We are subject to numerous known and unknown risks, many of which are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Any of the events described below could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are not aware of, or that we currently deem to be immaterial, could also impact our business and results of operations.

The revenues and results of operations of the tenants of our hospital facilities, including UHS, and our medical office buildings, are significantly affected by payments received from the government and other third party payors.

The operators of our hospital facilities, FEDs and tenants of our medical office buildings derive a significant portion of their revenue from third party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for health care services. Payments from federal and state government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease program payments, as well as affect the cost of providing service to patients and the timing of payments to facilities. Our tenants are unable to predict the effect of recent and future policy changes on their operations.

Our three acute care hospitals and two FEDs operated by subsidiaries of UHS, as well as two FEDs and one sub-acute care hospital facility operated by unaffiliated third-parties are located in Texas, Florida, California, Virginia and Illinois. The majority of these states have reported significant budget deficits that have resulted in reductions of Medicaid funding at various times during the last few years and which could adversely affect future levels of Medicaid reimbursement received by certain operators of our facilities, including the operators of our hospital facilities. We can provide no assurance that reductions to Medicaid revenues earned by operators of certain of our facilities, particularly our hospital operators in the above-mentioned states, will not have a material adverse

8

effect on the future operating results of those operators which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the uncertainty and fiscal pressures placed upon federal and state governments as a result of, among other things, the funding requirements and other provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, may affect the availability of taxpayer funds for Medicare and Medicaid programs. If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by government payors are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on the business, financial position and results of operations of the operators of our hospital facilities, and in turn, ours.

In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, the ability of our hospital operators to negotiate favorable contracts with private payors, including managed care organizations, significantly affects the revenues and operating results of those facilities. Private payors, including managed care organizations, increasingly are demanding that hospitals accept lower rates of payment. Our hospital operators expect continued third party efforts to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and cost controls. Reductions in reimbursement amounts received from third party payors could have a material adverse effect on the financial position and results of operations of our hospital operators.

Reductions or changes in Medicare and Medicaid funding could have a material adverse effect on the future operating results of the operators of our facilities, including UHS, which could, in turn, materially reduce our revenues and net income.

On January 3, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “2012 Act”) was signed into law. The 2012 Act postponed for two months sequestration cuts mandated under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The postponed sequestration cuts include a 2% annual reduction over ten years in Medicare spending to providers. Medicaid is exempt from sequestration. In order to offset the cost of the legislation, the 2012 Act reduces payments to other providers totaling almost $26 billion over ten years. Approximately half of those funds will come from reductions in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. Although the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 has reduced certain sequestration-related budgetary cuts, spending reductions related to the Medicare program remain in place. On December 26, 2013, H.J. Res. 59, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which includes the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (“the Act”), was signed into law. In addition, on February 15, 2014, Public Law 113-082 was enacted. The 2012 Act and subsequent federal legislation achieves new savings by extending sequestration for mandatory programs – including Medicare – for another three years, through 2027.

The 2012 Act includes a document and coding (“DCI”) adjustment and a reduction in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) payments. Expected to save $10.5 billion over 10 years, the DCI adjustment decreases projected Medicare hospital payments for inpatient and overnight care through a downward adjustment in annual base payment increases. These reductions are meant to recoup what Medicare authorities consider to be “overpayments” to hospitals that occurred as a result of the transition to Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups. The reduction in Medicaid DSH payments was expected to save $4.2 billion over 10 years. This provision extends the changes regarding DSH payments established by the Legislation and determines future allotments off of the rebased level. On February 9, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which eliminated the DSH cuts scheduled for 2018 and 2019 but added additional DSH reductions of $4 billion in 2020 and $8 billion a year between 2021 and 2025. We cannot predict the effect this enactment will have on operators (including UHS), and, thus, our business.

The uncertainties of health care reform could materially affect the business and future results of operations of the operators of our facilities, including UHS, which could, in turn, materially reduce our revenues and net income.

On March 23, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Reconciliation Act”), which contains a number of amendments to the ACA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010. Two primary goals of the ACA, combined with the Reconciliation Act (collectively referred to as the “Legislation”), are to provide for increased access to coverage for healthcare and to reduce healthcare-related expenses.

Although it was expected that the Legislation would result in a reduction in uninsured patients in the U.S., which would reduce the operators’ of our facilities’ expense from uncollectible accounts receivable, the Legislation made a number of other changes to Medicare and Medicaid which we believe may have an adverse impact on the operators of our facilities. It has been projected that the Legislation will result in a net reduction in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals totaling $155 billion over 10 years. The Legislation revises reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to emphasize the efficient delivery of high quality care and contains a number of incentives and penalties under these programs to achieve these goals. The Legislation provides for decreases in the annual market basket update for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2019, a productivity offset to the market basket update beginning October 1, 2011 for Medicare Part B reimbursable items and services and beginning October 1, 2012 for Medicare inpatient hospital services. The Legislation and subsequent revisions provide for reductions to both Medicare DSH and Medicaid DSH payments. The Medicare DSH reductions began in October, 2013 while Medicaid DSH reimbursements are scheduled to begin in 2020. The Legislation implements a value-based purchasing program, which will reward the delivery of efficient care. Conversely, certain facilities will receive reduced reimbursement for failing to meet quality parameters; such hospitals will include those with excessive readmission or hospital-acquired condition rates.

9

A 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the federal government’s ability to expand health insurance coverage by holding unconstitutional sections of the Legislation that sought to withdraw federal funding for state noncompliance with certain Medicaid coverage requirements. Pursuant to that decision, the federal government may not penalize states that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program by reducing their existing Medicaid funding. Therefore, states can choose to accept or not to participate without risking the loss of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, many states, including Texas, have not expanded their Medicaid programs without the threat of loss of federal funding.  CMS has granted, and is expected to grant additional, section 1115 demonstration waivers providing for work and community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid eligible individuals.  It is anticipated this will lead to reductions in coverage, and likely increases in uncompensated care for the operators of our facilities, in states where these demonstration waivers are granted.  

The various provisions in the Legislation that directly or indirectly affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement are scheduled to take effect over a number of years. The impact of the Legislation on healthcare providers will be subject to implementing regulations, interpretive guidance and possible future legislation or legal challenges. Certain Legislation provisions, such as that creating the Medicare Shared Savings Program create uncertainty in how healthcare may be reimbursed by federal programs in the future. Thus, at this time, we cannot predict the impact of the Legislation on the future reimbursement of our hospital operators and we can provide no assurance that the Legislation will not have a material adverse effect on the future results of operations of the tenants/operators of our properties and, thus, our business.

The Legislation also contained provisions aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in healthcare. The Legislation amends several existing laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, making it easier for government agencies and private plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits brought against healthcare providers. While Congress had previously revised the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person is not required to “have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of” the Anti-Kickback Statute in order to be found in violation of such law, the Legislation also provides that any claims for items or services that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute are also considered false claims for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The Legislation provides that a healthcare provider that retains an overpayment in excess of 60 days is subject to the federal civil False Claims Act, although certain final regulations implementing this statutory requirement remain pending. The Legislation also expands the Recovery Audit Contractor program to Medicaid. These amendments also make it easier for severe fines and penalties to be imposed on healthcare providers that violate applicable laws and regulations.

The impact of the Legislation on hospitals may vary. Because Legislation provisions are effective at various times over the next several years, we anticipate that many of the provisions in the Legislation may be subject to further revision. Initiatives to repeal the Legislation, in whole or in part, to delay elements of implementation or funding, and to offer amendments or supplements to modify its provisions have been persistent.  The ultimate outcomes of legislative attempts to repeal or amend the Legislation and legal challenges to the Legislation are unknown.  Legislation has already been enacted that has eliminated the penalty for failing to maintain  health coverage that was part of the original Legislation. In addition, Congress has considered legislation that would, if enacted, in material part (i) eliminate the large employer mandates to obtain or provide health insurance coverage, respectively; (ii) permit insurers to impose a surcharge up to 30 percent on individuals who go uninsured for more than two months and then purchase coverage; (iii) provide tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance, with a phase-out of tax credits according to income level; (iv) expand health savings accounts; (v) impose a per capita cap on federal funding of state Medicaid programs, or, if elected by a state, transition federal funding to block grants, and; (vi) permit states to seek a waiver of certain federal requirements that would allow such state to define essential health benefits differently from federal standards and that would allow certain commercial health plans to take health status, including pre-existing conditions, into account in setting premiums.  

In addition to legislative changes, the Legislation can be significantly impacted by executive branch actions.  In relevant part, President Trump has already taken executive actions: (i) requiring all federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Legislation to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waiver, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay” parts of the Legislation that place “unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens” on states, individuals or health care providers; (ii) the issuance of a final rule in June, 2018 by the Department of Labor to enable the formation of association health plans that would be exempt from certain Legislation requirements such as the provision of essential health benefits; (iii) the issuance of a final rule in August, 2018 by the Department of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services to expand the availability of short-term, limited duration health insurance, (iv) eliminating cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers that would otherwise offset deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses for health plan enrollees at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level; (v) relaxing requirements for state innovation waivers that could reduce enrollment in the individual and small group markets and lead to additional enrollment in short-term, limited duration insurance and association health plans; and (vi) the issuance of a proposed rule by the Department of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services that would be incentivize the use of health reimbursement accounts by employers to permit employees to purchase health insurance in the individual market.  The uncertainty resulting from these Executive Branch policies has led to reduced Exchange enrollment in 2018 and 2019 and is expected to further worsen the individual and small group market risk pools in future years.  It is also anticipated that these and future policies may create additional cost and reimbursement pressures on hospitals.  

10

It remains unclear what portions of the Legislation may remain, or what any replacement or alternative programs may be created by any future legislation.  Any such future repeal or replacement may have significant impact on the reimbursement for healthcare services generally, and may create reimbursement for services competing with the services offered by the operators of our hospitals.  Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the adoption of any future federal or state healthcare reform legislation will not have a negative financial impact on the operators of our hospitals, including their ability to compete with alternative healthcare services funded by such potential legislation, or for the operators of our hospitals to receive payment for services.

On December 14, 2018, a Texas Federal District Court deemed the ACA to be unconstitutional in its entirety. The Court concluded that the Individual Mandate is no longer permissible under Congress’s taxing power as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”) reducing the Individual Mandate’s tax to $0 (i.e., it no longer produces revenue, which is an essential feature of a tax), rendering the ACA unconstitutional.  The court also held that because the individual mandate is “essential” to the ACA and is inseverable from the rest of the law, the entire ACA is unconstitutional. Because the court issued a declaratory judgment and did not enjoin the law, the ACA remains in place pending its appeal.  The District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On December 18, 2019, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel voted 2-1 to strike down the ACA individual mandate as unconstitutional. The 5^th Circuit Court also sent the case back to the Texas district court to determine which ACA provisions should be stricken with the mandate. It is likely this matter will ultimately be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. These rulings have caused greater uncertainty regarding the future status of the ACA. If all or any parts of the ACA are found to be unconstitutional, it could have a material adverse effect on hospitals.  If the rates paid or the scope of services covered by government payors are reduced, there could be a material adverse effect on the business, financial position and results of operations of the operators of our hospital facilities, and in turn, ours.

The trend toward value-based purchasing may negatively impact the revenues of our hospital operators.

We believe that value-based purchasing initiatives of both governmental and private payers tying financial incentives to quality and efficiency of care will increasingly affect the results of operations of our hospitals and other healthcare facilities and may negatively impact their revenues if they are unable to meet expected quality standards. The Legislation contains a number of provisions intended to promote value-based purchasing in federal healthcare programs. Medicare now requires providers to report certain quality measures in order to receive full reimbursement increases for inpatient and outpatient procedures that were previously awarded automatically. In addition, hospitals that meet or exceed certain quality performance standards will receive increased reimbursement payments, and hospitals that have “excess readmissions” for specified conditions will receive reduced reimbursement. Furthermore, Medicare no longer pays hospitals additional amounts for the treatment of certain hospital-acquired conditions unless the conditions were present at admission. Beginning in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2015, hospitals that rank in the worst 25% of all hospitals nationally for hospital acquired conditions in the previous year will receive reduced Medicare reimbursements. The Legislation also prohibits the use of federal funds under the Medicaid program to reimburse providers for treating certain provider-preventable conditions.

There is a trend among private payers toward value-based purchasing of healthcare services, as well. Many large commercial payers require hospitals to report quality data, and several of these payers will not reimburse hospitals for certain preventable adverse events. We expect value-based purchasing programs, including programs that condition reimbursement on patient outcome measures, to become more common and to involve a higher percentage of reimbursement amounts. We are unable at this time to predict how this trend will affect the results of operations of the operators of our hospitals, but it could negatively impact their revenues if they are unable to meet quality standards established by both governmental and private payers.

Increased competition in the health care industry has resulted in lower revenues and higher costs for our operators, including UHS, and may affect our revenues, property values and lease renewal terms.

The healthcare industry is highly competitive and competition among hospitals and other health care providers for patients and physicians has intensified in recent years. In most geographical areas in which our facilities are operated, there are other facilities that provide services comparable to those offered by our facilities. In addition, some competing facilities are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or by nonprofit corporations and may be supported by endowments and charitable contributions and exempt from property, sales and income taxes. Such exemptions and support are not available to certain operators of our facilities, including UHS.

In some markets, certain competing facilities may have greater financial resources, be better equipped and offer a broader range of services than those available at our facilities. Certain hospitals that are located in the areas served by our facilities are specialty hospitals that provide medical, surgical and behavioral health services that may not be provided by the operators of our hospitals. The increase in outpatient treatment and diagnostic facilities, outpatient surgical centers and freestanding ambulatory surgical centers also increases competition for our operators.

11

In addition, the operators of our facilities face competition from other health care providers, including physician owned facilities and other competing facilities, including certain facilities operated by UHS but the real property of which is not owned by us. Such competition is experienced in markets including, but not limited to, McAllen, Texas, the site of our McAllen Medical Center, a 370-bed acute care hospital, and Riverside County, California, the site of our Southwest Healthcare System-Inland Valley Campus, a 130-bed acute care hospital.

In addition, the number and quality of the physicians on a hospital’s staff are important factors in determining a hospital’s competitive advantage. Typically, physicians are responsible for making hospital admission decisions and for directing the course of patient treatment. Since the operators of our facilities also compete with other health care providers, they may experience difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified hospital management, nurses and other medical personnel.

We anticipate that our operators, including UHS, will continue to encounter increased competition in the future that could lead to a decline in patient volumes and harm their businesses, which in turn, could harm our business.

Operators that fail to comply with governmental reimbursement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, licensing and certification requirements, fraud and abuse regulations or new legislative developments may be unable to meet their obligations to us.

Our operators, including UHS and its subsidiaries, are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations that are subject to frequent and substantial changes (sometimes applied retroactively) resulting from legislation, adoption of rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes cannot be predicted. Government regulation may have a dramatic effect on our operators’ costs of doing business and the amount of reimbursement received 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. These regulations include, among other items: hospital billing practices and prices for service; relationships with physicians and other referral sources; adequacy of medical care; quality of medical equipment and services; qualifications of medical and support personnel; the implementation of, and continued compliance with, electronic health records’ regulations; confidentiality, maintenance and security issues associated with health-related information and patient medical records; the screening, stabilization and transfer, by hospitals with an emergency department, of patients who have emergency medical conditions; certification, licensure and accreditation of our facilities; operating policies and procedures, and; construction or expansion of facilities and services.

If our operators fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, they could be subjected to liabilities, including criminal penalties, civil penalties (including the loss of their licenses to operate one or more facilities), and exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs. The imposition of such penalties could jeopardize that operator’s ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us or to continue operating its facility. In addition, our bonus rents are based on net revenues of the UHS hospital facilities, which in turn are affected by the amount of reimbursement that such lessees receive from the government.

Although UHS and the other operators of our acute care facilities believe that their policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, no assurance can be given that they will not be subjected to governmental inquiries or actions, or that they would not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties if so subjected. Because many of these laws and regulations are relatively new, in many cases, our operators don’t have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. In the future, it is possible that different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject their current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require them to make changes in the facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. Even if they were to ultimately prevail, a significant governmental inquiry or action under one of the above laws, regulations or rules could have a material adverse effect upon them, and in turn, us.

A worsening of the economic and employment conditions in the United States could materially affect our business and future results of operations of the operators of our facilities which could, in turn, materially reduce our revenues and net income.

Our future results of operations could be unfavorably impacted by deterioration in general economic conditions which could result in increases in the number of people unemployed and/or uninsured. Our operators’ patient volumes, revenues and financial results depend significantly on the universe of patients with health insurance, which to a large extent is dependent on the employment status of individuals in certain markets. A worsening of economic conditions may result in a higher unemployment rate which will likely increase the number of individuals without health insurance. As a result, the operators of our facilities may experience a decrease in patient volumes. Should that occur, it may result in decreased occupancy rates at our medical office buildings as well as a reduction in the revenues earned by the operators of our hospital facilities which would unfavorably impact our future bonus rentals (on the UHS hospital facilities) and may potentially have a negative impact on the future lease renewal terms and the underlying value of the hospital properties.

12

U.S. federal tax reform legislation now and in the future could affect REITs, both positively and negatively, in ways that are difficult to anticipate.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “2017 Tax Act”), signed into law on December 22, 2017, made significant changes to corporate and individual tax rates and the calculation of taxes.  While the 2017 Tax Act has not had a significant direct impact on us, it may impact us indirectly as our tenants and the jurisdictions in which we do business as well as the overall investment thesis for REITs may be impacted both positively and negatively. Additionally, the overall impact of the 2017 Tax Act depends on future interpretations and regulations that may be issued by federal tax authorities, as well as changes in state and local taxation in response to the 2017 Tax Act, and it is possible that such future interpretations, regulations and other changes could adversely impact us.

The deterioration of credit and capital markets may adversely affect our access to sources of funding and we cannot be certain of the availability and terms of capital to fund the growth of our business when needed.

To retain our status as a REIT, we are required to distribute 90% of our taxable income to shareholders and, therefore, we generally cannot use income from operations to fund our growth. Accordingly, our growth strategy depends, in part, upon our ability to raise additional capital at reasonable costs to fund new investments. We believe we will be able to raise additional debt and equity capital at reasonable costs to refinance our debts (including third-party debt held by various LLCs in which we own non-controlling equity interests) at or prior to their maturities and to invest at yields which exceed our cost of capital. We can provide no assurance that financing will be available to us on satisfactory terms when needed, which could harm our business. Given these uncertainties, our growth strategy is not assured and may fail.

To fund all or a portion of our future financing needs, we rely on borrowings from various sources including fixed rate, long-term debt as well as borrowings pursuant to our revolving credit agreement. If any of the lenders were unable to fulfill their future commitments, our liquidity could be impacted, which could have a material unfavorable impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, the degree to which we are, or in the future may become, leveraged, our ability to obtain financing could be adversely impacted and could make us more vulnerable to competitive pressures. Our ability to meet existing and future debt obligations depends upon our future performance and our ability to secure additional financing on satisfactory terms, each of which is subject to financial, business and other factors that are beyond our control. Any failure by us to meet our financial obligations would harm our business.

In the event we need to access the capital markets or other sources of financing, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms or within an acceptable time. Our inability to obtain financing on terms acceptable to us could have a material unfavorable impact on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

The LIBOR calculation method may change and LIBOR is expected to be phased out after 2021.

Our Credit Agreement permits interest on borrowings to be calculated based on LIBOR. On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) announced that it will no longer require banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021.  The phase-out of LIBOR may result in the establishment of one or more alternative benchmark rates, but at this time it is uncertain what alternative benchmark rates would replace LIBOR. In the meantime, actions by the FCA, other regulators, or law enforcement agencies may result in changes to the method by which LIBOR is calculated. At this time, it is not possible to predict the effect of any such changes or any other reforms to LIBOR that may be enacted in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

A substantial portion of our revenues are dependent upon one operator. If UHS experiences financial difficulties, or otherwise fails to make payments to us, or elects not to renew the leases on our three acute care hospitals, our revenues could be materially reduced.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, lease payments from UHS comprised approximately 31% of our consolidated revenues. In addition, as of December 31, 2019, subsidiaries of UHS leased three of the six hospital facilities owned by us with terms expiring in 2021 and 2026. We cannot assure you that UHS will continue to satisfy its obligations to us or renew existing leases upon their scheduled maturity. In addition, if subsidiaries of UHS exercise their options to purchase the respective three leased hospitals, or two leased FEDs, upon expiration of the lease terms, our future revenues could decrease if we were unable to earn a favorable rate of return on the sale proceeds received, as compared to the rental revenue currently earned pursuant to the leases on the facilities. The failure or inability of UHS to satisfy its obligations to us, or should UHS elect not to renew the leases on the three acute care hospitals or two FEDs, our revenues and net income could be materially reduced, which could in turn reduce the amount of dividends we pay and cause our stock price to decline.

13

Our relationship with UHS may create conflicts of interest.

In addition to being dependent upon UHS for a substantial portion of our revenues and leases, since 1986, UHS of Delaware, Inc. (the “Advisor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UHS, has served as our Advisor. Pursuant to our Advisory Agreement, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2019, the Advisor is obligated to present an investment program to us, to use its best efforts to obtain investments suitable for such program (although it is not obligated to present any particular investment opportunity to us), to provide administrative services to us and to conduct our day-to-day affairs. Further, all of our officers are employees of the Advisor. As of December 31, 2019, we had no salaried employees although our officers do typically receive annual stock-based compensation awards in the form of restricted stock. In special circumstances, if warranted and deemed appropriate by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Trustees, our officers may also receive one-time compensation awards in the form of restricted stock and/or cash bonuses. We believe that the quality and depth of the management and advisory services provided to us by our Advisor and UHS could not be replicated by contracting with unrelated third parties or by being self-advised without considerable cost increases. We believe that these relationships have been beneficial to us in the past, but we cannot guarantee that they will not become detrimental to us in the future.

All transactions with UHS must be approved by a majority of our Independent Trustees. Because of our historical and continuing relationship with UHS and its subsidiaries, in the future, our business dealings may not be on the same or as favorable terms as we might achieve with a third party with whom we do not have such a relationship. Disputes may arise between us and UHS that we are unable to resolve or the resolution of these disputes may not be as favorable to us as a resolution we might achieve with a third party.

UHS and its subsidiaries, are subject to pending legal actions, purported stockholder class actions, governmental investigations and regulatory actions.

UHS and its subsidiaries are subject to pending legal actions, purported shareholder class actions, governmental investigations and regulatory actions. Since UHS comprised approximately 31%, 30% and 32% of our consolidated revenues for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and since a subsidiary of UHS is our Advisor, you are encouraged to obtain and review the disclosures contained in the Legal Proceedings section of Universal Health Services, Inc.’s Forms 10-K and 10-Q, as publicly filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These filings are the sole responsibility of UHS and are not incorporated by reference herein

Defending itself against the allegations in the lawsuits and governmental investigations, or similar matters and any related publicity, could potentially entail significant costs and could require significant attention from UHS management and UHS’ reputation could suffer significantly. UHS has stated that it is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any such loss; however, the outcome of these lawsuits and the related investigations, publicity and news articles that have been published concerning these matters, could have a material adverse effect on their business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

UHS is and may become subject to other loss contingencies, both known and unknown, which may relate to past, present and future facts, events, circumstances and occurrences. Should an unfavorable outcome occur in some or all of the legal proceedings or other loss contingencies, or if successful claims and other actions are brought against UHS in the future, there could be a material adverse impact on their financial position, results of operations and liquidity, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on us.

In particular, government investigations, as well as qui tam and stockholder lawsuits, may lead to material fines, penalties, damages payments or other sanctions, including exclusion from government healthcare programs. Settlements of lawsuits involving Medicare and Medicaid issues routinely require both monetary payments and corporate integrity agreements, each of which could have a material adverse effect on UHS’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on us.

We hold non-controlling equity ownership interests in various joint-ventures.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, 12% of our consolidated and unconsolidated revenues were generated by four jointly-owned LLCs/LPs in which we hold non-controlling equity ownership interests ranging from 33% to 95%.  Our level of investment and lack of control exposes us to potential losses of our investments and revenues. Although our ownership arrangements have been beneficial to us in the past, we cannot guarantee that they will continue to be beneficial in the future.

Pursuant to the operating and/or partnership agreements of the four LLCs/LPs in which we continue to hold non-controlling ownership interests, the third-party member and the Trust, at any time, potentially subject to certain conditions, have the right to make an offer (“Offering Member”) to the other member(s) (“Non-Offering Member”) in which it either agrees to: (i) sell the entire ownership interest of the Offering Member to the Non-Offering Member (“Offer to Sell”) at a price as determined by the Offering Member (“Transfer Price”), or; (ii) purchase the entire ownership interest of the Non-Offering Member (“Offer to Purchase”) at the

14

equivalent proportionate Transfer Price. The Non-Offering Member has 60 to 90 days to either: (i) purchase the entire ownership interest of the Offering Member at the Transfer Price, or; (ii) sell its entire ownership interest to the Offering Member at the equivalent proportionate Transfer Price. The closing of the transfer must occur within 60 to 90 days of the acceptance by the Non-Offering Member.

In addition to the above-mentioned rights of the third-party members, from time to time, we have had discussions with third-party members about purchasing or selling the interests or the underlying property to each other or a third party. If we were to sell our interests or underlying property, we may not be able to redeploy the proceeds into assets at the same or greater return as we currently receive. During any such time that we were not able to do so, our ability to increase or maintain our dividend at current levels could be adversely affected which could cause our stock price to decline.

The bankruptcy, default, insolvency or financial deterioration of our tenants could significantly delay our ability to collect unpaid rents or require us to find new operators.

Our financial position and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders may be adversely affected by financial difficulties experienced by any of our major tenants, including bankruptcy, insolvency or a general downturn in the business. We are exposed to the risk that our operators may not be able to meet their obligations, which may result in their bankruptcy or insolvency. Although our leases and loans provide us the right to terminate an investment, evict an operator, demand immediate repayment and other remedies, the bankruptcy laws afford certain rights to a party that has filed for bankruptcy or reorganization. An operator in bankruptcy may be able to restrict our ability to collect unpaid rents or interest during the bankruptcy proceeding.

Required regulatory approvals can delay or prohibit transfers of our healthcare facilities.

Transfers of healthcare facilities to successor tenants or operators may be subject to regulatory approvals or ratifications, including, but not limited to, change of ownership approvals under certificate of need laws and Medicare and Medicaid provider arrangements that are not required for transfers of other types of commercial operations and other types of real estate. The replacement of any tenant or operator could be delayed by the regulatory approval process of any federal, state or local government agency necessary for the transfer of the facility or the replacement of the operator licensed to manage the facility. If we are unable to find a suitable replacement tenant or operator upon favorable terms, or at all, we may take possession of a facility, which might expose us to successor liability or require us to indemnify subsequent operators to whom we might transfer the operating rights and licenses, all of which may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Real estate ownership creates risks and liabilities that may result in unanticipated losses or expenses.

Our business is subject to risks associated with real estate acquisitions and ownership, including:

In addition to the foregoing risks, we cannot predict whether the leases on our properties, including the leases on the hospitals leased to subsidiaries of UHS, which have options to purchase the respective leased facilities at the end of the lease or renewal terms at the appraised fair market value, will be renewed at their current rates or fair market value lease rates at the end of the lease terms in 2021 or 2026. If the leases are not renewed, we may be required to find other operators for these hospitals and/or enter into leases with less favorable terms. The exercise of purchase options for our hospitals may result in a less favorable rate of return for us than the rental revenue currently earned on such facilities. Further, the purchase options and rights of first refusal granted to the respective lessees to purchase or lease the respective leased hospitals, after the expiration of the lease term, may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a hospital, and may present a potential conflict of interest between us and UHS since the price and terms offered by a third-party are likely to be dependent, in part, upon the financial performance of the facility during the final years of the lease term.

15

A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of a contagious disease in the markets in which our tenants operate or that otherwise impacts our facilities could adversely impact our business.

If a pandemic or other public health crisis were to affect our markets, such as a major breakout of the Coronavirus in the United States, the businesses of our tenants could be adversely affected. Such a crisis could diminish the public trust in healthcare facilities, especially hospitals that fail to accurately or timely diagnose, or other facilities such as medical office buildings that are treating (or have treated) patients affected by contagious diseases. If any of our facilities were involved in treating patients for such a contagious disease, other patients might cancel elective procedures or fail to seek needed care from the tenants of our facilities. Further, a pandemic might adversely impact our tenants’ businesses by causing a temporary shutdown or diversion of patients, by disrupting or delaying production and delivery of materials and products in the supply chain or by causing staffing shortages in those facilities. The potential impact of a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of a contagious disease with respect to our tenants or our facilities is difficult to predict and could have a material adverse impact on the operations of our tenants and, in turn, ours.

Catastrophic weather and other natural events, whether caused by climate change or otherwise, could result in damage to our properties.

Many of our properties are located in areas susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase, or damage caused by severe weather conditions or natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and floods. We could experience losses to the extent that such damages exceed insurance coverage, cause an increase in insurance premiums, and/or a decrease in demand for properties located in such areas. In the event that climate change causes such catastrophic weather or other natural events to increase broadly or in localized areas, such costs and damages could increase above historic expectations. In addition, changes in federal and state legislation and regulation on climate change could result in increased capital expenditures to improve energy efficiency of our existing properties and could require us to spend more on development and redevelopment properties without a corresponding increase in revenue.

Significant potential liabilities and rising insurance costs and availability may have an adverse effect on the operations of our operators, which may negatively impact their ability to meet their obligations to us.

As is typical in the healthcare industry, in the ordinary course of business, our operators, including UHS, are subject to medical malpractice lawsuits, product liability lawsuits, class action lawsuits and other legal actions. Some of these actions may involve large claims, as well as significant defense costs. If their ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from current estimates, if such policy limitations should be partially or fully exhausted in the future, or payments of claims exceed estimates or are not covered by insurance, it could have a material adverse effect on the operations of our operators and, in turn, us.

Property insurance rates, particularly for earthquake insurance in California, have also continued to increase. Our tenants and operators, including UHS, may be unable to fulfill their insurance, indemnification and other obligations to us under their leases and mortgages and thereby potentially expose us to those risks. In addition, our tenants and operators may be unable to pay their lease or mortgage payments, which could potentially decrease our revenues and increase our collection and litigation costs. Moreover, to the extent we are required to foreclose on the affected facilities, our revenues from those facilities could be reduced or eliminated for an extended period of time. In addition, we may in some circumstances be named as a defendant in litigation involving the actions of our operators. Although we have no involvement in the activities of our operators and our standard leases generally require our operators to carry insurance to cover us in certain cases, a significant judgment against us in such litigation could exceed our and our operators’ insurance coverage, which would require us to make payments to cover the judgment.

If we fail to maintain our REIT status, we will become subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must comply with certain highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions. Although we believe we have been qualified as a REIT since our inception, there can be no assurance that we have been so qualified or will remain qualified in the future. Failure to qualify as a REIT may subject us to income tax liabilities, including federal income tax at regular corporate rates. The additional income tax incurred may significantly reduce the cash flow available for distribution to shareholders and for debt service. In addition, if disqualified, we might be barred from qualification as a REIT for four years following disqualification. Also, if disqualified, we will not be allowed a deduction for distributions to stockholders in computing our taxable income and we could be subject to increased state and local income taxes.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and

16

state or local income, property and transfer taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for the payment of our debt obligations.

Dividends paid by REITs generally do not qualify for reduced tax rates.

In general, dividends (qualified) paid by a U.S. corporation to individual U.S. shareholders are subject to Federal income tax at a maximum rate of 20% for 2019 (subject to certain additional taxes for certain taxpayers). In contrast, since we are a REIT, our distributions to individual U.S. shareholders are not eligible for the reduced rates which apply to distributions from regular corporations, and thus may be subject to Federal income tax at a rate as high as 37% for 2019 (subject to certain additional taxes for certain taxpayers).  The differing treatment of dividends received from REITs and other corporations might cause individual investors to view an investment in REITs as less attractive relative to other corporations, which might negatively affect the value of our shares.

Should we be unable to comply with the strict income distribution requirements applicable to REITs utilizing only cash generated by operating activities, we would be required to generate cash from other sources which could adversely affect our financial condition.

To obtain the favorable tax treatment associated with qualifying as a REIT, in general, we are required each year to distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our net taxable income. In addition, we are subject to a tax on any undistributed portion of our income at regular corporate rates and might also be subject to a 4% excise tax on this undistributed income. To meet the distribution requirements necessary to achieve the tax benefits associated with qualifying as a REIT, we could be required to: (i) seek borrowed funds even if conditions are not favorable for borrowing; (ii) issue equity which could have a dilutive effect on the future dividends and share value of our existing shareholders, and/or; (iii) divest assets that we might have otherwise decided to retain. Securing funds through these other non-operating means could adversely affect our financial condition and future results of operations.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we continually must satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source-of-income, asset-diversification or distribution requirements for qualifying as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make certain attractive investments.

The market value of our common stock could be substantially affected by various factors.

Many factors, certain of which are outside of our control, could have an adverse effect on the share price of our common stock. These factors include certain of the risks discussed herein, our financial condition, performance and prospects, the market for similar securities issued by REITs, demographic changes, operating results of our operators and other hospital companies, changes in our financial estimates or recommendations of securities analysts, speculation in the press or investment community, the possible effects of war, terrorist and other hostilities, adverse weather conditions (whether caused by climate change or otherwise), the level of seasonal illnesses, changes in general conditions in the economy, financial markets or overall interest rate environment, or other developments affecting the health care industry.

When interest rates increase, our common stock may decline in price.

Our common stock, like other dividend stocks, is sensitive to changes in market interest rates. In response to changing interest rates the price of our common stock may behave like a long-term fixed-income security and, compared to shorter-term instruments, may have more volatility. A wide variety of market factors can cause interest rates to rise, including central bank monetary policy, an uptick in inflation and changes in general economic conditions. The risks associated with increasing rates are intensified given that interest rates have been near historic lows but may be expected to increase in the future, with unpredictable effects on the markets and on the price of our common stock. Consequential effects of a general rise in interest rates may hamper our access to capital markets, affect the liquidity of our underlying investments in real estate, and, by extension, limit management’s effective range of responses to changing tenant circumstances or in answer to investment opportunities. Limited operational alternatives may further hinder our ability to maintain or increase our dividend, and the market price of our common stock may experience further declines as the result.

17

Ownership limitations and anti-takeover provisions in our declaration of trust and bylaws and under Maryland law and in our leases with UHS may delay, defer or prevent a change in control or other transactions that could provide shareholders with a take-over premium. We are subject to significant anti-takeover provisions.

In order to protect us against the risk of losing our REIT status for federal income tax purposes, our declaration of trust permits our Trustees to redeem shares acquired or held in excess of 9.8% of the issued and outstanding shares of our voting stock and, which in the opinion of the Trustees, would jeopardize our REIT status. In addition, any acquisition of our common or preferred shares that would result in our disqualification as a REIT is null and void. The right of redemption may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of our company and could adversely affect our shareholders’ ability to realize a premium over the market price for the shares of our common stock.

Our declaration of trust authorizes our Board of Trustees to issue additional shares of common and preferred stock and to establish the preferences, rights and other terms of any series of preferred stock that we issue. Although our Board of Trustees has no intention to do so at the present time, it could establish a series of preferred stock that could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve the payment of a premium over the market price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our shareholders.

The Master Lease Documents by and among us and certain subsidiaries of UHS, which governs the three acute care hospital properties and the freestanding emergency departments leased to subsidiaries of UHS, includes a change of control provision. The change of control provision grants UHS the right, upon one month’s notice should a change of control of the Trust occur, to purchase any or all of the leased hospital properties at their appraised fair market values. The exercise of this purchase option may result in a less favorable rate of return earned on the sales proceeds received than the rental revenue currently earned on such facilities.

These provisions could discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or make it more difficult for a third-party to gain control of us, which could adversely affect the market price of our securities and prevent shareholders from receiving a take-over premium.

We depend heavily on key management personnel and the departure of one or more of our key executives or a significant portion of our operators’ local hospital management personnel could harm our business.

The expertise and efforts of our senior executives and key members of our operators’ local hospital management personnel are critical to the success of our business. The loss of the services of one or more of our senior executives or of a significant portion of our operators’ local hospital management personnel could significantly undermine our management expertise and our operators’ ability to provide efficient, quality health care services at our facilities, which could harm their business, and in turn, harm our business.

Increasing investor interest in our sector and consolidation at the operator or REIT level could increase competition and reduce our profitability.

Our business is highly competitive and we expect that it may become more competitive in the future. We compete for the acquisition, leasing and financing of health care related facilities. Our competitors include, but are not limited to, other REITs, banks and other companies, including UHS, some of which are larger and may have a lower cost of capital than we do. These developments could result in fewer investment opportunities for us and lower spreads over our cost of our capital, which would hurt our growth. Increased competition makes it more challenging for us to identify and successfully capitalize on opportunities that meet our business goals and could improve the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell, thereby impeding our investment, acquisition and development activities. If we cannot capitalize on our development pipeline, identify and purchase a sufficient quantity of healthcare facilities at favorable prices or if we are unable to finance acquisitions on commercially favorable terms, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

We may be required to incur substantial renovation costs to make certain of our healthcare properties suitable for other operators and tenants.

Healthcare facilities are typically highly customized and may not be easily adapted to non-healthcare-related uses. The improvements generally required to conform a property to healthcare use, such as upgrading electrical, gas and plumbing infrastructure, are costly and at times tenant-specific. A new or replacement operator or tenant may require different features in a property, depending on that operator’s or tenant’s particular operations. If a current operator or tenant is unable to pay rent and vacates a property, we may incur substantial expenditures to modify a property before we are able to secure another operator or tenant. Also, if the property needs to be renovated to accommodate multiple operators or tenants, we may incur substantial expenditures before we are able to re-lease the space. These expenditures or renovations may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

18

We are subject to significant corporate regulation as a public company and failure to comply with all applicable regulations could subject us to liability or negatively affect our stock price.

As a publicly traded company, we are subject to a significant body of regulation, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. While we have developed and instituted a corporate compliance program based on what we believe are the current best practices in corporate governance and continue to update this program in response to newly implemented or changing regulatory requirements, we cannot provide assurance that we are or will be in compliance with all potentially applicable corporate regulations. For example, we cannot provide assurance that in the future our management will not find a material weakness in connection with its annual review of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We also cannot provide assurance that we could correct any such weakness to allow our management to assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year in time to enable our independent registered public accounting firm to state that we have maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year. If we fail to comply with any of these regulations, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions, fines or other sanctions or litigation. If we must disclose any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, our stock price could decline.

A cyber security incident could cause a violation of HIPAA, breach of member privacy, or other negative impacts.

We and UHS rely extensively on our information technology (“IT”) systems to manage clinical and financial data, communicate with our patients, payors, vendors and other third parties and summarize and analyze operating results. In addition, UHS has made significant investments in technology to adopt and utilize electronic health records and to become a meaningful user of health information technology pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A cyber-attack that bypasses our IT security systems causing an IT security breach, loss of protected health information or other data subject to privacy laws, loss of proprietary business information, or a material disruption of our IT business systems, could have a material adverse impact on our business and result of operations. In addition, our future results of operations, as well as our reputation, could be adversely impacted by theft, destruction, loss, or misappropriation of public health information, other confidential data or proprietary business information.

Different interpretations of accounting principles could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Generally accepted accounting principles are complex, continually evolving and may be subject to varied interpretation by us, our independent registered public accounting firm and the SEC. Such varied interpretations could result from differing views related to specific facts and circumstances. Differences in interpretation of generally accepted accounting principles could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.