodes; (g) changes in the base episode payments established by the Medicare Program; (h) adjustments to the base episode payments for case mix and geographic wages; and (i) recoveries of overpayments. In addition, we make adjustments to Medicare revenue if we find that we are unable to produce appropriate documentation of a face to face encounter between the patient and physician.

We make adjustments to Medicare revenue on completed episodes to reflect differences between estimated and actual payment amounts, our discovered inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or authorizations and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. We estimate the impact of such adjustments based on our historical experience, which primarily includes a historical collection rate of over 99% on Medicare claims, and record this estimate during the period in which services are rendered as an estimated revenue adjustment and a corresponding reduction to patient accounts receivable. In addition, management evaluates the potential for revenue adjustments and, when appropriate, provides allowances based upon the best available information. Therefore, we believe that our reported net service revenue and patient accounts receivable will be the net amounts to be realized from Medicare for services rendered.

In addition to revenue recognized on completed episodes, we also recognize a portion of revenue associated with episodes in progress. Episodes in progress are 60-day episodes of care that begin during the reporting period, but were not completed as of the end of the period. We estimate this revenue on a monthly basis based upon historical trends. The primary factors underlying this estimate are the number of episodes in progress at the end of the reporting period, expected Medicare revenue per episode and our estimate of the average percentage complete based on visits performed. As of March 31, 2014 and 2013, the difference between the cash received from Medicare for a request for anticipated payment (“RAP”) on episodes in progress and the associated estimated revenue was immaterial and, therefore, the resulting credits were recorded as a reduction to our outstanding patient accounts receivable in our condensed consolidated balance sheets for such periods.

Non-Medicare Revenue

Episodic-based Revenue. We recognize revenue in a similar manner as we recognize Medicare revenue for episodic-based rates that are paid by other insurance carriers, including Medicare Advantage programs; however, these rates can vary based upon the negotiated terms.

Non-episodic based Revenue. Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to our established or estimated per-visit rates, as applicable. Contractual adjustments are recorded for the difference between our standard rates and the contracted rates to be realized from patients, third parties and others for services provided and are deducted from gross revenue to determine net service revenue and are also recorded as a reduction to our outstanding patient accounts receivable. In addition, we receive a minimal amount of our net service revenue from patients who are either self-insured or are obligated for an insurance co-payment.

Hospice Revenue Recognition

Hospice Medicare Revenue

Gross revenue is recorded on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to the estimated payment rates. The estimated payment rates are daily or hourly rates for each of the four levels of care we deliver. The four levels of care are routine care, general inpatient care, continuous home care and respite care. Routine care accounts for 99% of our total net Medicare hospice service revenue for the three month periods ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. We make adjustments to Medicare revenue for an inability to obtain appropriate billing documentation or acceptable authorizations and other reasons unrelated to credit risk. We estimate the impact of these adjustments based on our historical experience, which primarily includes our historical collection rate on Medicare claims, and record it during the period services are rendered as an estimated revenue adjustment and as a reduction to our outstanding patient accounts receivable.

6

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Additionally, as Medicare hospice revenue is subject to an inpatient cap limit and an overall payment cap for each provider number, we monitor these caps and estimate amounts due back to Medicare if a cap has been exceeded. We record these adjustments as a reduction to revenue and an increase in other accrued liabilities. We have settled our Medicare hospice reimbursements for all fiscal years through October 31, 2011. For the Federal cap years ended October 31, 2012 through October 31, 2014, we have $4.0 million recorded for estimated amounts due back to Medicare in other accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

Hospice Non-Medicare Revenue

We record gross revenue on an accrual basis based upon the date of service at amounts equal to our established rates or estimated per day rates, as applicable. Contractual adjustments are recorded for the difference between our established rates and the amounts estimated to be realizable from patients, third parties and others for services provided and are deducted from gross revenue to determine our net service revenue and patient accounts receivable.

Patient Accounts Receivable

Our patient accounts receivable are uncollateralized and consist of amounts due from Medicare, Medicaid, other third-party payors and patients. There is no single payor, other than Medicare, that accounts for more than 10% of our total outstanding patient receivables, and thus we believe there are no other significant concentrations of receivables that would subject us to any significant credit risk in the collection of our patient accounts receivable. We fully reserve for accounts which are aged at 365 days or greater. We write off accounts on a monthly basis once we have exhausted our collection efforts and deem an account to be uncollectible.

We believe the credit risk associated with our Medicare accounts, which represent 67% of our net patient accounts receivable at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, is limited due to our historical collection rate of over 99% from Medicare and the fact that Medicare is a U.S. government payor. Accordingly, we do not record an allowance for doubtful accounts for our Medicare patient accounts receivable, which are recorded at their net realizable value after recording estimated revenue adjustments as discussed above. During the three month periods ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, we recorded $1.2 million and $3.8 million, respectively, in estimated revenue adjustments to Medicare revenue.

We believe there is a certain level of credit risk associated with non-Medicare payors. To provide for our non-Medicare patient accounts receivable that could become uncollectible in the future, we establish an allowance for doubtful accounts to reduce the carrying amount to its estimated net realizable value.

Medicare Home Health

For our home health patients, our pre-billing process includes verifying that we are eligible for payment from Medicare for the services that we provide to our patients. Our Medicare billing begins with a process to ensure that our billings are accurate through the utilization of an electronic Medicare claim review. We submit a RAP for 60% of our estimated payment for the initial episode at the start of care or 50% of the estimated payment for any subsequent episodes of care contiguous with the first episode for a particular patient. The full amount of the episode is billed after the episode has been completed (“final billed”). The RAP received for that particular episode is then deducted from our final payment. If a final bill is not submitted within the greater of 120 days from the start of the episode, or 60 days from the date the RAP was paid, any RAPs received for that episode will be recouped by Medicare from any other claims in process for that particular provider number. The RAP and final claim must then be re-submitted.

Medicare Hospice

For our hospice patients, our pre-billing process includes verifying that we are eligible for payment from Medicare for the services that we provide to our patients. Our Medicare billing begins with a process to ensure that our billings are accurate through the utilization of an electronic Medicare claim review. Once each patient has been confirmed for eligibility, we will bill Medicare on a monthly basis for the services provided to the patient.

Non-Medicare Home Health and Hospice

For our non-Medicare patients, our pre-billing process primarily begins with verifying a patient’s eligibility for services with the applicable payor. Once the patient has been confirmed for eligibility, we will provide services to the patient and bill the applicable payor. Our review and evaluation of non-Medicare accounts receivable includes a detailed review of outstanding balances and special consideration to concentrations of receivables from particular payors or groups of payors with similar characteristics that would subject us to any significant credit risk. We estimate an allowance for doubtful accounts based upon our assessment of historical and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in payment and an evaluation of collectibility based upon the date that the service was provided. Based upon our best judgment, we believe the allowance for doubtful accounts adequately provides for accounts that will not be collected due to credit risk.

7

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

The estimates of the fair value of our long-term debt are based upon a discounted present value analysis of future cash flows. Due to the existing uncertainty in the capital and credit markets the actual rates that would be obtained to borrow under similar conditions could materially differ from the estimates we have used.

The fair value hierarchy is based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value. The three levels of inputs are as follows:

For our other financial instruments, including our cash and cash equivalents, patient accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses, we estimate the carrying amounts’ approximate fair value. Our deferred compensation plan assets are recorded at fair value.

Weighted-Average Shares Outstanding

Net (loss) income per share attributable to Amedisys, Inc. common stockholders, calculated on the treasury stock method, is based on the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, shares used in our computation of the weighted-average shares outstanding, which are used to calculate our basic and diluted net (loss) income attributable to Amedisys, Inc. common stockholders (amounts in thousands):

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-08, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360):Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity changing the criteria for reporting discontinued operations. The ASU states that only those disposed components (or components held-for-sale) representing a strategic shift that have (or will have) a major effect on operations and financial results (or that are businesses or non-profit activities held-for-sale at acquisition) will be reported in discontinued operations. The ASU also required expanded disclosures about discontinued operations in the financial statement notes. The ASU is effective for disposals (or classifications as held-for-sale) that occur within annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2014 and interim periods within those annual periods. Early application is permitted, but only for those disposals (or classifications as held-for-sale) that have not been reported in financial statements previously issued or available for issuance.

8

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

3. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND ASSETS HELD FOR SALE

As part of our management of our portfolio of care centers, we review each care center’s current financial performance, market penetration, forecasted market growth and the impact of proposed CMS payment revisions. As a result of our review, we consolidated 41 home health care centers and five hospice care centers with care centers servicing the same markets, sold 19 home health care centers and one hospice care center and closed 10 home health care centers during 2013. We had previously classified 28 of these care centers as held for sale during 2013 and three care centers remained classified as held for sale at December 31, 2013. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, we sold assets associated with one of these care centers and consolidated one of these care centers with a care center servicing the same market; one care center remains classified as held for sale as of March 31, 2014. For additional information on the care centers consolidated with care centers servicing the same markets and the care centers sold, see Note 4 – Exit and Restructuring Activities.

Net revenues and operating results for the periods presented for the care centers classified as discontinued operations are as follows (dollars in millions):

4. EXIT AND RESTRUCTURING ACTIVITIES

Exit Activity

As of December 31, 2013, we reported three home health care centers as held for sale. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, we sold assets associated with one of these care centers for cash consideration of approximately $0.6 million and recognized a gain of approximately $0.6 million which is included in discontinued operations. In addition, during the three months ended March 31, 2014, one of the care centers classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2013 was consolidated with a care center servicing the same market. One home health care center remains classified as held for sale as of March 31, 2014.

In addition to the sale of care center mentioned above, during the three month period ended March 31, 2014, we committed to a plan to consolidate 21 operating home health care centers and four operating hospice care centers with care centers servicing the same markets and close 23 home health care centers and six hospice care centers. These care centers included in this plan are not concentrated in certain selected geographical areas and do not meet the criteria to be classified as discontinued operations in accordance with applicable accounting guidance. In connection with these care centers, we recorded non-cash charges of $2.2 million in goodwill and other intangibles impairment expense related to the write-off of intangible assets, $2.1 million in other general and administrative expenses related to lease termination costs and $2.1 million in salaries and benefits related to severance costs during the three month period ended March 31, 2014.

Restructuring Activity

During the quarter ended March 31, 2014, we restructured our regional leadership and corporate support functions. As such, we recorded charges of $3.4 million in salaries and benefits related to severance costs during the three month period ended March 31, 2014. In addition, on February 20, 2014 William F. Borne stepped down from his positions as Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and a member of our Board of Directors and we recorded charges of $2.3 million in salaries and benefits related to severance costs.

9

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Our weighted average interest rate for our five year $60.0 million Term Loan was 3.4% for the three month periods ended March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, our total leverage ratio was 3.2 and our fixed charge coverage ratio was 1.4 and we are in compliance with the Credit Agreement. We currently anticipate we will be in compliance with the covenants associated with our long-term obligations over the next 12 months. In the event we are not in compliance with our debt covenants in the future, we would pursue various alternatives in an attempt to successfully resolve the non-compliance, which might include, among other things, seeking debt covenant waivers or amendments.

As of March 31, 2014, our availability under our $165.0 million Revolving Credit Facility was $143.7 million as we had $21.3 million outstanding in letters of credit.

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following legal actions:

United States Senate Committee on Finance Inquiry

On May 12, 2010, we received a letter of inquiry from the Senate Finance Committee requesting documents and information relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends. A similar letter was sent to the other major publicly traded home health care companies. We cooperated with the Committee with respect to this inquiry.

On October 3, 2011, the Committee publicly issued a report titled “Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold.” The Committee recommended that the CMS “must move toward taking therapy out of the payment model.” We believe that the issuance of the report concludes the Committee’s inquiry, but are not in a position to speculate on the potential for future legislative or oversight action by the Committee.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “Court”) against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers’ Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

10

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties’ appellate briefing is complete and oral argument was held on March 31, 2014. While the Company will seek to have the Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss affirmed on appeal, no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the appeals process.

Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. Three similar derivative suits were filed in the Court on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together, the “Federal Derivative Actions”). We are named as a nominal defendant in all of those actions. As noted above, on October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the “Derivative Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative complaints. The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal controls over certain of our home health and Medicare billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. All defendants in the Federal Derivative Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, moved to dismiss the Derivative Complaint. That motion was still pending before the Court when the parties reached the settlement described below.

On June 24, 2013, all parties to the Federal Derivative Actions entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) with respect to the Federal Derivative Actions. On September 5, 2013, following notice to shareholders and a final approval hearing, the Court issued an order of dismissal with prejudice finally approving the proposed settlement in accordance with the Stipulation. As part of the Court-approved settlement, the Company has agreed to adopt and/or maintain certain corporate governance reforms as set forth in the Stipulation. The Court’s order also awarded co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel of attorneys’ fees and expenses in an amount of $445,000, which was paid by the Company’s insurer on its behalf. The order dismissed the Federal Derivative Actions with prejudice, and approved the release of all named defendants by all plaintiffs, the Company, and its shareholders from all claims that were or could have been alleged in the Federal Derivative Actions.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative suit (the “State Derivative Action”) was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana (the “State Court”) which also purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. By order dated December 8, 2010, the State Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of the Federal Derivative Actions. On October 17, 2013, the State Court issued an order granting the parties’ joint motion for dismissal of the State Derivative Action based on the federal Court’s final approval of the settlement of the Federal Derivative Actions, and dismissing the State Derivative Action with prejudice.

ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company, certain of our current and former senior executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) Plan. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan’s participants by causing the 401(k) Plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints seek a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. As noted above, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell (the “Co-ERISA Plaintiffs”), filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “ERISA Complaint”), which supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before the Court.

11

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

On November 5, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the ERISA class action lawsuits on a class-wide basis under which we would make a payment of $1.2 million (which we correctly anticipated would be paid by our insurance carrier) and provide additional non-monetary benefits to 401(k) Plan participants. We then negotiated a formal settlement agreement with the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs and on December 13, 2013, submitted it to the Court for preliminary and final approval. The formal settlement agreement describes how the $1.2 million settlement payment would be allocated among the putative class of 401(k) Plan participants after certain expenses and fees are deducted. On April 14, 2014, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 22, 2014. Our insurance carrier funded the $1.2 million settlement pool shortly after the entry of the April 14, 2014 order. The settlement remains subject to a number of contingencies, including final approval by the court, and we can provide no assurances as to whether we will be able to successfully consummate the settlement.

SEC Investigation

On June 30, 2010, we received notice of a formal investigation from the SEC and received a subpoena for documents relating to the matters under review by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and other matters involving our operations. We have cooperated with the SEC with respect to this investigation.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) Pursuant to False Claims Act and Stark Law Matters

On September 27, 2010, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act. The CID requires the delivery of a wide range of documents and information relating to the Company’s clinical and business operations, including reimbursement and billing claims submitted to Medicare for home health services, and related compliance activities. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2003. On April 26, 2011, we received a second CID related to the CID issued in September 2010, which generally covers the same time period as the previous CID and requires the production of additional documents. Such CIDs are often associated with previously filed qui tam actions, or lawsuits filed under seal under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Qui tam actions are brought by private plaintiffs suing on behalf of the federal government for alleged FCA violations. Subsequently, the Company and certain current and former employees received additional CIDs for additional documents and/or testimony.

In May 2012, we made a disclosure to CMS under the agency’s Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol relating to certain services agreements between a subsidiary of ours and a large physician group. During some period of time since December 2007, the arrangements appear not to have complied in certain respects with an applicable exemption to the Stark Law referral prohibition. Medicare revenue earned as a result of referrals from the physician group from May 2008 to May 2012, the relevant four year “lookback” period under the Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol, was approximately $4 million. On January 11, 2013, one of our subsidiaries received a CID from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia seeking certain information relating to that subsidiary’s relationship with this physician group.

On October 4, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. We agreed to this tentative settlement without any admission of wrongdoing to resolve these matters and to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. On April 23, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. The settlement agreement contains no admissions of liability on our part.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we paid the United States an initial payment in the amount of $116.5 million on May 2, 2014, representing the first installment of $115 million plus interest thereon due under the settlement agreement. A second installment of $35 million plus interest thereon will be payable on or prior to October 23, 2014.

In consideration of our obligations under the settlement agreement and conditioned upon our full payment of the settlement amount, the United States agreed to release us from any civil or administrative monetary claim under the False Claims Act and various other statutes and legal theories for (a) claims involving home health services rendered by certain of our care centers from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 that the United States contended were (i) provided to patients who were not homebound, (ii) provided to patients lacking a need for skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy services, (iii) provided to patients without regard to medical necessity, or (iv) overbilled by upcoding patients’ diagnoses, and (b) claims arising from our billings to the Medicare program during the period from April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2012 for home health services referred by a particular physician practice group while we were providing such practice group remuneration that was not consistent with fair market value in the form of patient care coordination services performed by our employees.

The settlement agreement also resolves allegations made against us by various qui tam relators, who are required to dismiss their claims with prejudice. We are required to pay various relators’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in the aggregate sum of approximately $3.9 million. In addition, we may incur additional expenses in connection with compliance measures mandated by the corporate integrity agreement discussed below.

We have previously recorded an accrual for the settlement amount and will add the amount of the relators’ attorneys’ fees to this accrual in the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

12

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

In connection with the settlement agreement, on April 23, 2014, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General-HHS. The corporate integrity agreement formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the corporate integrity agreement requires us to maintain our existing compliance program and compliance committee; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees against certain lists to ensure they are not ineligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to Office of Inspector General-HHS. Upon breach of the corporate integrity agreement, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years.

OIG Self-Disclosure

In October 2012, we made a disclosure to the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) pursuant to the OIG Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues and eligibility regulatory requirements at two of our hospice care centers. These hospice care centers did not comply in some respects with certain state and Medicare hospice regulations, including those requiring physicians to certify patient eligibility and requiring patient face-to-face encounters. We recorded an additional accrual of approximately $1 million during the three-month period ended September 30, 2013 increasing the total accrual to approximately $2 million as of September 30, 2013 where it remained at December 31, 2013. A final settlement agreement with OIG, pursuant to which we agreed to pay approximately $2 million to settle the matter, was executed on March 12, 2014.

In September and October 2013, we made preliminary disclosures to OIG under the OIG’s Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues at one of our home health care centers. This care center appears to have not complied with certain Medicare home health regulations, including those relating to physician signature requirements and face-to-face documentation. We made a disclosure in March 2014 to OIG providing additional information relating to the information disclosed in the preliminary disclosures sent in September and October 2013. As of December 31, 2013, we recorded an accrual of approximately $0.5 million for this matter. Our review is ongoing, and we intend to cooperate with the OIG in its review of this matter.

Wage and Hour Litigation

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs’ complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs’ more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members’ FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court’s order on plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. Putative class members who wish to opt in to the action and join in plaintiffs’ FLSA claims have 90 days from the mailing of the notice to return the written consent form included with the notice packet.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff

13

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case referenced above.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the SEC investigation and the securities and wage and hour litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation, the OIG Self-Disclosure issues or the securities and wage and hour litigation matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to matters involving our home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends or other matters.

In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Third Party Audits

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC’s findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. We dispute these findings, and our Dayton subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, a consolidated administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hearing was held in late March 2013. In January 2014, the ALJ found fully in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on 74 appeals and partially in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on eight appeals. Taking into account the ALJ’s decision, certain determinations that our Dayton subsidiary decided not to appeal as well as certain determinations made by the MAC, of the 114 claims that were originally extrapolated by the MAC, 76 claims have now been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in full, 10 claims have been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in part, and 28 claims have been decided against or not appealed by our Dayton subsidiary. The ALJ has ordered the MAC to recalculate the extrapolation amount based on the ALJ’s decision. The Medicare Appeals Council can decide on its own motion to review the ALJ’s decisions. As of March 31, 2014, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC’s findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the MAC for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, we have requested appeal hearings before an ALJ, but the ALJ hearings have not been scheduled, and no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. The current alleged extrapolated overpayment is $6.1 million. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of March 31, 2014, we have recorded no liability for this claim as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

14

Table of Contents

AMEDISYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Insurance

We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers’ compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis.

Our health insurance has a retention limit of $0.9 million, our workers’ compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million.

7. SEGMENT INFORMATION

Our operations involve servicing patients through our two reportable business segments: home health and hospice. Our home health segment delivers a wide range of services in the homes of individuals who may be recovering from surgery, have a chronic disability or terminal illness or need assistance with the essential activities of daily living. Our hospice segment provides palliative care and comfort to terminally ill patients and their families. The “other” column in the following tables consists of costs relating to corporate support functions that are not directly attributable to a specific segment.

Management evaluates performance and allocates resources based on the operating income of the reportable segments, which includes an allocation of corporate expenses directly attributable to the specific segment and includes revenues and all other costs directly attributable to the specific segment. Corporate expenses consist of cost relating to our executive management and corporate and administrative support functions that are not directly attributable to a specific segment. Corporate and administrative support functions represent primarily information services, accounting and finance, billing and collections, legal, compliance and risk management, procurement, marketing, clinical administration, training and human resource benefits and administration. Segment assets are not reviewed by the company’s chief operating decision maker and therefore are not disclosed below (amounts in millions).

8. SUBSEQUENT EVENT

On April 17, 2014, we sold assets associated with five home health care centers and four hospice care centers for cash consideration of approximately $6 million and expect to recognize a gain in the second quarter of 2014.

15

Table of Contents