Company: UHS
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000950170-25-027785
Chunk: 283

Company: UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 7
Chunk 283
---
 ruled that a requirement that certain health plans cover services without cost sharing violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the coverage of certain HIV prevention medication violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which on June 21, 2024, affirmed the District Court’s ruling regarding preventive services recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force being unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit overturned the nationwide injunction imposed by the District Court, preserving access to the majority of preventive services in dispute for now. The U.S. Government appealed and on January 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter. The outcome and impacts of this litigation cannot be predicted. Any future efforts to challenge, replace or replace the Legislation or expand or substantially amend its provision is unknown.  See below in Sources of Revenues and Health Care Reform for additional disclosure; 

•as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the "CAA"), Congress passed legislation aimed at preventing or limiting patient balance billing in certain circumstances. The CAA addresses surprise medical bills stemming from emergency services, out-of-network ancillary providers at in-network facilities, and air ambulance carriers. The CAA prohibits surprise billing when out-of-network emergency services or out-of-network services at an in-network facility are provided, unless informed consent is received.  In these circumstances providers are prohibited from billing the patient for any amounts that exceed in-network cost-sharing requirements. HHS, the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury have issued rules to implement the legislation. The rules have limited the ability of our hospital-based physicians to receive payments for services at usually higher out-of-network rates in certain circumstances, and, as a result, have caused us to increase subsidies to these physicians or to replace their services at a higher cost level;

•in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which modified the regulatory interpretation standard established 40 years ago by Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. Chevron doctrine generally required courts to defer to federal agencies in their interpretation of federal statutes when a statute was silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue.  In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court held that courts are no longer required to grant such deference, though they may consider an agency’s statutory interpretation. As it is highly regulated, the