Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number: 001-35331

ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

6100 Tower Circle, Suite 1000

Franklin, Tennessee 37067

(Address, including zip code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

(615) 861-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark of the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

As of June 28, 2019, the aggregate market value of the shares of common stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates was approximately $3.1 billion, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market of $34.95 per share.

As of February 28, 2020, there were 88,493,519 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Acadia,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” mean Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Our business strategy is to acquire and develop behavioral healthcare facilities and improve our operating results within our facilities and our other behavioral healthcare operations. We strive to improve the operating results of our facilities by providing high-quality services, expanding referral networks and marketing initiatives while meeting the increased demand for behavioral healthcare services through expansion of our current locations as well as developing new services within existing locations. At December 31, 2019, we operated 585 behavioral healthcare facilities with approximately 18,200 beds in 40 states, the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) and Puerto Rico. During the year ended December 31, 2019, we acquired 11 facilities and added 585 beds (exclusive of acquisitions), including 425 added to existing facilities and 160 added through the opening of two de novo facilities. For the year ending December 31, 2020, we expect to add approximately 600 total beds exclusive of acquisitions.

We are the leading publicly traded pure-play provider of behavioral healthcare services, with operations in the United States (“U.S.”) and the U.K. Management believes that we are positioned as a leading platform in a highly fragmented industry under the direction of an experienced management team that has significant industry expertise. Management expects to take advantage of several strategies that are more accessible as a result of our increased size and geographic scale, including continuing a national marketing strategy to attract new patients and referral sources, increasing our volume of out-of-state referrals, providing a broader range of services to new and existing patients and clients and selectively pursuing opportunities to expand our facility and bed count in the U.S. through acquisitions, de novo facilities, joint ventures and bed additions in existing facilities.

During 2019, we commenced a review of strategic alternatives including those related to our U.K. operations and a potential sale of such operations. In January 2020, we launched a formal process regarding the sale of our U.K. business. Consistent with market practice for U.K. transactions of this nature, and in conjunction with our advisors, we solicited and have received initial, non-binding offers to acquire our U.K. business from multiple bidders. We are now in the second phase of the sale process, during which interested bidders will receive proposed transaction documents and complete their confirmatory due diligence.  

Acadia was formed as a limited liability company in the State of Delaware in 2005, and converted to a corporation on May 13, 2011. Our common stock is listed for trading on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “ACHC.” Our principal executive offices are located at 6100 Tower Circle, Suite 1000, Franklin, Tennessee 37067, and our telephone number is (615) 861-6000.

Acquisitions

On April 1, 2019, we completed the acquisition of Bradford Recovery Center (“Bradford”), a specialty treatment facility with 46 beds located in Millerton, Pennsylvania, for cash consideration of approximately $4.5 million.

On February 15, 2019, we completed the acquisition of Whittier Pavilion (“Whittier”), an inpatient psychiatric facility with 71 beds located in Haverhill, Massachusetts, for cash consideration of approximately $17.9 million. Also on February 15, 2019, we completed the acquisition of Mission Treatment (“Mission Treatment”) for cash consideration of approximately $22.5 million. Mission Treatment operates nine comprehensive treatment centers in California, Nevada, Arizona and Oklahoma.

On November 13, 2017, we completed the acquisition of Aspire Scotland (“Aspire”), an education facility with 36 beds located in Scotland, for cash consideration of approximately $21.3 million.

Financing Transactions

On December 1, 2018, we exercised the option to redeem in whole $7.5 million and $15.5 million of Lee County (Florida) Industrial Development Authority Healthcare Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 with stated interest rates of 9.0% and 9.5% (“9.0% and 9.5% Revenue Bonds”) at a redemption price equal to the sum of 104% of the principal amount of the 9.0% and 9.5% Revenue Bonds plus accrued and unpaid interest. In connection with the redemption of the 9.0% and 9.5% Revenue Bonds, we recorded a debt extinguishment charge of $0.9 million, which was recorded in debt extinguishment costs in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018.

1

Table of Contents

We entered into a Senior Secured Credit Facility (the “Senior Secured Credit Facility”) on April 1, 2011. On December 31, 2012, we entered into the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Amended and Restated Credit Agreement”), which amended and restated the Senior Secured Credit Facility. We have amended the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement from time to time as described in our prior filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility” for additional information.

On February 27, 2019, we entered into the Twelfth Amendment (the “Twelfth Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. The Twelfth Amendment, among other things, modified certain definitions, including “Consolidated EBITDA”, and increased our permitted Maximum Consolidated Leverage Ratio, thereby providing increased flexibility to us in terms of our financial covenants.

On February 6, 2019, we entered into the Eleventh Amendment (the “Eleventh Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. The Eleventh Amendment, among other things, amended the definition of “Consolidated EBITDA” to remove the cap on non-cash charges, losses and expenses related to the impairment of goodwill, which in turn provided increased flexibility to us in terms of our financial covenants.

On March 29, 2018, we entered into a Third Repricing Facilities Amendment (the “Third Repricing Facilities Amendment”, and together with the Second Repricing Facilities Amendment, the “Repricing Facilities Amendments”) to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. The Third Repricing Facilities Amendment replaced the existing revolving credit facility and Term Loan A facility (“TLA Facility”) with a new revolving credit facility and TLA Facility, respectively. The Company’s line of credit on its revolving credit facility remains at $500.0 million and the Third Repricing Facility Amendment reduced the size of the TLA Facility from $400.0 million to $380.0 million to reflect the then current outstanding principal. The Third Repricing Facilities Amendment reduced the Applicable Rate by 25 basis points for the revolving credit facility and the TLA Facility by amending the definition of “Applicable Rate.”

On March 22, 2018, we entered into a Second Repricing Facilities Amendment (the “Second Repricing Facilities Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. The Second Repricing Facilities Amendment (i) replaced the Tranche B-1 Term Loan facility (the “Tranche B-1 Facility”) and the Tranche B-2 Term Loan facility (the “Tranche B-2 Facility”) with a new Term Loan B facility Tranche B-3 (the “Tranche B-3 Facility”) and a new Term Loan B facility Tranche B-4 (the “Tranche B-4 Facility”), respectively, and (ii) reduced the Applicable Rate from 2.75% to 2.50% in the case of Eurodollar Rate loans and reduced the Applicable Rate from 1.75% to 1.50% in the case of Base Rate Loans.

In connection with the Repricing Facilities Amendments, we recorded a debt extinguishment charge of $0.9 million, including the discount and write-off of deferred financing costs, which was recorded in debt extinguishment costs in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018.

On May 10, 2017, we entered into a Third Repricing Amendment (the “Third Repricing Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. The Third Repricing Amendment reduced the Applicable Rate with respect to the Tranche B-1 Facility and the Tranche B-2 Facility from 3.0% to 2.75% in the case of Eurodollar Rate loans and from 2.0% to 1.75% in the case of Base Rate Loans. In connection with the Third Repricing Amendment, the Company recorded a debt extinguishment charge of $0.8 million, including the discount and write-off of deferred financing costs, which was recorded in debt extinguishment costs in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Competitive Strengths

Management believes the following strengths differentiate us from other providers of behavioral healthcare services:

Premier operational management team with track record of success. Our management team has approximately 200 combined years of experience in acquiring, integrating and operating a variety of behavioral health facilities. Prior to joining Acadia in December 2018, our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) served as Executive Vice President of Universal Health Services, Inc. (“UHS”) since 2005, and President of UHS’s behavioral health division since 1999. The extensive national experience and operational expertise of our management team give us what management believes to be the premier leadership team in the behavioral healthcare industry. Our management team strives to use its years of experience operating behavioral healthcare facilities to generate strong cash flow and grow a profitable business.

Favorable industry and legislative trends. According to a 2018 survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“SAMHSA”), 19.1% of adults in the U.S. aged 18 years or

2

Table of Contents

older suffered from a mental illness in the prior year and 4.6% suffered from a serious mental illness. Further, approximately 7.8% of people aged 12 or older in 2018 needed substance use treatment in the past year. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, over 20% of adolescents, either currently or at some point in their life, have had a seriously debilitating mental disorder. Management believes the market for behavioral services will continue to grow due to increased awareness of mental health and substance abuse conditions and treatment options.

While the growing awareness of mental health and substance abuse conditions is expected to accelerate demand for services, recent healthcare reform in the U.S. is expected to increase access to industry services as more people obtain insurance coverage. A key aspect of reform legislation is the extension of mental health parity protections established into law by the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the “MHPAEA”). The MHPAEA requires employers who provide behavioral health and addiction benefits to provide such coverage to the same extent as other medical conditions. On December 13, 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act. The 21st Century Cures Act appropriates substantial resources for the treatment of behavioral health and substance abuse disorders and contains measures intended to strengthen the MHPAEA. On October 21, 2018, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (“SUPPORT”) for Patients and Communities Act was signed into law. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act expands Medicare coverage to include Opioid Treatment Programs for services provided on or after January 2, 2020. It also includes Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act (“IMD CARE Act”), which suspends the current prohibition on using federal Medicaid funds to pay for substance use disorder treatment at inpatient treatment facilities with more than 16 beds and limits beneficiaries to no more than 30 days of inpatient treatment per 12 month period.

The mental health hospitals market in the U.K. was estimated at £15.2 billion for 2018-2019. As a result of government budget constraints and an increased focus on quality, the independent mental health hospitals market has witnessed significant expansion in the last decade, making it one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.K. healthcare industry. Demand for independent sector beds continues to grow as a result of lack of capacity in the National Health Service (the “NHS”) and demand for inpatient mental health services. Independent sector demand is expected to further increase in light of a shortage of NHS inpatient beds.

Leading platform in attractive healthcare niche. We are a leading behavioral healthcare platform in an industry that is undergoing consolidation in an effort to reduce costs and expand programs to better serve the growing need for inpatient behavioral healthcare services. Management expects to take advantage of several strategies that are more accessible as a result of our increased size and geographic scale, including continuing a national marketing strategy to attract new patients and referral sources, increasing our volume of out-of-state referrals, providing a broader range of services to new and existing patients and clients and selectively pursuing opportunities to expand our facility and bed count in the U.S. and U.K.

Diversified revenue and payor bases. At December 31, 2019, we operated 585 facilities in 40 states, the U.K. and Puerto Rico. Our payor, patient and geographic diversity mitigates the potential risk associated with any single facility. For the year ended December 31, 2019, we received 32% of our revenue from public funded sources in the U.K. (including the NHS, Clinical Commissioning Groups (“CCGs”) and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales), 33% from Medicaid, 18% from commercial payors, 9% from Medicare and 8% from other payors. As we receive Medicaid payments from 46 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, management does not believe that we are significantly affected by changes in reimbursement policies in any one state or territory. No facility accounted for more than 3% of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019, and no state or U.S. territory accounted for more than 8% of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019. Our U.K. operations accounted for approximately 35% of our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019. We believe that our increased geographic diversity will mitigate the impact of any financial or budgetary pressure that may arise in a particular state or market where we operate.

Strong cash flow generation and low capital requirements. We generate strong free cash flow by profitably operating our business and by actively managing our working capital. Moreover, as the behavioral healthcare business does not typically require the procurement and replacement of expensive medical equipment, our maintenance capital expenditure requirements are generally less than that of other facility-based healthcare providers. For the year ended December 31, 2019, our maintenance capital expenditures amounted to approximately 3.0% of our revenue.

Business Strategy

We are committed to providing the communities we serve with high-quality, cost-effective behavioral healthcare services, while growing our business, increasing profitability and creating long-term value for our stockholders. To achieve these objectives, we have aligned our activities around the following growth strategies:

Increase margins by enhancing programs and improving performance at existing facilities. Management believes we can improve efficiencies and increase operating margins by utilizing our management’s expertise and experience within existing programs and their expertise in improving performance at underperforming facilities. Management believes the efficiencies can be realized by

3

Table of Contents

investing in growth in strong markets, addressing capital-constrained facilities that have underperformed and improving management systems.

Opportunistically pursue acquisitions and partnerships. We have positioned the Company as a leading provider of mental health services in the U.S. and the U.K. The behavioral healthcare industry in the U.S. and the independent behavioral healthcare industry in the U.K. are highly fragmented, and we selectively seek opportunities to expand and diversify our base of operations by acquiring additional facilities and entering into partnerships with healthcare providers to acquire and develop additional facilities. Acadia management believes there are a number of acquisition candidates available at attractive valuations, and we have a number of potential joint ventures and acquisitions in various stages of development and consideration in the U.S.

Management believes our focus on behavioral healthcare and history of completing acquisitions provides us with a strategic advantage in sourcing, evaluating and closing acquisitions. We leverage our management team’s expertise to identify and integrate acquisitions based on a disciplined acquisition strategy that focuses on quality of service, return on investment and strategic benefits. We also have a comprehensive post-acquisition strategic plan to facilitate the integration of acquired facilities that includes improving facility operations, retaining and recruiting psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals and expanding the breadth of services offered by the facilities.

Drive organic growth of existing facilities. We seek to increase revenue at our facilities by providing a broader range of services to new and existing patients and clients. In addition, management intends to increase bed counts in our existing facilities. During the year ended December 31, 2019, we added 585 beds (exclusive of acquisitions), including 425 added to existing facilities and 160 added through the opening of two de novo facilities. For the year ending December 31, 2020, we expect to add approximately 600 total beds exclusive of acquisitions. Furthermore, management believes that opportunities exist to leverage out-of-state referrals to increase volume and minimize payor concentration in the U.S., especially with respect to our youth and adolescent focused services and our substance abuse services.

U.S. Operations

Our facilities in the U.S. (the “U.S. Facilities”) and services can generally be classified into the following categories: acute inpatient psychiatric facilities; specialty treatment facilities; residential treatment centers; and outpatient community-based facilities. The table below presents the percentage of our total U.S. revenue attributed to each category for the year ended December 31, 2019:

We receive payments from the following sources for services rendered in our U.S. Facilities: (i) state governments under their respective Medicaid and other programs; (ii) commercial insurers; (iii) the federal government under the Medicare program administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); and (iv) individual patients and clients. For the year ended December 31, 2019, in our U.S. Facilities, we received 50% of our revenue from Medicaid, 28% from commercial payors, 15% from Medicare and 7% from other payors.

At December 31, 2019, our U.S. Facilities included 224 behavioral healthcare facilities with approximately 9,500 beds in 40 states and Puerto Rico. Of our U.S. Facilities, excluding comprehensive treatment centers (“CTCs”), approximately 43% are acute inpatient psychiatric facilities, approximately 41% are specialty treatment facilities, approximately 13% are residential treatment centers and approximately 3% are outpatient community-based facilities at December 31, 2019. Of the 224 behavioral healthcare facilities, 127 are CTCs, which is a subset of specialty treatment facilities. Of our CTCs, 17 are owned properties and 110 are leased properties. Of the 97 facilities that are not CTCs, 76 are owned properties and 21 are leased properties. For the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, our U.S. operations generated revenue of $2.0 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively.

Acute Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities

Acute inpatient psychiatric facilities provide a high level of care in order to stabilize patients that are either a threat to themselves or to others. The acute setting provides 24-hour observation, daily intervention and monitoring by psychiatrists. Generally, due to shorter lengths of stay, the related higher patient turnover, and the special security and health precautions required, acute inpatient psychiatric facilities have lower average occupancy than residential treatment centers. Our facilities that offer acute care services provide evaluation and crisis stabilization of patients with severe psychiatric diagnoses through a medical delivery model that

4

Table of Contents

incorporates structured and intensive medical and behavioral therapies with 24-hour monitoring by a psychiatrist, psychiatric trained nurses, therapists and other direct care staff. Lengths of stay for crisis stabilization and acute care range from three to five days and from five to twelve days, respectively.

Specialty Treatment Facilities

Our specialty treatment facilities include residential recovery facilities, eating disorder facilities and CTCs. We provide a comprehensive continuum of care for adults with addictive disorders and co-occurring mental disorders. Our detoxification, inpatient, partial hospitalization and outpatient treatment programs are cost-effective and give patients access to the least restrictive level of care. All programs offer individualized treatment in a supportive and nurturing environment.

The majority of our specialty treatment services are provided to patients who abuse addictive substances such as alcohol, illicit drugs or opiates, including prescription drugs. Some of our facilities also treat other addictions and behavioral disorders such as chronic pain, sexual compulsivity, compulsive gambling, mood disorders, emotional trauma and abuse. The goal of our treatment facilities is to provide the appropriate level of treatment to an individual no matter where they are in the lifecycle of their disease in order to restore the individual to a healthier, more productive life, free from dependence on illicit substances and destructive behaviors. Our treatment facilities provide a number of different treatment services such as assessment, detoxification, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, education, lectures and group therapy. We assess and evaluate the medical, psychological and emotional needs of the patient and address these needs in the treatment process. Following this assessment, an individualized treatment program is designed to provide a foundation for a lifelong recovery process. Many modalities are used in our treatment programs to support the individual, including the twelve step philosophy, cognitive/behavioral therapies, supportive therapies and continuing care.

Residential Recovery Facilities. Our inpatient facilities house and care for patients over an extended period and typically treat patients from a broadly defined regional market. We provide three basic levels of residential treatment depending on the severity of the patient’s addiction and/or behavioral disorder. Patients with the most severe dependencies are typically placed into inpatient treatment, in which the patient resides at a treatment facility. If a patient’s condition is less severe, he or she will be offered day treatment, which allows the patient to return home in the evening. The least intensive service is where the patient visits the facility for just a few hours a week to attend counseling/group sessions.

Following primary treatment, our extended care programs typically offer residential care, which allows patients to develop healthy and appropriate living skills while remaining in a safe and nurturing setting. Patients are supported in their recovery by a semi-structured living environment that allows them to begin the process of employment or to pursue educational goals and to take personal responsibility for their recovery. The structure of this treatment phase is monitored by a primary therapist who works with each patient to integrate recovery skills and build a foundation of sobriety with a strong support system. Length of stay will vary depending on the patient’s needs with a minimum stay of 30 days and could be multiple months if needed.

Our outpatient clinics serve patients that do not require inpatient treatment or are transitioning from a residential treatment program; have employment, family or school commitments; and have stabilized in their substance addiction recovery practices and are seeking ongoing continuing care.

Eating Disorder Facilities. Our eating disorder facilities provide treatment services for eating disorders and weight management, each of which may be effectively treated through a combination of medical, psychological and social treatment programs.

Comprehensive Treatment Centers. Our CTCs specialize in providing medication-assisted and abstinent-based treatment. Medication-assisted treatment combines behavioral therapy and medication to treat substance use disorders. CTCs utilize medication-assisted treatment to individuals addicted to opiates such as opioid analgesics (prescription pain medications) and heroin. Medication is used to normalize brain chemistry to block the euphoric effects of alcohol and opioids allowing our professional staff to provide behavioral therapy. Patients begin their treatment attending the clinic almost daily. Then, through successfully progressing in treatment, patients attend less frequently depending on individual treatment plans. The length of treatment differs from patient to patient, but typically ranges from one to three years.

Each of our CTCs provide a range of comprehensive substance abuse treatment support services that include medical, counseling, vocational, educational, and other treatment services. Our behavioral therapies are delivered in an array of treatment models that may include individual and group therapy, intensive outpatient, outpatient, partial hospitalization/day treatment, road to recovery and other programs that can be either abstinent or medication assisted based.

5

Table of Contents

Residential Treatment Centers

Residential treatment centers treat patients with behavioral disorders in a non-hospital setting, including outdoor programs. The facilities balance therapy activities with social, academic and other activities. Because the setting is less intensive, demands on staffing, security and oversight are generally lower than inpatient psychiatric facilities. In contrast to acute care psychiatric facilities, occupancy in residential treatment centers can be managed more easily given a longer length of stay. Over time, however, residential treatment centers have continued to serve increasingly severe patients who would have been treated in acute care facilities in earlier years.

We provide residential treatment care through a medical model residential treatment facility, which offers intensive, medically-driven interventions and individualized treatment regimens designed to deal with moderate to high level patient acuity. Children and adolescents admitted to these facilities typically have had multiple prior failed treatment plans, severe physical, sexual and emotional abuse, termination of parental custody, substance abuse, marked deficiencies in social, interpersonal and academic skills and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. Treatment typically is provided by an interdisciplinary team coordinating psychopharmacological, individual, group and family therapy, along with specialized accredited educational programs in both secure and unlocked environments. Lengths of stay range from three months to several years.

Certain of our residential treatment centers provide group home, therapeutic group home and therapeutic foster care programs. Our group home programs provide family-style living for youths in a single house or apartment within residential communities where supervision and support are provided by 24-hour staff. The goal of a group home program is to teach family living and social skills through individual and group counseling sessions within a real life environment. The residents are encouraged to take responsibility for the home and their health as well as actively take part in community functions. Most attend an accredited and licensed on-premises school or a local public school. We also operate therapeutic group homes that provide comprehensive treatment services for seriously, emotionally disturbed adolescents. The ultimate goal is to reunite or place these children with their families or prepare them, when appropriate, for permanent placement with a relative or an adoptive family. We also manage therapeutic foster care programs, which are considered the least restrictive form of therapeutic placement for children and adolescents with emotional disorders. Children and adolescents in our therapeutic foster care programs often are part of the child welfare or juvenile justice system. Care is delivered in private homes with experienced foster parents who are trained to work with children and adolescents with special needs.

Outpatient Community-Based Facilities

Our community-based facilities can be divided into two age groups: children and adolescents (seven to 18 years of age) and young children (three months to six years of age). Community-based programs are designed to provide therapeutic treatment to children and adolescents who have a clinically-defined emotional, psychiatric or chemical dependency disorder while enabling the youth to remain at home and within their community. Many patients who participate in community-based programs have transitioned out of a residential facility or have a disorder that does not require placement in a facility that provides 24-hour care.

Community-based programs developed for these age groups provide a unique array of therapeutic services to a very high-risk population of children. These children suffer from severe congenital, neurobiological, speech/motor and early onset psychiatric disorders. These services are provided in clinics and employ a treatment model that is consistent with our interdisciplinary medical treatment approach. Depending on their individual needs and treatment plan, children receive speech, physical, occupational and psychiatric interventions that are coordinated with services provided by their referring primary care physician. The children generally receive treatment during regular business hours.

U.K. Operations

Overview

We are the leading independent provider of mental health services in the U.K. operating 361 inpatient behavioral health facilities with approximately 8,700 beds at December 31, 2019. The facilities are located in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. For both the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, our U.K. operations generated revenue of $1.1 billion primarily through the operation and management of inpatient behavioral health facilities.

United Kingdom Healthcare and Adult Social Care Sectors

In the U.K., central government spending on health for fiscal year 2018-2019 was approximately £153 billion, according to the U.K. government. This spending is primarily delivered by the NHS, which operates as three separate national public sector bodies in England, Scotland and Wales as well as the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board. Local government gross spending on adult social care for the fiscal year 2018-2019 was approximately £25 billion and is commissioned by local authorities in England,

6

Table of Contents

Scotland and Wales, which we refer to as Local Authorities and by the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board. The NHS, Local Authorities and Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board commissioners dominate the U.K. health and social care markets in terms of the funding of care. With the exception of the elderly residential and nursing care market, private health insurance and self-payment play a minor role in these sectors.

The mental health market in the U.K. was estimated at £15.2 billion for 2018-2019. The independent mental health market accounted for roughly £1.8 billion of that amount, or approximately 12% market share. From 2005 to 2015, the independent mental health market witnessed significant expansion mainly due to NHS outsourcing as the number of NHS in-house beds declined. However, since 2015, overall independent sector mental health hospital bed capacity has remained largely the same.

Publicly-funded healthcare services in England are commissioned at two levels as follows: (i) nationally by the NHS in England (“NHS England”), which, via its local area teams commissions specialized healthcare services, includes specialized mental health secure, eating disorder and Children and Adolescent (“CAMHS”) services, and (ii) locally by approximately 200 local CCGs, which commission all acute, rehabilitation and community-based healthcare services. In Scotland and Wales, all healthcare services are commissioned by Local/Regional Health Boards.

NHS England has begun the process to delegate the commissioning of specialized mental health secure, eating disorder and CAMHS services to local provider collaboratives. The formation of each provider collaborative will entail the appointment by NHS England of a NHS provider trust to serve as the lead provider in their region. The lead provider will be responsible for managing NHS England’s commissioning budget for that region and will enter into sub-contracts with each of the other providers in the region, including independent sector providers. NHS England expects all providers to collaborate with each other to develop and improve services for their local population. The first provider collaboratives are scheduled to become operational in April 2020 with NHS England intending to roll-out the delegation of the commissioning of all of its specialized mental health services over the following two years.

The principal distinction between healthcare and social care relates to an individual’s assessed care needs. If there is a primary health need, services are commissioned by the NHS under the general NHS principle that the services are free at the point of delivery. In the case of adult social care, individuals’ healthcare-related needs have been assessed as being of secondary importance with services being means-tested. Local Authority commissioners of adult social care provided in care homes and other community settings are responsible for undertaking financial assessments to determine the level of contributions that individuals must pay towards the cost of their care. Individuals with income or capital above set statutory thresholds must fund the full cost of their care.

In recent years, the U.K. government has placed increasing emphasis on implementing integrated care pathways across health and social care services. Integrated care pathways provide patients with highly coordinated and personalized care overseen by relevant commissioners working together to plan, arrange and monitor patient progression through each stage of the care pathway.

Additionally, mental health commissioning trends toward moving patients more quickly down care pathways, out of higher acuity, more intensive care settings towards community focused care services have increased the demand for community and rehabilitation services in the independent mental health market. The Department of Health in England recently identified priorities for essential change in mental health that include, among other things, funding providers based on the quality of their service rather than volume of patients, allocating funds to support specialized housing for people with mental health problems and adopting a new rating system and inspection process to improve the quality of care. Increasing political focus on the provision of mental health services in the U.K. and increasing support for the rights of mental health patients are expected to lead to further increases in the size of the mental health market in the U.K. In addition, rising demand for mental health services in the U.K. coupled with a constrained mental healthcare funding environment are increasing pressure to improve operational efficiency and refer patients to single provider programs with care pathways that more appropriately reflect each patient’s specific mental health needs. As a result of these pressures, government reforms to NHS competition rules and an increased focus on quality, the independent mental health market witnessed significant expansion in the last decade, making it one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.K. healthcare industry.

Over the next five years, the U.K. government has committed to an average real growth rate increase for NHS England’s budget of 3.4% a year, equating to an overall increase in the NHS budget of £33.9 billion by 2023-2024. Within its Long Term Plan for the NHS published in January 2019, NHS England set out its commitment to grow investment in mental health services faster than the NHS budget overall for each of the next five years such that Mental Health will receive a growing share of the NHS budget, worth at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-2024.

NHS England plans to set up a network of integrated care systems covering all of England by 2021 to deliver the “triple integration” of primary and specialist care, physical and mental health service and health with social care. NHS England’s focus is

7

Table of Contents

upon collaboration rather than competition between providers and has recommended the reversal of many of the NHS competition reforms that had been introduced by the government in 2012.

Description of U.K. Facilities

In the U.K., we provide inpatient services through a variety of facilities, including mental health hospitals, clinics, care homes, schools, colleges and children’s homes. In addition to these services, we also operate a U.K. division that leverages on our clinical knowledge to provide Employee Assistance Programs (“EAP”) to organizations.

Our facilities in the U.K. (the “U.K. Facilities”) and services can generally be classified into the following categories: healthcare facilities, education and children’s services and adult care facilities. The table below presents the percentage of our total U.K. revenue attributed to each category for the year ended December 31, 2019:

We receive payments from approximately 500 public funded sources in the U.K. (including the NHS, CCGs and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales) and individual patients and clients. For the year ended December 31, 2019 in our U.K. Facilities, we received 90% of our revenue from public funded sources in the U.K. (including the NHS, CCGs and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales) and 10% from other payors.

At December 31, 2019, our U.K. Facilities included 361 behavioral healthcare facilities with approximately 8,700 beds, including approximately 1,100 non-residential education places, in the U.K. Of our U.K. Facilities, approximately 22% are healthcare facilities, approximately 18% are education and children’s services facilities and approximately 60% are adult care facilities at December 31, 2019. At December 31, 2019, we owned 289 of the properties at our U.K. Facilities and leased 72 properties.

Healthcare

In the U.K., mental health hospitals provide psychiatric treatment and nursing for sufferers of mental disorders, including for patients detained under a section of the U.K.’s Mental Health Act of 1983 and 2007, and whose risk of harm to others and risk of escape from hospitals cannot be managed safely within other mental health settings. In order to manage the risks involved with treating patients, the facility is managed through the application of a range of security measures depending on the level of dependency and risk exhibited by the patient. The levels of dependency and risk stemming from the wide range of disorders treated at these hospitals determine the level of care provided, which comprise:

8

Table of Contents

Other Services

Sources of Revenue

We receive payments from the following sources for services rendered in our facilities: (i) state governments under their respective Medicaid and other programs; (ii) commercial insurers; (iii) the federal government under the Medicare program administered by CMS; (iv) public funded sources in the U.K. (including the NHS, CCGs and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales); and (v) individual patients and clients. We determine the transaction price based on established billing rates reduced by contractual adjustments provided to third-party payors, discounts provided to uninsured patients and implicit price concessions. Contractual adjustments and discounts are based on contractual agreements, discount policies and historical experience. Implicit price concessions are based on historical collection experience. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Revenue and Accounts Receivable” for additional disclosure. Other information related to our revenue, income and other operating information is provided in our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Regulation

U.S. Overview

The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws, regulations and rules including, among others, those related to government healthcare program participation requirements, various licensure and accreditation standards, reimbursement for patient services, health information privacy and security rules, and government healthcare program fraud and abuse provisions. Providers that are found to have violated any of these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to loss or limitation of licenses to operate, subjected to significant fines or penalties and/or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services.

Licensing, Certification and Accreditation

All of our facilities must comply with various federal, state and local licensing and certification regulations and undergo periodic inspection by licensing agencies to certify compliance with such regulations. The initial and continued licensure of our

9

Table of Contents

facilities and certification to participate in government healthcare programs depends upon many factors including various state licensure regulations relating to quality of care, environment of care, equipment, services, staff training, personnel and the existence of adequate policies, procedures and controls. Federal, state and local agencies survey our facilities on a regular basis to determine whether the facilities are in compliance with regulatory operating and health standards and conditions for participating in government healthcare programs.

Most of our inpatient and residential facilities maintain accreditation from private entities, such as The Joint Commission or the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (“CARF”). The Joint Commission and CARF are private organizations that have accreditation programs for a broad spectrum of healthcare facilities. The Joint Commission accredits a broad variety of healthcare organizations, including hospitals and behavioral health organizations. CARF accredits behavioral health organizations providing mental health and alcohol and drug use and addiction services, as well as opiate treatment programs, and many other types of healthcare programs. These accreditation programs are intended generally to improve the quality, safety, outcomes and value of healthcare services provided by accredited facilities. Certain federal and state licensing agencies as well as many government and private healthcare payment programs require that providers be accredited as a condition of licensure, certification or participation. Accreditation is typically granted for a specified period, ranging from one to three years, and renewals of accreditation generally require completion of a renewal application and an on-site renewal survey.

Certificates of Need

Many of the states in which we operate facilities have enacted certificate of need (“CON”) laws that regulate the construction or expansion of certain healthcare facilities, certain capital expenditures or changes in services or bed capacity. Failure to obtain CON approval of certain activities can result in: our inability to complete an acquisition, expansion or replacement; the imposition of civil penalties; the inability to receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement; or the revocation of a facility’s license, any of which could harm our business.

Audits

Our healthcare facilities are also subject to federal, state and commercial payor audits to validate the accuracy of claims submitted to government healthcare programs and commercial payors. If these audits identify overpayments, we could be required to make substantial repayments, subject to various appeal rights. Several of our facilities have undergone claims audits related to their receipt of payments during the last several years with no material overpayments identified. However, potential liability from future audits could ultimately exceed established reserves, and any excess could potentially be substantial. Further, Medicare and Medicaid regulations, as well as commercial payor contracts, also provide for withholding or suspending payments in certain circumstances, which could adversely affect our cash flow.

The Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits healthcare providers and others from directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, in cash or in kind, as an inducement or reward for using, referring, ordering, recommending or arranging for referrals or orders of services or other items paid for by a government healthcare program. The Anti-Kickback Statute may be found to have been violated if at least one purpose of the remuneration is to induce or reward referrals. A provider is not required to have actual knowledge or specific intent to commit a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute to be found guilty of violating the law.

The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services has issued safe harbor regulations that protect certain types of common arrangements from prosecution or sanction under the Anti-Kickback Statute. The fact that conduct or a business arrangement does not fall within a safe harbor does not automatically render the conduct or business arrangement illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. However, conduct and business arrangements falling outside the safe harbors may lead to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities.

Although management believes that our arrangements with physicians and other referral sources comply with current law and available interpretative guidance, as a practical matter it is not always possible to structure our arrangements so as to fall squarely within an available safe harbor. Where that is the case, we cannot guarantee that applicable regulatory authorities will determine these financial arrangements do not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute or other applicable laws, including state anti-kickback laws.

In addition to the Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal Physician Self-Referral Law, also known as the Stark Law, prohibits physicians from referring Medicare patients to healthcare entities with which they or any of their immediate family members have a financial relationship for the furnishing of any “designated health services” unless certain exceptions apply. A violation of the Stark Law may result in a denial of payment; required refunds to the Medicare program; imposition of civil monetary penalties of up to $25,372 for each prohibited claim, up to $169,153 for circumvention schemes and up to $20,134 for each day the entity fails to report

10

Table of Contents

required information; exclusion from government healthcare programs; and liability under the False Claims Act. There are ownership and compensation arrangement exceptions for many customary financial arrangements between physicians and facilities, including the employment exception, personal services exception, lease exception and certain recruitment exceptions. Management believes that our financial arrangements with physicians are structured to comply with the regulatory exceptions to the Stark Law. However, the Stark Law is a strict liability statute, meaning that no intent is required to violate the law, and even a technical violation may lead to significant penalties.

These laws and regulations are extremely complex and, in many cases, we do not have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. It is possible that different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our arrangements relating to facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. A determination that we have violated one or more of these laws, or the public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of one or more of these laws, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we cannot predict whether other federal or state legislation or regulations will be adopted, what form such legislation or regulations may take or what their impact on us may be.

If we are deemed to have failed to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law or other applicable laws and regulations, we could be subjected to liabilities, including criminal penalties, civil penalties and exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the government healthcare programs. The imposition of such penalties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act

In October 2018, President Trump signed into law the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (the “SUPPORT Act”). The SUPPORT Act contains a number of provisions aimed at identifying at-risk individuals, increasing access to opioid abuse treatment, reducing overprescribing and promoting data sharing with the primary goal of reducing the use and abuse of opioids. Additionally, the SUPPORT Act attempts to address the problem of “patient brokering” in the context of addiction treatment facilities and sober living homes.

One section of the SUPPORT Act, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”), makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully: (1) solicit or receive any remuneration in return for referring a patient to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility or laboratory; or (2) pay or offer any remuneration to induce such a referral or in exchange for an individual using the services of a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory. Each conviction under the EKRA is punishable by up to $200,000 in monetary damages, imprisonment for up to ten (10) years, or both. Unlike the Anti-Kickback Statutes, EKRA is not limited to services reimbursable under a government healthcare program. The EKRA also contains exceptions similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute Safe Harbors, but those exceptions are more narrow than the Anti-Kickback Statute Safe Harbors such that practices that would be permissible under the Anti-Kickback Statute may violate EKRA.

Federal False Claims Act and Other Fraud and Abuse Provisions

The federal False Claims Act provides the government a tool to pursue healthcare providers for submitting false claims or requests for payment for healthcare items or services. Under the False Claims Act, the government may fine any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly submits, or causes the submission of, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The federal government has widely used the False Claims Act to prosecute Medicare and other federal healthcare program fraud such as coding errors, billing for services not provided, submitting false cost reports and providing care that is not medically necessary or that is substandard in quality. Claims for services or items rendered in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark Law can provide a basis for liability under the False Claims Act as well. The False Claims Act is also implicated by the knowing failure to report and return an overpayment within 60 days of identifying the overpayment or by the date a corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later.

Violations of the False Claims Act are punishable by significant penalties totaling $11,181 to $22,363 for each fraudulent claim plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the government. In addition, under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, private parties may bring actions under the False Claims Act on behalf of the federal government. These private parties, known as relators, are entitled to share in any amounts recovered by the government, and, as a result, whistleblower lawsuits have increased significantly in recent years. Many states have similar false claims statutes that impose liability for the types of acts prohibited by the False Claims Act or that otherwise prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the state government or Medicaid program.

In addition to the False Claims Act, the federal government may use several criminal laws, such as the federal mail fraud, wire fraud or health care fraud statutes, to prosecute the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.

11

Table of Contents

Most states have also adopted generally applicable insurance fraud statutes and regulations that prohibit healthcare providers from submitting inaccurate, incorrect or misleading claims to private insurance companies. Management believes our healthcare facilities have implemented appropriate safeguards and procedures to complete claim forms and requests for payment in an accurate manner and to operate in compliance with applicable laws. However, the possibility of billing or other errors can never be completely eliminated, and we cannot guarantee that the government or a qui tam plaintiff, upon audit or review, would not take the position that billing or other errors, should they occur, are violations of the False Claims Act.

HIPAA Administrative Simplification and Privacy and Security Requirements

The administrative simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), require the use of uniform electronic data transmission standards for healthcare claims and payment transactions submitted or received electronically. These provisions are intended to encourage electronic commerce in the healthcare industry. HIPAA also established federal rules protecting the privacy and security of individually identifiable protected health information (“PHI”). The privacy and security regulations control the use and disclosure of PHI and the rights of patients to be informed about and control how such PHI is used and disclosed. Violations of HIPAA can result in both criminal and civil fines and penalties.

The HIPAA security regulations require healthcare providers to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of PHI. HITECH has strengthened certain HIPAA rules regarding the use and disclosure of PHI, extended certain HIPAA provisions to business associates and created security breach notification requirements including notifications to the individuals affected by the breach, the Department of Health and Human Services, and in certain cases, the media. HITECH has also increased maximum penalties for violations of HIPAA privacy rules. Management believes that we have been in material compliance with the HIPAA regulations and have developed our policies and procedures to ensure ongoing compliance, although we cannot guarantee that our facilities will not be subject to security incidents or breaches which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act

The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (“EMTALA”) is intended to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer must be implemented. EMTALA imposes additional obligations on hospitals with specialized capabilities, such as ours, to accept the transfer of patients in need of such specialized capabilities if those patients present in the emergency room of a hospital that does not possess the specialized capabilities.

Mental Health Parity Legislation

The MHPAEA was signed into law in October 2008 and requires health insurance plans that offer mental health and addiction coverage to provide that coverage on par with financial and treatment coverage offered for other illnesses. The MHPAEA has some limitations because health plans that do not already cover mental health treatments are not required to do so, and health plans are not required to provide coverage for every mental health condition published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association. The MHPAEA also contains a cost exemption which operates to exempt a group health plan from the MHPAEA’s requirements if compliance with the MHPAEA becomes too costly.

On December 13, 2016, then President Obama signed the 21^st Century Cures Act. The 21^st Century Cures Act appropriated substantial resources for the treatment of behavioral health and substance abuse disorders and contained measures intended to strengthen the MHPAEA.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, “PPACA”) dramatically altered the U.S. health care system. PPACA sought to provide coverage and access to substantially all Americans, to increase the quality of care provided and to reduce the rate of growth in health care expenditures. PPACA attempted to achieve these goals by, among other things, requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance, expanding the Medicare program’s use of value-based purchasing programs, bundling payments to hospitals and other providers, reducing Medicare and Medicaid payments to providers, expanding Medicaid eligibility and tying reimbursement to the satisfaction of certain quality criteria.

12

Table of Contents

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump became President of the United States. Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, stated that it was the intent of his administration to repeal PPACA and, pending that repeal, instructed the executive branch of the federal government to defer or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of PPACA that would impose a fiscal burden on any state or a cost, fee, tax, or penalty on any individual, family, health care provider or health insurer. Several bills have been introduced and voted upon in the House of Representatives and United States Senate that would either repeal and replace or simply repeal PPACA, although none have been enacted to-date.

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order intending to expand the availability of so-called association health plans and short-term plans outside PPACA’s requirements. President Trump also announced that the administration would cease making cost-sharing reduction payments to health insurance companies that help cover out-of-pocket costs for low-income individuals. Finally, the Tax Act (as defined and described below) effectively eliminated PPACA’s individual health insurance mandate as of 2018 by reducing to zero the tax penalty associated with failure to maintain health insurance coverage.

During the 2018 election cycle, Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives, effectively eliminating the possibility that PPACA will be repealed entirely during the next two years. Still, it remains difficult to predict whether PPACA will be replaced or modified; what the effect will be of the health care-related provisions in the Tax Act; or the impact that the President’s executive actions will have on the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of PPACA or the regulations adopted or to be adopted to implement the law or the President’s executive orders. In addition, if PPACA is replaced or modified, it remains unclear what the replacement plan or modifications would be, when the changes would become effective, or whether any of the existing provisions of PPACA would remain in place.

In 2018, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that PPACA in its entirety is invalid. That decision has been stayed pending appeal, and will likely remain unresolved until finally decided by the United States Supreme Court.

There have been and likely will continue to be a number of legal challenges to various provisions of the law and President Trump’s executive actions. Limitations on the availability of adequate insurance coverage for patients seeking services at our facilities; any reductions in government healthcare spending; and the possible repeal, replacement or modification of PPACA could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Corporate Integrity Agreement

During the second quarter of 2019, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (the “CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General imposing certain compliance obligations on us and our subsidiary, CRC Health. For further discussion of the background of this matter and the CIA, see “Risk Factors— We could be subject to increased monetary penalties and other sanctions, including exclusion from federal healthcare programs, if we fail to comply with the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement.”

U.S. Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017, Public Law 115-97, informally referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted into law. The Tax Act provided for significant changes to the U.S. tax code. Effective January 1, 2018, the Tax Act reduced the U.S. federal tax rate for corporations from 35% to 21% for U.S. taxable income and included certain other changes.

Further information on the Company’s accounting for any tax effects of the Tax Act can be found in the consolidated financial statements.  

U.K. Overview

The regulatory environment applicable to facilities in the U.K. is complex and multifaceted. The regulatory regime is made up of multiple statutes, regulations and minimum standards that are subject to continuous change. The laws and regulations applicable to the U.K. Facilities include, without limitation, the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act of 2006, Mental Health Act of 2007, Health and Social Care Act of 2008 and Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007. These laws and regulations are predominantly protective in nature and share the same general underlying purpose to protect vulnerable persons from exploitation or harm. The regulatory requirements relevant to our facilities in the U.K. cover our operations from the initial establishments of new facilities, which are subject to registration and licensing requirements, to the recruitment and appointment of staff, occupational health and safety, duty of care to service users, clinical and educational standards, conduct of our professional and support staff and other areas.

13

Table of Contents

Mental Capacity Act of 2005. The Mental Capacity Act of 2005 establishes the process for determining whether a person lacks mental capacity at a particular time and also sets out who can make decisions in those circumstances and how they should go about this. The Act sets out when liability may arise for actions in connection with the care or treatment of persons who lack capacity to consent to such actions.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act of 2006. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act of 2006 created the Independent Safeguarding Authority (“ISA”). In December 2012, the ISA merged with the Criminal Records Bureau to form the Discharge and Barring Service (“DBS”) and is required to establish and maintain lists of persons barred from working with children and adults. It is a criminal offense for a barred person to seek to work, or work in, activities from which they are barred. It is also generally a criminal offense for an employer to allow a barred person, or person who is not appropriately registered, to work in any regulated activity. The Children Act 1989 also allocates duties to Local Authorities, courts, parents and other agencies in the U.K. to ensure children are safeguarded and their welfare is promoted.

The Mental Health Act of 2007. The Mental Health Act of 2007 regulates the manner in which an individual can be committed or detained against his or her will. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure that people with serious mental disorders which threaten their health or safety or the safety of the public can be treated irrespective of their consent where it is necessary to prevent them from harming themselves or others. The Act places the burden on the entity detaining a person to prove that the entity has the right to hold the detainee. This places a substantial regulatory burden on service providers to ensure compliance with the law. There is similar legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Health and Social Care Act of 2008. The Health and Social Care Act of 2008 (“HSCA”), as amended by the Care Act 2014, established the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”) as the registration and regulatory body for health and adult social care in England. Under the HSCA, service providers carrying out “regulated activities” must be registered with the CQC for each separate regulated activity provided. Where the service provider is a company, each regulated activity/location must also have an individual registered as the registered manager. Registration depends both on an assessment of the fitness of the registered provider and also the individual registered manager. Regulated activities include the provision of residential accommodation together with nursing or personal care and the provision of treatment for a disease, disorder or injury by or under the supervision of a social worker or a multidisciplinary team which includes a social worker where the treatment is for a mental disorder.

The Care Act 2014. The Care Act 2014 came into force on April 1, 2015, along with a range of supporting regulations and a single set of statutory guidance. The Care Act 2014 requires Local Authorities to set personal budgets for individuals that are appropriate to meeting those individuals’ assessed eligible care and support needs. The Care Act 2014 also imposes new statutory duties upon Local Authorities to ensure the supply of diverse, good quality, local services, including a duty to plan for future demand and to ensure that services are high quality and sustainable.

The regulated activities regulations and the registration regulations issued pursuant to the HSCA place legally binding obligations on health and social care providers. Breach of certain provisions of the HSCA or the regulations is a criminal offense. In addition, a breach may lead to the CQC taking action to suspend, cancel or vary the conditions of registration of a service provider or impose a substantial fine.

Inspections by regulators in the U.K. can be carried out on both an announced and an unannounced basis depending on the specific regulatory provisions relating to the different services provided and also depending upon whether the inspection is routine or as a result of specific information regarding the service that has been provided to the regulator. Generally, however, a majority of inspections tend to be unannounced. A failure to comply with laws and regulations, the receipt of a poor inspection report rating or a lower rating, or the receipt of a negative report that leads to a determination of regulatory non-compliance or a failure to cure any defect noted in an inspection report may result in reputational damage, fines, the revocation or suspension of the registration of any facility or a decrease in, or cessation of, the services provided at any given location. Additionally, the CQC is increasingly looking to inspect independent provider groups as a whole in relation to their corporate governance arrangements to ensure there is appropriate supervision and oversight.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007 provides liability if the way in which a provider’s activities are managed or organized causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to the deceased person.

Regulatory and Enforcement Bodies in the U.K.

The primary healthcare regulatory enforcement bodies in the U.K. are NHS Improvement, the CQC, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (“HIW”), Care Inspectorate Wales (“CIW”), Healthcare Improvement Scotland (“HIS”), Social Care and Social Work

14

Table of Contents

Improvement Scotland (“SCSWIS”) and Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (“RQIA”). In addition, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (“OFSTED”), Estyn, Education Scotland and other regulatory bodies regulate and inspect education services in England, Wales and Scotland, as applicable. These enforcement bodies control and administer the registration, inspection and complaints procedures set out under the applicable laws and regulations. The enforcement bodies have the power to terminate a facility’s registration, refuse to register a facility, impose admissions holds or impose significant fines if a service provider fails to meet the key minimum standards and requirements prescribed under the various laws and regulations. In addition, NHS Counter Fraud Authority (“CFA”) regulations apply to service providers which hold material contracts with the NHS, and they must submit an annual self-assessment of compliance against a number of standards aimed at fraud detection, prevention and reporting. The NHS CFA is a Special Health Authority, charged with identifying, investigating and preventing fraud within both public and private health bodies. See “Risk Factors— If we fail to comply with extensive laws and government regulations, we could suffer penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.”

Our primary regulators continually review their regulatory regimes and may extend their enforcement powers with the intention of holding parent companies and senior executives accountable for material breaches of regulations depending on the circumstances. Additionally, there are other regulators in the U.K. who may take enforcement action against us, including (i) the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) for violations of the Health and Safety at Work Act in connection with patient incidents at our facilities; (ii) the Information Commissioners Office (“ICO”) for breaches of data protection legislation (and following the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulations (the “GDPR”) which became effective in May 2018, fines for material breaches may be as high as 4% of global turnover); and (iii) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) who in November 2017 established the Social Care Compliance Scheme (the “SCCS”) for social care providers in the U.K. with the aim of addressing the issue of potential underpayments of the National Minimum Wage (“NMW”) to workers who are paid a fixed allowance to undertake “sleep-in shifts” at care homes and other facilities at night. See “Risk Factors—Our operating costs are subject to increases, including due to statutorily mandated increases in the wages and salaries of our staff” for further details on U.K. staffing risks to which we are subject.”

NHS Improvement. NHS Improvement now incorporates Monitor, the former economic regulator for NHS England. NHS Improvement is responsible for regulating the market for NHS funded services in England. It fulfills this role through licensing NHS Foundation Trusts and certain other healthcare providers and, together with NHS England, sets the Tariff Rules for national and local pricing of NHS services. NHS Improvement’s role is to oversee the NHS healthcare market, at all times protecting and promoting patients’ interests, tackling abuses by commissioners and/or providers and dealing with unjustifiable restrictions on competition.

The CQC. The CQC is the independent regulator for health and adult social care in England. The CQC is distinct from NHS Improvement in that it focuses on quality and ensuring the maintenance of standards in health and social care practices. The CQC licenses NHS and adult social care service providers to enable it to keep a check on safety and quality standards. The CQC also carries out facility inspections. Care homes for young adults (including specialist college accommodation) are registered and inspected by the CQC. In addition, the CQC is responsible for monitoring the financial viability of corporate providers of adult social care.

HIW. HIW is the independent inspectorate and regulator of all health care in Wales. Certain independent healthcare services are required to register with HIW. HIW also inspects NHS and independent healthcare organizations in Wales to ensure compliance with its and the NHS’s standards, policies, guidance and regulations. The HIW Review Service for Mental Health monitors the use of the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure that it is being used properly on behalf of Welsh Ministers.

CIW. Social care and social services in Wales are regulated by the CIW. CIW carries out unannounced inspections and measure against regulations. Children’s homes in Wales are inspected by CIW.

HIS. HIS is the independent regulator for healthcare services in Scotland. HIS inspects healthcare providers in Scotland to ensure compliance with its standards, policies, guidance and regulations.

SCSWIS. Care services in Scotland are regulated by the Care Inspectorate Scotland (also known as SCSWIS) and all care services in Scotland must be registered with them. As well as registration, SCSWIS inspects services against the National Care Standards and they can take action to force services to improve and can close services if necessary. Independent schools with boarding facilities must register their boarding provision with SCSWIS for the regulation of care as a school care accommodation service.

RQIA. In Northern Ireland, RQIA is Northern Ireland’s independent health and social care regulator. RQIA is responsible for registering, inspecting and encouraging improvement in a range of health and social care services in accordance with the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and its supporting regulations. RQIA inspections are based on certain minimum care standards.

15

Table of Contents

OFSTED. OFSTED was established under the Education (Schools) Act of 1992 and regulates and inspects services in England that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills for learners of all ages. OFSTED carries out routine day school and further education college inspections to ensure compliance with inspection frameworks.

Estyn. In Wales, Estyn is led by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training and inspects quality standards in all education provisions in Wales including children’s homes, independent and residential schools and colleges.

Education Scotland. In Scotland, the education provision for independent schools with boarding facilities is regulated by Education Scotland.

Risk Management and Insurance

The healthcare industry in general continues to experience an increase in the frequency and severity of litigation and claims. As is typical in the healthcare industry, we could be subject to claims that our services have resulted in injury to our patients or clients or other adverse effects. In addition, resident, visitor and employee injuries could also subject us to the risk of litigation. While management believes that quality care is provided to patients and clients in our facilities and that we materially comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, an adverse determination in a legal proceeding or government investigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our statutory workers’ compensation program is fully insured with a $0.5 million deductible per accident. A portion of our professional liability risks are insured through a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary. We are self-insured for professional liability claims up to $3.0 million per claim and have obtained reinsurance coverage from a third party to cover claims in excess of the retention limit. The reinsurance policy has a coverage limit of $75.0 million in the aggregate. Our reinsurance receivables are recognized consistent with the related liabilities and include known claims and any incurred but not reported claims that are covered by current insurance policies in place.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws that: (i) regulate certain activities and operations that may have environmental or health and safety effects, such as the handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of medical waste products generated at our facilities, the identification and warning of the presence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, as well as the removal of such materials, the presence of other hazardous substances in the indoor environment and protection of the environment and natural resources in connection with the development or construction of our facilities; (ii) impose liability for costs of cleaning up, and damages to natural resources from, past spills, waste disposals on and off-site, or other releases of hazardous materials or regulated substances; and (iii) regulate workplace safety. Some of our facilities generate infectious or other hazardous medical waste due to the illness or physical condition of our patients. The management of infectious medical waste is subject to regulation under various federal, state and local environmental laws, which establish management requirements for such waste. These requirements include record-keeping, notice and reporting obligations. Each of our facilities has an agreement with a waste management company for the disposal of medical waste. The use of such companies, however, does not completely protect us from violations of medical waste laws or from related third-party claims for clean-up costs.

From time to time, our operations have resulted in, or may result in, non-compliance with, or liability pursuant to, environmental or health and safety laws or regulations. Management believes that our operations are generally in compliance with environmental and health and safety regulatory requirements or that any non-compliance will not result in a material liability or cost to achieve compliance. Historically, the costs of achieving and maintaining compliance with environmental laws and regulations at our facilities have not been material. However, we cannot assure you that future costs and expenses required for us to comply with any new or changes in existing environmental and health and safety laws and regulations or new or discovered environmental conditions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We have not been notified of and management is otherwise currently not aware of any contamination at our currently or formerly operated facilities that could result in material liability or cost to us under environmental laws or regulations for the investigation and remediation of such contamination, and we currently are not undertaking any remediation or investigation activities in connection with any such contamination conditions. There may, however, be environmental conditions currently unknown to us relating to our prior, existing or future sites or operations or those of predecessor companies whose liabilities we may have assumed or acquired which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

New laws, regulations or policies or changes in existing laws, regulations or policies or their enforcement, future spills or accidents or the discovery of currently unknown conditions or non-compliances may give rise to investigation and remediation liabilities, compliance costs, fines and penalties, or liability and claims for alleged personal injury or property damage due to

16

Table of Contents

substances or materials used in our operations, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Competition

The healthcare industry is highly competitive. Our principal competitors include other behavioral healthcare service companies, including UHS, private equity firms and the NHS in the U.K. We also compete against hospitals and general healthcare facilities that provide mental health services. An important part of our business strategy is to continue making targeted acquisitions of other behavioral health facilities. However, reduced capacity, the passage of mental health parity legislation and increased demand for mental health services are likely to attract other potential buyers, including diversified healthcare companies and possibly other pure-play behavioral healthcare companies.

The mental health services sector in the U.K. comprises hospitals or establishments that provide psychiatric treatment for illness or mental disorder at all security and treatment levels. We operate in several highly competitive markets in the U.K. with a variety of for-profit, the NHS and other not-for-profit groups in each of our markets. Most competition is regional or local, based on relevant catchment areas and procurement initiatives. The NHS is often the dominant provider, although there is significant outsourcing to independent sector providers, whereby the NHS is both a provider and customer of mental healthcare services. NHS in-house beds accounts for approximately 70% of the total mental health hospital beds providing care in the U.K., with independent providers accounting for the remaining approximately 30% of beds.

In addition to the competition we face for acquisitions, we must also compete for patients. Patients are referred to our behavioral healthcare facilities through a number of different sources, including healthcare practitioners, public programs, other treatment facilities, managed care organizations, unions, emergency departments, judicial officials, social workers, police departments and word of mouth from previously treated patients and their families, among others. These referral sources may instead refer patients to hospitals that are able to provide a full suite of medical services or to other behavioral healthcare centers.

Employees

At December 31, 2019, we had approximately 42,800 employees (approximately 20,900 in the U.S. and approximately 21,900 in the U.K), of which 28,400 were employed full-time. At December 31, 2019, labor unions represented approximately 405 of our U.S. employees at four of our U.S. Facilities through seven collective bargaining agreements. Organizing activities by labor unions and certain potential changes in federal labor laws and regulations could increase the likelihood of employee unionization in the future. The Royal College of Nursing is the trade union for full and part-time nurses, nursing cadets and healthcare assistants in the U.K.

Typically, our inpatient facilities are staffed by a chief executive officer, medical director, director of nursing, chief financial officer, clinical director and director of performance improvement. Psychiatrists and other physicians working in our facilities are licensed medical professionals who are generally not employed by us and work in our facilities as independent contractors or medical staff members.

Seasonality of Demand for Services

Our residential recovery and other inpatient facilities typically experience lower patient volumes and revenue during the holidays, and our child and adolescent facilities typically experience lower patient volumes and revenue during the summer months, holidays and other periods when school is out of session.

Available Information

Our Internet website address is www.acadiahealthcare.com. We make available our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports free of charge on our website on the Investors webpage under the caption “SEC Filings” as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Our website and the information contained therein or linked thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. These risks should be carefully considered before making an investment decision regarding us. The risks and uncertainties described below

17

Table of Contents

are not the only ones we face and there may be additional risks that we are not presently aware of or that we currently consider not likely to have a significant impact. If any of the following risks actually occurred, our business, financial condition and operating results could suffer, and the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Fluctuations in our operating results, quarter to quarter earnings and other factors, including factors outside our control, may result in significant decreases in the price of our common stock.

The stock markets experience volatility, in some cases unrelated to operating performance. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and, as a result, there may be significant volatility in the market price of our common stock. If we are unable to operate our facilities as profitably as we have in the past or as our investors expect us to in the future, the market price of our common stock will likely decline when it becomes apparent that the market expectations may not be realized. In addition to our operating results, many economic and other factors outside of our control could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock and increase fluctuations in our quarterly earnings. These factors include certain of the risks discussed herein, outcomes of political elections, demographic changes, operating results of other healthcare 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, managed care contract negotiations and terminations, changes in general conditions in the economy or the financial markets or other developments affecting the healthcare industry including the U.K. leaving the European Union.

An incident involving one or more of our patients or the failure by one or more of our facilities to provide appropriate care could result in increased regulatory burdens, governmental investigations, negative publicity and adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

Because many of the patients we treat suffer from severe mental health and chemical dependency disorders, patient incidents, including deaths, sexual abuse, assaults and elopements, occur from time to time. If one or more of our facilities experiences an adverse patient incident or is found to have failed to provide appropriate patient care, an admissions hold, loss of accreditation, license revocation or other adverse regulatory action could be taken against us. Any such patient incident or adverse regulatory action could result in governmental investigations, judgments or fines and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we have been and could become the subject of negative publicity or unfavorable media attention, whether warranted or unwarranted, that could have a significant, adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock or adversely impact our reputation and how our referral sources and payors view us.

We have been and could become the subject of governmental investigations, regulatory actions and whistleblower lawsuits.

Healthcare companies in both the U.S. and the U.K. may be subject to investigations by various governmental agencies. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, audit reports and other inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies and regulatory agencies in the U.K. See “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” for additional information about pending investigations. These investigations can result in repayment obligations, and violations of the False Claims Act can result in substantial monetary penalties and fines, the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement and exclusion from participation in governmental health programs. If we incur significant costs responding to or resolving these or future inquiries or investigations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Further, under the False Claims Act, private parties are permitted to bring qui tam or “whistleblower” lawsuits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Because qui tam lawsuits are filed under seal, we could be named in one or more such lawsuits of which we are not aware. We may also be subject to substantial reputational harm as a result of the public announcement of any investigation into such claims.

We could be subject to increased monetary penalties and other sanctions, including exclusion from federal healthcare programs, if we fail to comply with the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement.

During the second quarter of 2019, we reached a settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia relating to the manner in which seven of our comprehensive treatment centers in West Virginia had historically billed lab claims to the West Virginia Medicaid Program. We paid the government $17.0 million during the three months ended June 30, 2019 and entered into the CIA with the Office of Inspector General imposing certain compliance obligations on us and our subsidiary, CRC Health.

18

Table of Contents

Material, uncorrected violations of the CIA could lead to our suspension or exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs and repayment obligations. In addition, we are subject to possible civil penalties for failure to substantially comply with the terms of the CIA, including stipulated penalties ranging between $1,000 to $2,500 per day. We are also subject to a stipulated penalty of $50,000 for each false certification made by us or on our behalf, pursuant to the reporting provisions of the CIA. The CIA increases the amount of information we must provide to the federal government regarding our healthcare practices and our compliance with federal regulations. The reports we provide in connection with the CIA could result in greater scrutiny by regulatory authorities.

Our revenue and results of operations are significantly affected by payments received from the government and third-party payors.

A significant portion of our revenue is derived from government healthcare programs. For the year ended December 31, 2019, we derived approximately 42% of our revenue from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and 32% of our revenue from public funded sources in the U.K. (including the NHS, CCGs and local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales). See “— Structural shifts in the U.K. behavioral healthcare market may adversely affect us” for further details on U.K. funding risks to which we are subject.

Government payors in the U.S., such as Medicaid, generally reimburse us on a fee-for-service basis based on predetermined reimbursement rate schedules. As a result, we are limited in the amount we can record as revenue for our services from these government programs, and if we have a cost increase, we typically will not be able to recover this increase. In addition, the federal government and many state governments, are operating under significant budgetary pressures, and they may seek to reduce payments under their Medicaid programs for services such as those we provide. Government payors also tend to pay on a slower schedule. In addition to limiting the amounts they will pay for the services we provide their members, government payors may, among other things, impose prior authorization and concurrent utilization review programs that may further limit the services for which they will pay and shift patients to lower levels of care and reimbursement. Therefore, if governmental entities reduce the amounts they will pay for our services, or if they elect not to continue paying for such services altogether, or if a total or partial repeal of PPACA results in significant contraction of the number of individuals covered by state Medicaid programs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, if governmental entities slow their payment cycles further, our cash flow from operations could be negatively affected.

Commercial payors such as managed care organizations, private health insurance programs and labor unions generally reimburse us for the services rendered to insured patients based upon contractually determined rates. These commercial payors are under significant pressure to control healthcare costs. In addition to limiting the amounts they will pay for the services we provide their members, commercial payors may, among other things, impose prior authorization and concurrent utilization review programs that may further limit the services for which they will pay and shift patients to lower levels of care and reimbursement. These actions may reduce the amount of revenue we derive from commercial payors.

Changes in these government programs in recent years have resulted in limitations on reimbursement and, in some cases, reduced levels of reimbursement for healthcare services. Payments from federal and state government healthcare 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. We are unable to predict the effect of recent and future policy changes on our operations. In addition, since most states operate with balanced budgets and since the Medicaid program is often a state’s largest program, some states can be expected to enact or consider enacting legislation formulated to reduce their Medicaid expenditures. Furthermore, the potential repeal, replacement or modification of PPACA, may negatively 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 our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to changes in government reimbursement programs, our ability to negotiate favorable contracts with private payors, including managed care providers, significantly affects the financial condition and operating results of our facilities in the U.S. Management expects third-party payors to aggressively manage reimbursement levels and cost controls. Reductions in reimbursement amounts received from third-party payors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our substantial debt could adversely affect our financial health and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under our financing arrangements.

At December 31, 2019, we had approximately $3.2 billion of total debt (net of debt issuance costs, discounts and premiums of $31.4 million), which included approximately $1.7 billion of debt under our Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility (including approximately $346.8 million of Senior Secured Term A Loan and approximately $1.3 billion of Senior Secured Term B Loans),

19

Table of Contents

$150.0 million of debt under our 6.125% Senior Notes (the “6.125% Senior Notes”), $300.0 million of debt under our 5.125% Senior Notes (the “5.125% Senior Notes”), $650.0 million of debt under our 5.625% Senior Notes, $390.0 million of debt under our 6.500% Senior Notes and other long-term debt of $4.8 million. See “Item 1. Business—Financing Transactions” for additional details regarding our outstanding indebtedness.

Our substantial debt could have important consequences to our business. For example, it could:

In addition, the terms of our financing arrangements contain restrictive covenants that limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interests. Our failure to comply with those covenants could result in an event of default which, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of all of our debts, including the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility and the Senior Notes.

Servicing our debt will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate sufficient cash to service our debt depends on many factors beyond our control.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our debt, to fund planned capital expenditures and to maintain sufficient working capital will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.

We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us under the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility or from other sources in an amount sufficient to enable us to service our debt or to fund our other liquidity needs. If our cash flow and capital resources are insufficient to allow us to make scheduled payments on our debt, we may need to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance all or a portion of our debt on or before the maturity thereof, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to refinance any of our debt on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that the terms of that debt will allow any of the above alternative measures or that these measures would satisfy our scheduled debt service obligations. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow to repay or refinance our debt on favorable terms, it could significantly adversely affect our financial condition and the value of our outstanding debt. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations.

20

Table of Contents

We are subject to a number of restrictive covenants, which may restrict our business and financing activities.

Our financing arrangements impose, and the terms of any future debt may impose, operating and other restrictions on us. Such restrictions affect, and in many respects limit or prohibit, among other things, our and our subsidiaries’ ability to:

The Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility also requires us to meet certain financial ratios, including a fixed charge coverage ratio and a consolidated leverage ratio. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources —Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility”.

The restrictions may prevent us from taking actions that management believes would be in the best interests of our business, and may make it difficult for us to successfully execute our business strategy or effectively compete with companies that are not similarly restricted. We also may incur future debt obligations that might subject us to additional restrictive covenants that could affect our financial and operational flexibility. Our ability to comply with these covenants in future periods will largely depend on the pricing of our products and services, our success at implementing cost reduction initiatives and our ability to successfully implement our overall business strategy. We cannot assure you that we will be granted waivers or amendments to our financing arrangements if for any reason we are unable to comply with our financial covenants. The breach of any of these covenants and restrictions could result in a default under the indentures governing the Senior Notes or under the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility, which could result in an acceleration of our debt.

Despite our current debt level, we may incur significant additional amounts of debt, which could further exacerbate the risks associated with our substantial debt.

We may incur substantial additional debt, including additional notes and other debt, in the future. Although the indentures governing our outstanding Senior Notes and our Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional debt, these restrictions are subject to a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and under certain circumstances, the amount of debt that could be incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. If new debt is added to our existing debt levels, the related risks that we now face would intensify and we may not be able to meet all our debt obligations.

If we default on our obligations to pay our debt, we may not be able to make payments on our financing arrangements.

Any default under the agreements governing our debt, including a default under the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility or the indentures governing our Senior Notes, and the remedies sought by the holders of such debt, could adversely affect our ability to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Senior Notes and substantially decrease the market value of the Senior Notes. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flows and are otherwise unable to obtain funds necessary to meet required payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on our debt, or if we otherwise fail to comply with the various covenants, including financial and operating covenants, in the instruments governing our debt (including the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility and the indentures governing the Senior Notes), we would be in default under the terms of the agreements governing such debt. In the event of such default, the holders of such debt could elect to declare all the funds borrowed thereunder to be due and payable, the lenders under the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility could elect to terminate their commitments or cease making further loans and institute foreclosure proceedings against our assets, or we could be forced to apply all available cash flows to repay such debt, and, in any such case, we could ultimately be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. Because the indentures governing the Senior Notes and the agreement governing the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility have customary cross-default provisions, if the debt under the Senior Notes or the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility is accelerated, we may be unable to repay or refinance the amounts due.

21

Table of Contents

Expanding our international operations poses additional risks to our business.

Our business or financial performance may be adversely affected due to the risks of operating internationally, including but not limited to the following: economic and political instability, the U.K. leaving the European Union, failure to comply with foreign laws and regulations and adverse changes in the health care policy of the U.K. (including decreases in funding for the services provided by our U.K. Facilities), adverse changes in law and regulations affecting our operations in the U.K., difficulties and costs of staffing and managing our operations in the U.K. If any of these events were to materialize, they could lead to disruption of our business, significant expenditures and/or damages to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

As a company based outside of the U.K., we need to take certain actions to be more easily accepted in the U.K. For example, we may need to engage in a public relations campaign to emphasize service quality and company philosophy, preserve local management continuity and business practices and be transparent in our dealings with local governments and taxing authorities. Such efforts require significant time and effort on the part of our management team. Our results of operations could suffer if these efforts are not successful.

With significant operations in the U.K., our business and operations may be adversely affected by economic and political conditions in the U.K.

The global financial markets continue to experience significant volatility as a result of, among other things, economic and political instability in the wake of the referendum in the U.K. on June 23, 2016, in which the voters approved an exit from the European Union (“Brexit”). The U.K. formally withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020, and is now in a transition period through December 31, 2020 to, among other things, negotiate an agreement with the European Union governing future relationships between the European Union and the U.K.

Brexit has created political and economic uncertainty, particularly in the U.K. and the European Union. Uncertainty over the terms of the U.K.’s departure from the European Union could negatively impact the U.K. and other economies, which could adversely affect our financial position and results of operations. The outlook for the global economy in 2020 and beyond remains uncertain as negotiations to determine the future terms of the U.K.’s relationship with the European Union continue. Such global market instability may hinder future economic growth. Any of these effects of Brexit, among others, could adversely affect our assets, business, cash flow, condition (financial or otherwise), liquidity, prospects and results of operations.

Changes in the method pursuant to which the LIBOR rates are determined and potential phasing out of LIBOR after 2021 may affect our financial results.

 LIBOR and certain other interest “benchmarks” may be subject to regulatory guidance and/or reform that could cause interest rates under our current or future debt agreements to perform differently than in the past or cause other unanticipated consequences. The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, has announced that it intends to stop encouraging or requiring banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR rates after 2021, and it is unclear if LIBOR will cease to exist or if new methods of calculating LIBOR will evolve. If LIBOR ceases to exist or if the methods of calculating LIBOR change from their current form, interest rates on our current or future debt obligations may be adversely affected.

We have recorded impairment charges and may be required to record additional charges to future earnings if our goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment become further impaired.

We are required under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) to review annually, or more frequently if events indicate the carrying value of a reporting unit may not be recoverable, our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment. For the year ended December 31, 2019, we recorded impairment charges of $54.4 million relating to an adjustment in the carrying value of our U.S. Facilities and U.K. Facilities that closed. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $325.9 million related to our U.K. Facilities. We may be required to record additional charges to earnings during any period in which a further impairment of our goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment is determined which could adversely affect our results of operations. Our evaluation of goodwill and the need for any further impairment in subsequent periods is sensitive to revisions to our current projections. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— Critical Accounting Policies — Goodwill and Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets” for additional information.

Our facilities face competition for staffing that may increase our labor costs and reduce our profitability.

Our operations depend on the efforts, abilities and experience of our management and medical support personnel, including our addiction counselors, therapists, nurses, pharmacists, licensed counselors, clinical technicians, and mental health technicians, as well

22

Table of Contents

as our psychiatrists and other professionals. We compete with other healthcare providers in recruiting and retaining qualified management, program directors, physicians (including psychiatrists) and support personnel responsible for the daily operations of our business, financial condition or results of operations.

With respect to our facilities in the U.K., we compete with various providers, including the NHS, staffing agencies and other employers, in attracting and retaining qualified management, medical, nursing, care and teaching personnel. Competition for such employees is intense and has resulted in increases to our labor and recruiting costs, which has adversely affected our operating margins. Competitors, in particular the NHS, may offer more attractive wages, pension plans or other benefits than us and we may not be able to provide similar offerings to our prospective employees as a result of cost or other reasons.

A shortage of nurses, qualified addiction counselors and other medical and care support personnel has been a significant operating issue facing us and other healthcare providers, particularly for our facilities in the U.K. Such shortages have resulted in increased utilization of agency staff, which is significantly more expensive than staff we employ. As a result, we have experienced increased labor costs in the U.K., which has adversely affected our results of operations. We also may be required to enhance wages and benefits to hire nurses, qualified addiction counselors and other medical and care support personnel, hire more expensive temporary personnel or increase our recruiting and marketing costs relating to labor. The use of temporary or agency staff could also heighten the risk one of our facilities experiences an adverse patient incident. Further, because we generally recruit our personnel from the local area where the relevant facility is located, the availability in certain areas of suitably qualified personnel can be limited, particularly care home management, qualified teaching personnel and nurses. In addition, certain of our facilities are required to maintain specified staffing levels. To the extent we cannot meet those levels, we may be required to limit the services provided by these facilities, which would have a corresponding adverse effect on our net operating revenue. Certain of our treatment facilities are located in remote geographical areas, far from population centers, which increases this risk.

We cannot predict the degree to which we will be affected by the future availability or cost of attracting and retaining talented medical support staff. If our general labor and related expenses increase, we may not be able to raise our rates correspondingly. Our failure either to recruit and retain qualified management, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors, nurses and other medical support personnel or control our labor costs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our efforts to explore a strategic transaction with our U.K. operations may not result in any definitive transaction or enhance stockholder value and may create uncertainty that could adversely affect our operating results and business.

During 2019, we commenced a review of strategic alternatives including those related to our U.K. operations and a potential sale of such operations. In January 2020, we launched a formal process regarding the sale of our U.K. business. Consistent with market practice for U.K. transactions of this nature, and in conjunction with our advisors, we solicited and have received initial, non-binding offers to acquire our U.K. business from multiple bidders. We are now in the second phase of the sale process, during which interested bidders will receive proposed transaction documents and complete their confirmatory due diligence.

There are various uncertainties and risks relating to our evaluation and negotiation of possible strategic transactions and our ability to consummate a definitive transaction relating to our U.K. operations, including:

23

Table of Contents

We do not intend to discuss or disclose developments with respect to the strategic review process unless we determine further disclosure is appropriate or required. As a consequence, the market price of our common stock could be highly volatile during the period in which we are evaluating and negotiating a transaction, and may continue to be more volatile if we announce that we are no longer pursuing a proposed transaction.

Our acquisition strategy exposes us to a variety of operational and financial risks.

A principal element of our business strategy is to grow by acquiring other companies and assets in the behavioral healthcare industry. Growth, especially rapid growth, through acquisitions exposes us to a variety of operational and financial risks. We summarize the most significant of these risks below.

Integration risks

We must integrate our acquisitions with our existing operations. This process includes the integration of the various components of our business and of the businesses we have acquired or may acquire in the future, including the following:

Integrating a new facility could be expensive and time consuming and could disrupt our ongoing business, negatively affect cash flow and distract management and other key personnel from day-to-day operations.

We may not be able to successfully combine the operations of acquired facilities with our operations, and even if such integration is accomplished, we may never realize the potential benefits of the acquisition. The integration of acquisitions with our operations requires significant attention from management, may impose substantial demands on our operations or other projects and may impose challenges on the combined business including, but not limited to, consistencies in business standards, procedures, policies, business cultures and internal controls and compliance. Certain acquisitions involve a capital outlay, and the return that we achieve on any capital invested may be less than the return that we would achieve on our other projects or investments. If we fail to complete the integration of acquired facilities, we may never fully realize the potential benefits of the related acquisitions.

Successful integration depends on the ability to effect any required changes in operations or personnel, which may entail unforeseen liabilities. The integration of acquired businesses may expose us to certain risks, including the following: difficulty in integrating these businesses in a cost-effective manner, including the establishment of effective management information and financial control systems; unforeseen legal, regulatory, contractual, employment or other issues arising out of the combination; combining corporate cultures; maintaining employee morale and retaining key employees; potential disruptions to our on-going business caused by our senior management’s focus on integrating these businesses; and performance of the combined assets not meeting our expectations or plans. A failure to properly integrate these businesses could have a corresponding material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

Benefits may not materialize

When evaluating potential acquisition targets, we identify potential synergies and cost savings that we expect to realize upon the successful completion of the acquisition and the integration of the related operations. We may, however, be unable to achieve or may otherwise never realize the expected benefits. Our ability to realize the expected benefits from potential cost savings and revenue improvement opportunities is subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control, such as changes to government regulation governing or otherwise impacting the behavioral healthcare industry, reductions in reimbursement rates from third-party payors, reductions in service levels under our contracts, operating difficulties, client preferences, changes in competition and general economic or industry conditions. If we are unsuccessful in implementing these improvements or if we do not achieve our expected results, it may adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.

24

Table of Contents

Assumptions of unknown liabilities

Facilities that we acquire may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including, but not limited to, liabilities for uncertain tax positions, liabilities for failure to comply with healthcare laws and regulations and liabilities for unresolved litigation or regulatory reviews. Although we typically attempt to exclude significant liabilities from our acquisition transactions and seek indemnification from the sellers of such facilities, the purchase agreement for some of our significant acquisitions contain minimal representations and warranties about the entities and business that we acquired. In addition, we have no indemnification rights against the sellers under some purchase agreements and all of the purchase price consideration was paid at closing. Therefore, we may incur material liabilities for the past activities of acquired entities and facilities. Even in those acquisitions in which we have such rights, we may experience difficulty enforcing the sellers’ obligations, or we may incur material liabilities for the past activities of acquired facilities. Such liabilities and related legal or other costs and/or resulting damage to a facility’s reputation could negatively impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Competing for acquisitions

We face competition for acquisition candidates primarily from other for-profit healthcare companies, as well as from not-for-profit entities. Some of our competitors may have greater resources than we do. As a result, we may pay more to acquire a target business or may agree to less favorable deal terms than we would have otherwise. Our principal competitors for acquisitions have included Universal Health Services and private equity firms. Also, suitable acquisitions may not be accomplished due to unfavorable terms. Further, the cost of an acquisition could result in a dilutive effect on our results of operations, depending on various factors, including the amount paid for an acquired facility, the acquired facility’s results of operations, the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed, effects of subsequent legislation and limits on rate increases. In addition, we may have to pay cash, incur debt, or issue equity securities to pay for any such acquisition, which could adversely affect our financial results, result in dilution to our stockholders, result in increased fixed obligations or impede our ability to manage our operations. There can be no assurances that we will be able to acquire facilities at historical or expected rates or on favorable terms.

Managing growth

Some of the facilities we have acquired or may acquire in the future may have had significantly lower operating margins prior to the time of our acquisition or may have had operating losses prior to such acquisition. If we fail to improve the operating margins of the facilities we acquire, operate such facilities profitably or effectively integrate the operations of the acquired facilities, our results of operations could be negatively impacted.

Joint ventures may use significant resources, may be unsuccessful and could expose us to unforeseen liabilities.

As part of our growth strategy, we have completed, or have announced plans to complete, a number of joint ventures and strategic alliances. These joint ventures may involve significant cash expenditures, debt incurrence, additional operating losses and expenses, and compliance risks that could negatively impact our business, financial condition or results of operations. Further, there is often a significant delay between our formation of a joint venture and the time that a de novo facility can be constructed and have a positive financial impact on our results of operations.

The nature of a joint venture requires us to consult with and share certain decision-making powers with unaffiliated third parties, some of which may be not-for-profit healthcare systems. If our joint venture partners do not fulfill their obligations, the affected joint venture may not be able to operate according to its business or strategic plans. In that case, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected or we may be required to increase our level of financial commitment to the joint venture. Moreover, differences in economic or business interests or goals among joint venture participants could result in delayed decisions, failures to agree on major issues and even litigation. If these differences cause the joint ventures to deviate from their business or strategic plans, or if our joint venture partners take actions contrary to our policies, objectives or the best interests of the joint venture, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted. In addition, our relationships with not-for-profit healthcare systems and the joint venture agreements that govern these relationships are intended to be structured to comply with current revenue rulings published by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), as well as case law relevant to joint ventures between for-profit and not-for-profit healthcare entities. Material changes in these authorities could adversely affect our relationships with not-for-profit healthcare systems and related joint venture arrangements.

25

Table of Contents

The majority of our revenue from our operations in the U.K. is not guaranteed and is being generated either from spot purchasing or under framework agreements where no volume commitments are given. In addition, there can be no assurance that we can achieve any fee rate increases in the future or will not suffer any fee rate decreases.

Any decline in demand for our services in the U.K. from publicly funded entities, private (including private medical insurance (“PMI”)) payers or any failure by us to extend current agreements or enter into alternative agreements on comparable terms with such entities could have an adverse effect on our average daily census (“ADC”), which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, there can be no assurances that we will be able to implement fee rate increases, which are a driver of our revenue from our operations, or not suffer from any decline in fee rates in the future. Should the effect of any increase in annual wages or other operating costs of the business exceed the effect of any increase in our fee rates or should our fee rates suffer a decline, we would have to absorb any costs that cannot be offset by our fees, which could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Publicly funded entities

A significant portion of our services funded by U.K. publicly funded entities are commissioned on a spot-purchase basis at prices determined by prevailing market conditions. It is generally a matter for the relevant commissioner to determine whether to use our services, and there is no guarantee that previous spot market purchasing activity by a commissioner will continue in the future or at all. We also have a number of fixed-term framework agreements which grant us preferred provider status with Local Authorities or the NHS typically lasting between one to three years. While we and the commissioners typically agree on pricing for 12 months, at times with discounts related to the number of beds purchased, the commissioners do not make minimum purchasing commitments under such agreements. As such, commissioners may decide to place existing and new service users with our competitors, including their own in-house service providers, on short notice. We also have a small number of fixed-period block contracts, where a set number of beds are paid for at a discount to spot prices regardless of occupancy. While we may have flexibility to increase spot rates for new admissions, any fee increases under our block contracts are restricted by the terms and conditions of those block contracts. Further, the block contracts may not perform as expected and disputes may arise in relation to contractual terms and service provision which may result in early termination and liabilities for damages, costs and expenses.

The rates that we charge publicly-funded entities for our services are negotiated individually with commissioners and historically have been subject to annual review on April 1 of each year, with customary adjustments based on the Retail Prices Index (“RPI”), Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) or sector specific costs indices. However, the current economic climate and the U.K. government’s overriding economic policy to control public spending means that, in the short term at least, commissioners are resistant to fee increases, often expecting that efficiency savings be made to offset inflationary cost increases in accordance with national policy. As a result, there can be no assurance that we can maintain the payment terms of our arrangements with publicly funded entities, including with respect to the timing of payments.

Further, following expiration of contracts there can be no assurance that negotiations with commissioners will result in the extension or renewal of existing arrangements or the entering into of alternative arrangements for those services. Commissioners may also require that following the expiration date of current agreements with us, they contract with us on a spot basis rather than through a block arrangement or reduce the number of beds subject to block arrangements. Even if we are successful in extending current agreements or in entering into alternative arrangements, the duration of such extensions or arrangements is uncertain, and we may be unsuccessful in implementing rate increases under such agreements.

In addition, changing commissioning structures and practices, such as those under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, involve tendering processes that could result in failing to remain or become an approved provider. There are currently a number of commissioning initiatives involving public and independent providers that could change the distribution of in-patient beds in the U.K. Certain services that were historically commissioned centrally by NHS England are moving towards more local commissioning under NHS-led provider collaboratives in order to better meet patient needs and to enhance local care pathways. The first provider collaboratives are scheduled to be operational by April 2020 with NHS England intending to complete the roll-out of the delegation of the commissioning of its specialized mental health services over the following two years. Although we will be participating in all relevant provider collaboratives, we still face the risk that our ADC will decrease in areas where there is surplus capacity or more focus on community-based treatment, especially in circumstances where a NHS-led provider trust seeks to put its own interests ahead of the interests of the whole provider collaborative.

Under its ‘Transforming Care’ agenda, NHS England is engaged in an ongoing process of decommissioning secure inpatient hospital services for people with learning disabilities with a view to more patients being cared for in alternative community-based service. Over the course of the last year a number of our secure hospital wards have closed as part of this process and although NHS England has no immediate plans to decommission any more of our services, it is possible that further decommissioning will take place in the future. In January 2019, NHS England published its Long Term Plan for the NHS, central to which will be the creation of a network of integrated care systems. The plan makes little mention of the role of independent sector providers and it is most likely that the integrated care systems will be dominated by the incumbent NHS provider trusts. The NHS competition reforms introduced in

26

Table of Contents

2012 gave independent sector providers statutory protection against unfair treatment by commissioners. NHS England’s proposed reversal of these reforms presents a risk that this protection could be lost such that it will become more difficult for independent sector providers to challenge commissioners’ preferential treatment of NHS provider trusts.

Private payers

Although we have agreements in place with a number of PMI plans where pricing is generally agreed annually, there is no obligation on the PMI plans to refer its members to us or to pay for its members to use our services. Further, we may not be able to renew our existing arrangements with PMI plans on terms comparable to what it has achieved in the past. Fee rates for self-paying individuals are adjusted on January 1 of each year depending on capacity and demand in the relevant service markets. Fees paid or reimbursed by PMI plans are typically adjusted in line with specific contract terms and are generally based on RPI and specific wage indices. Demand in both the PMI market and the self-pay is dependent on economic conditions, which impacts the number of people with sufficient income or capital to pay for insurance coverage or treatment themselves.

Structural shifts in the U.K. behavioral healthcare market may adversely affect us.

Publicly funded entities

Payments for our services by publicly funded entities in the U.K., particularly the NHS and Local Authorities, account for the vast majority of our U.K. revenue. We expect publicly funded entities in the U.K. to continue to generate the significant majority of our revenue from our operations in the U.K. Budget constraints, public spending cuts or other financial pressures could cause such publicly funded entities to spend less money on the type of services that we provide, or political or U.K. government policy changes could mean that fewer of such services are purchased by publicly funded entities from independent sector providers in favor of protecting NHS and Local Authority in-house services.

While the outsourcing by NHS England of healthcare services has been increasing in recent years, the need of NHS England to achieve substantial efficiency savings is likely to result in continued funding pressure in the pricing of such services. For instance, NHS Improvement, the NHS economic regulator, has, under NHS Tariff Rules, determined national prices across a range of NHS services and has issued extensive guidance on how they are to be applied, including provision for local variations to national tariffs, subject to approval by NHS Improvement. While none of our services are currently subject to national prices, the future application of any national prices regime upon our services could have a material adverse impact on our revenue.

In addition, the allocation of funding responsibility for adult social care may be subject to change at some time in the future under the provisions of the Care Act 2014 under which individuals identified as being required to pay for their own care under the relevant means test will be required to take funding responsibility up to a specified lifetime monetary cap, with Local Authorities responsible for the remainder of expenses for personal care, excluding “daily living” expenses. Should this cap be introduced, it would potentially place greater funding responsibility with public sector bodies over the longer term, which would potentially exacerbate the current funding challenges faced by such bodies.

Private payers

Payments for our services in the U.K. by PMI plans account for a small portion of our U.K. revenue. In addition, payments for our services in the U.K. by self-pay patients, who purchase treatment on a spot basis account for a small portion of our U.K. revenue. Many of the patients who use our acute healthcare services in the U.K. do so because their PMI plan recognizes our facilities as being an appropriate provider of the psychiatric treatment services required by the patient. Our ability to attract patients who are funded by PMI plans could be adversely impacted if one or more PMI plans withdraws recognition status from our facilities, for example, as a result of a change in a PMI plan’s recognition status standards. In addition, many PMI plans have been changing the terms of their policies and shortening the length of time they will cover a stay at one of our U.K. Facilities.

There can be no assurance that the entities or individuals who fund our services will not reduce or cease spending on the types of services that we provide or that alternative service or funding models for mental healthcare, learning disabilities care, specialist education or elderly care will not emerge. Any such funding or structural change in the markets where we operate could have a material adverse effect on our ADC, which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are reliant upon maintaining strong relationships with commissioners employed by publicly funded entities, psychiatric and other medical consultants, and any change in those relationships may adversely affect us.

The relationships that we have with commissioners is a key driver of referrals for our facilities in the U.K. Referrals to our U.K. business by the NHS accounted for a significant percentage of our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019. Should there be a major reorganization of publicly funded entities including in relation to the provider collaborative program, we may need to rebuild

27

Table of Contents

such relationships which could result in a decrease in the number of referrals made to our facilities, which could have a corresponding material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects. Any actual or perceived deterioration in service quality, any serious incidents at our facilities or any other event that could cause commissioners to prefer other service providers over us could also adversely impact referrals from commissioners. Further, our business also depends, in part, on psychiatric and other medical consultants referring their patients to us for treatment either as in-patients or day patients. From time to time, consultants may decide to relocate or reposition their practices, retire or refer patients elsewhere with the result that there is a decrease in the number of referrals made to our facilities. A deterioration in relationships with commissioners or consultants or the decision by one or more commissioners or consultants to refer patients to our competitors or to stop all referrals would have an adverse effect on the ADC at our facilities in the U.K., which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operating costs are subject to increases, including due to statutorily mandated increases in the wages and salaries of our staff.

The most significant operating expense for our facilities is wage costs, which represent the staff costs incurred in providing our services and running our facilities, and which are primarily driven by the number of employees and pay rates. The number of employees employed by us is primarily linked to the number of facilities we operate and the number of individuals cared for by us. While we can reduce the number of employees should occupancy rates decrease at our facilities, there is a limit on the extent to which this can be done without impacting quality of our services.

Furthermore, in April 2016, a new “National Living Wage” was introduced across the U.K., which was increased in April of each subsequent year and is scheduled to increase again in April 2020 with further annual increases expected until at least 2024. These changes to the National Living Wage have and will increase our operating costs and, unless we can increase revenue or reduce other costs, will reduce our margins.

In the U.K., there has been an increase in enforcement action by HMRC against employers who do not pay the NMW. In 2017 and early 2018 this action extended to fixed allowance payments for sleep-in shifts in the care sector. The industry standard practice has been to pay a fixed allowance to employees who sleep at sites at night with a “top-up” if an employee is woken and provides care to residents during the night. In July 2018, the Court of Appeal determined that sleep-in shifts were not subject to NMW legislation and HMRC stepped back from its enforcement action. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court. We expect the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling in the second quarter of 2020. If the Court of Appeal’s decision is overturned, it is likely that HMRC would recommence its enforcement activity. In such circumstances, we may be subject to (i) increased payments to employees for sleep-in shifts on an on-going basis; (ii) payments of up to six years of arrears to employees or former employees who have carried out sleep-in shifts at our U.K. Facilities; and (iii) payments of interest and penalties to HMRC, all of which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We also have a number of recurring costs including insurance, utilities and rental costs, and may face increases to other recurring costs such as regulatory compliance costs. There can be no assurance that any of our recurring costs will not grow at a faster rate than our revenue. As a result, any increase in our operating costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We care for a large number of vulnerable individuals with complex needs and any care quality deficiencies could adversely impact our brand, reputation and ability to market our services effectively.

Our future growth will partly depend on our ability to maintain our reputation for providing quality patient care and, through new programs and marketing activities, increased demand for our services. Factors such as increased acuity of our patients, health and safety incidents at our facilities, regulatory enforcement actions, negative press or general customer dissatisfaction could lead to deterioration in the level of our quality ratings or the public perception of the quality of our services (including as a result of negative publicity about our industry generally), which in turn could lead to a loss of patient placements, referrals and self-pay patients or service users. Any impairment of our reputation, loss of goodwill or damage to the value of our brand name could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our service users have complex medical conditions or special needs, are vulnerable and often require a substantial level of care and supervision. There is a risk that one or more service users could be harmed by one or more of our employees, either intentionally, through negligence or by accident. Further, individuals cared for by us have in the past engaged, and may in the future engage, in behavior that results in harm to themselves, our employees or to one or more other individuals, including members of the public. A serious incident involving harm to one or more service users or other individuals could result in negative publicity. Such negative publicity could have a material adverse effect on our brand, reputation and ADC, which would have a corresponding negative

28

Table of Contents

impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, the damage to our reputation or to the reputation of the relevant facility from any such incident could be exacerbated by any failure on our part to respond effectively to such incident.

We are and in the future may become involved in legal proceedings based on negligence or breach of a contractual or statutory duty from service users or their family members or from employees or former employees.

From time to time, we are subject to complaints and claims from service users and their family members alleging professional negligence, medical malpractice or mistreatment. We are also subject to claims for unlawful detention from time to time when patients allege they should not have been detained under the Mental Health Act or where the appropriate procedures were not correctly followed.

Similarly, there may be substantial claims from employees in respect of personal injuries sustained in the performance of their duties, particularly in respect of incidents involving patients detained under the Mental Health Act and where future employment prospects are impaired. Current or former employees may also make claims against us in relation to breaches of employment legislation.

We may also be involved in coroner’s inquests (or the Scottish equivalent) where there is a fatality at one of our facilities in the U.K. resulting in an adverse coroner’s verdict or civil claims by individuals or criminal prosecutions by regulatory authorities. Any fines imposed by the courts are likely to be substantial in view of the Sentencing Council guidelines published in November 2015, which materially increase fines for corporate manslaughter and certain health and safety offenses. There may also be safeguarding incidents at our facilities which, depending on the circumstances, may result in custodial sentences or other criminal sanctions for the member of staff involved.

The incurrence of any legal fees, damage awards or other fines as summarized above as well as any impact on our brand or reputation as a result of being involved in any legal proceedings are likely to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We handle sensitive personal data which are protected by numerous U.S. and U.K. laws in the ordinary course of business and any failure to maintain the confidentiality of such data could result in legal liability and reputational harm.

We collect, process and store sensitive personal data as part of our business. In the event of a security breach, sensitive personal data could become public. We are currently not aware of any material incidences of potential data breach; however, there can be no assurance that such breaches will not arise in future. Although we have in place policies and procedures to prevent such breaches, breaches could occur either as a result of a breach by our employees or as a result of a breach by a third party to whom we have provided sensitive personal data, and we could face liability under data protection laws.

In addition to U.S. data protection laws, we are subject to similar, and in some cases more restrictive, U.K. data protection laws. For example, the GDPR was introduced in May 2018 and provides heightened data protection requirements including more stringent consent requirements, data protection and security measures and requirements to appoint a data protection officer. Following a full scale review of the business’s operations, we have taken appropriate steps to ensure compliance with U.K. data protection laws and regulations; all internal policies and procedures have been reviewed and a full training module has been rolled out to all staff at all sites and central functions. Nevertheless we cannot guarantee that our facilities will not be subject to data breaches which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Liability under data protection laws may result in sanctions, including substantial fines and/or compensation to those affected. Additionally, liability may cause us to suffer damage to our brand and reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject to liabilities from claims brought against us or our facilities.

We are subject to medical malpractice lawsuits and other legal actions in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions may involve large claims, as well as significant defense costs. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or the effect that findings in such lawsuits may have on us. All professional and general liability insurance we purchase is subject to policy limitations and in some cases, an insurance company may defend us subject to a reservation of rights. Management believes that, based on our past experience and actuarial estimates, our insurance coverage is adequate considering the claims arising from the operations of our facilities. While we continuously monitor our coverage, our ultimate liability for professional and general liability claims could change materially from our current estimates. If such policy limitations should be partially or fully exhausted in the future, or payments of claims exceed our estimates or are not covered by our insurance, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Further, insurance premiums have increased year over year and insurance coverage may

29

Table of Contents

not be available at a reasonable cost, especially given the significant increase in insurance premiums generally experienced in the healthcare industry.

We carry a large self-insured retention and may be responsible for significant amounts not covered by insurance. In addition, our insurance may be inadequate, premiums may increase and, if there is a significant deterioration in our claims experience, insurance may not be available on acceptable terms.

We maintain liability insurance intended to cover service user, third-party and employee personal injury claims. Due to the structure of our insurance program under which we carry a large self-insured retention, there may be substantial claims in respect of which the liability for damages and costs falls to us before being met by any insurance underwriter. There may also be claims in excess of our insurance coverage or claims which are not covered by our insurance due to other policy limitations or exclusions or where we have failed to comply with the terms of the policy. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain liability insurance coverage in the future on acceptable terms, or without substantial premium increases or at all, particularly if there is a deterioration in our claim experience history. A successful claim against us not covered by or in excess of our insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations could materially impact our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

We have significant U.K. operations. Accordingly, we translate revenue and other results denominated in a foreign currency into U.S. dollars (“USD”) for our consolidated financial statements. During periods of a strengthening USD or weakening British pound (“GBP”), our reported international revenue and expenses could be reduced because foreign currencies may translate into fewer USD. Following the Brexit vote and subsequent developments, the GBP dropped to its lowest level against the USD in more than 30 years. Continued uncertainty over Brexit may cause the exchange rate to decline. If the exchange rate declines, our results of operations will be negatively impacted in future periods.

In all jurisdictions in which we operate, we are also subject to laws and regulations that govern foreign investment, foreign trade and currency exchange transactions. These laws and regulations may limit our ability to repatriate cash as dividends or otherwise to the U.S. and may limit our ability to convert foreign currency cash flows into USD.

We incur significant transaction-related costs in connection with acquisitions and other strategic transactions.

We incur substantial costs in connection with acquisitions and other strategic transactions, including transaction-related expenses. In addition, we may incur additional costs to maintain employee morale, retain key employees, and to formulate and execute integration plans. Although we expect that the elimination of duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of acquired businesses, should allow us to more than offset incremental transaction and acquisition-related costs over time, this net benefit may not be achieved in the near term, or at all.

Our ability to grow our business through organic expansion either by developing new facilities or by modifying existing facilities is dependent upon many factors.

Our ability to grow our business through organic expansion is dependent on capacity and occupancy at our facilities. Should our facilities reach maximum occupancy, we may need to implement other growth strategies either by developing new facilities or by modifying existing facilities.

Our facilities typically need to be purpose-designed in order to enable the type and quality of service that we provide. Consequently, we must either develop sites to create facilities or purchase or lease existing facilities, which may require substantial modification. We must be able to identify suitable sites and there is no guarantee that such sites will be available at all, or at an economically viable cost or in areas of sufficient demand for our services. The subsequent successful development and construction of a new facility is contingent upon, among other things, negotiation of construction contracts, regulatory permits and planning consents and satisfactory completion of construction. Similarly, our ability to expand existing facilities is also dependent upon various factors, including identification of appropriate expansion projects, permitting, licensure, financing, integration into our relationships with payors and referral sources, and margin pressure as new facilities are filled with patients.

Delays caused by difficulties in respect of any of the above factors may lead to cost overruns and longer periods before a return is generated on an investment, if at all. We may incur significant capital expenditure but due to a regulatory, planning or other reason, may find that we are prevented from opening a new facility or modifying an existing facility. Moreover, even when incurring such development capital expenditure, there is no guarantee that we can fill beds when they become available. Upon operational

30

Table of Contents

commencement of a new facility, we typically expect that it will take approximately 12-18 months to reach our targeted occupancy level. Any delays or stoppages in our projects, the unsatisfactory completion or construction of such projects or the failure of such projects to increase our occupancy levels could have a material adverse effect on our ADC, which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may fail to deal with clinical waste in accordance with applicable regulations or otherwise be in breach of relevant medical, health and safety or environmental laws and regulations.

As part of our normal business activities, we produce and store clinical waste which may produce effects harmful to the environment or human health. The storage and transportation of such waste is strictly regulated. Our waste disposal services are outsourced and should the relevant service provider fail to comply with relevant regulations, we could face sanctions or fines which could adversely affect our brand, reputation, business or financial condition. Health and safety risks are inherent in the services that we provide and are constantly present in our facilities, primarily in respect of food and water quality, as well as fire safety and the risk that service users may cause harm to themselves, other service users or employees. From time to time, we have experienced, like other providers of similar services, undesirable health and safety incidents. Some of our activities are particularly exposed to significant medical risks relating to the transmission of infections or the prescription and administration of drugs for residents and patients. If any of the above medical or health and safety risks were to materialize, we may be held liable, fined and any registration certificate could be suspended or withdrawn for failure to comply with applicable regulations, which may have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The value of our real estate assets will be subject to fluctuations in the U.K. real estate market.

We hold a large portfolio of real estate assets, including significant real estate assets in the U.K. The value of our U.K. property portfolio is subject to, among other things, the conditions of the real estate market in the U.K. The average values of real estate in the U.K., as in other European countries, experienced sharp declines from 2007 as a result of the credit crisis, economic recession and reduced confidence in global financial markets. Although real estate asset values have recovered and stabilized in recent years in the U.K., there can be no assurance that this improvement will continue or be sustainable. Real estate asset values could decline substantially, particularly if the U.K. economy or the Eurozone economy as a whole were to suffer a further recession or debt crisis, and could result in declines in the carrying values of our real estate assets (and the value at which we could dispose of such assets). Any of the above may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business could be disrupted if our information systems fail or if our databases are destroyed or damaged.

Our information technology platform supports, among other things, management control of patient administration, billing and financial information and reporting processes. For example, patients in our U.K. Facilities and some of our U.S. Facilities have an Electronic Patient Record that allows our caregivers and nurses to see all information about a patient’s care and treatment. Although we have taken measures to mitigate potential information technology security risks and have information technology continuity plans across our business intended to minimize the impact of information technology failures, there can be no assurance that such measures and plans will be effective. Any failure in or breach of our information technology systems could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to volatility in the global capital and credit markets as well as significant developments in macroeconomic and political conditions that are out of our control.

Our business can be affected by a number of factors that are beyond our control, such as general macroeconomic conditions, conditions in the financial services markets, geopolitical conditions and other general political and economic developments. These conditions and developments may continue to put pressure on the economy in the U.K., which could have a negative effect on our business. There may be a shortage of liquidity and credit in the U.K. or worldwide and this can be exacerbated by adverse developments in global or national political and/or macroeconomic conditions. In particular, we have historically financed the development of new facilities and the modification of our existing facilities through a variety of sources, including our own cash reserves and debt financing. While we intend to seek to finance new and existing developments from similar sources in the future, there may be insufficient cash reserves to fund the budgeted capital expenditure and market conditions and other factors may prevent us from obtaining debt financing on appropriate terms or at all. In addition, market conditions may limit the number of financial institutions that are willing to provide financing to landlords with whom we wish to contract to build homes for learning disability services, new schools or new mental health facilities which can then be made available to us under a long-term operating lease. If conditions in the U.K. or the global economy remain uncertain or weaken further, this could materially adversely impact our ADC, which would have a corresponding negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

31

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with the international and U.S. laws and regulations applicable to our international operations could subject us to penalties and other adverse consequences.

We face several risks inherent in conducting business internationally, including compliance with international and U.S. laws and regulations that apply to our international operations. These laws and regulations include U.S. laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other U.S. federal laws and regulations established by the Office of Foreign Asset Control, local laws such as the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 or other local laws which prohibit corrupt payments to governmental officials or certain payments or remunerations to customers. Given the high level of complexity of these laws, however, there is a risk that some provisions may be inadvertently breached by us, for example through fraudulent or negligent behavior of individual employees, our failure to comply with certain formal documentation requirements, or otherwise. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, implementation of compliance programs, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to conduct business in the U.K. and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, our business and our operating results. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to anticipate these risks and manage these challenges.

We are subject to taxation in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions. Any adverse development in the tax laws of such jurisdictions or any disagreement with our tax positions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, our effective tax rate could change materially as a result of certain changes in our mix of U.S. and foreign earnings and other factors, including changes in tax laws.

We are subject to taxation in, and to the tax laws and regulations of, the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions as a result of our operations and our corporate and financing structure. Adverse developments in these tax laws or regulations, or any change in position regarding the application, administration or interpretation thereof, in any applicable jurisdiction, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the tax authorities in any applicable jurisdiction may disagree with the tax treatment or characterization of any of our transactions, which, if successfully challenged by such tax authorities, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Certain changes in the mix of our earnings between jurisdictions and assumptions used in the calculation of income taxes, among other factors, could have a material adverse effect on our overall effective tax rate.

A worsening of the economic and employment conditions in the geographies in which we operate could materially affect our business and future results of operations.

During periods of high unemployment, governmental entities often experience budget deficits as a result of increased costs and lower than expected tax collections. These budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels have decreased, and may continue to decrease, spending for health and human service programs, including Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S., which are significant payor sources for our facilities. In periods of high unemployment, we also face the risk of potential declines in the population covered under private insurance, patient decisions to postpone or decide against receiving behavioral healthcare services, potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations we serve and further difficulties in collecting patient co-payment and deductible receivables.

A sizable portion of our revenue from certain residential recovery, eating disorder facilities, comprehensive treatment centers and youth programs is from self-payors. Accordingly, a sustained downturn in the U.S. economy could restrain the ability of our patients and the families of our students to pay for services.

Furthermore, the availability of liquidity and capital resources to fund the continuation and expansion of many business operations worldwide has been limited in recent years. Our ability to access the capital markets on acceptable terms may be severely restricted at a time when we would like, or need, access to those markets, which could have a negative impact on our growth plans, our flexibility to react to changing economic and business conditions and our ability to refinance existing debt (including debt under our Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility and the Senior Notes). A sustained economic downturn or other economic conditions could also adversely affect the counterparties to our agreements, including the lenders under the Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility, causing them to fail to meet their obligations to us.

Although we have facilities in 40 states, the U.K. and Puerto Rico, we have substantial operations in the U.K., Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and Tennessee, which makes us especially sensitive to regulatory, economic, environmental and competitive conditions and changes in those locations.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, our revenue in the U.K. represented approximately 35% of our total revenue. Revenue from Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and Tennessee represented approximately 7%, 5%, 4% and 4% of our total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019, respectively. This concentration makes us particularly sensitive to legislative, regulatory, economic, environmental and competition changes in those locations. Any material change in the current payment programs or regulatory, economic, environmental or competitive conditions in these locations could have a disproportionate effect on our overall business

32

Table of Contents

results. If our facilities in these locations are adversely affected by changes in regulatory and economic conditions, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition, some of our facilities are located in areas prone to hurricanes or wildfires. Natural disasters have historically had a disruptive effect on the operations of facilities and the patient populations in such areas. Our business activities could be significantly disrupted by wildfires, hurricanes or other natural disasters, and our property insurance may not be adequate to cover losses from such wildfires, storms or other natural disasters.

A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease in the markets in which we operate or that otherwise impacts our facilities could adversely impact our business.

If a pandemic, epidemic, outbreak of an infectious disease, such as the coronavirus known as COVID-19, or other public health crisis were to occur in an area in which we operate, our operations could be adversely affected. Such a crisis could diminish the public trust in healthcare facilities, especially facilities with patients affected by infectious diseases. If any of our facilities were involved, or perceived as being involved, in treating such patients, other patients might fail to seek care at our facilities, and our reputation may be negatively affected. Further, a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak might adversely impact our business by causing a temporary shutdown or diversion of patients, by disrupting or delaying production and delivery of pharmaceuticals and other medical supplies or by causing staffing shortages in our facilities.  Although we have disaster plans in place and operate pursuant to infectious disease protocols, the potential impact of a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease with respect to our markets or our facilities is difficult to predict and could adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our reimbursement may be adversely affected by the repeal, replacement or modification of PPACA.

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump became President of the United States. Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, stated that it was the intent of his administration to repeal PPACA. Several bills have been introduced and voted upon in the House of Representatives and United States Senate that would either repeal and replace or simply repeal PPACA, although no such comprehensive legislation has been enacted to-date. The Tax Act does, however, effectively repeal the individual mandate to obtain and maintain health insurance by eliminating the tax penalty associated with failing to do so. There are also numerous legal challenges to the validity of PPACA. 

If PPACA is modified or ruled invalid, we may experience a significant decrease in reimbursement from state Medicaid programs. We may also experience a significant increase in uncompensated care if many of our patients who currently obtain private health insurance coverage or Medicaid coverage under the provisions of PPACA are no longer able to maintain that coverage. Finally, PPACA currently works in conjunction with MHPAEA to require that third-party payors reimburse providers of certain mental health and substance abuse treatment services on an out-of-network basis. If PPACA or this particular provision thereof is eliminated, we may experience a significant decrease in out-of-network reimbursement at certain of our facilities.

If we fail to comply with extensive laws and government regulations, we could suffer penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

Companies operating in the behavioral healthcare industry in the U.S. are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things: billing practices and prices for services; relationships with physicians and other referral sources; necessity and quality of medical care; condition and adequacy of facilities; qualifications of medical and support personnel; confidentiality, privacy and security issues associated with health-related information and PHI; EMTALA compliance; handling of controlled substances; certification, licensure and accreditation of our facilities; operating policies and procedures; activities regarding competitors; state and local land use and zoning requirements; and addition or expansion of facilities and services.

Among the laws applicable to our operations are the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law, the federal False Claims Act, EKRA, and similar state laws. These laws impact the relationships that we may have with physicians and other potential referral sources. We have a variety of financial relationships with physicians and other professionals who refer patients to our facilities, including employment contracts, leases and professional service agreements. The OIG has issued certain safe harbor regulations that outline practices that are deemed acceptable under the Anti-Kickback Statute, and similar regulatory exceptions have been promulgated by CMS under the Stark Law. While we endeavor to ensure that our arrangements with referral sources comply with an applicable safe harbor to the Anti-Kickback Statute where possible, certain of our current arrangements with physicians and other potential referral sources may not qualify for such protection. Failure to meet a safe harbor does not mean that the arrangement automatically violates the Anti-Kickback Statute, but may subject the arrangement to greater scrutiny. Even if our arrangements are found to be in compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statue, they may still face scrutiny under the newly enacted EKRA law. Moreover,

33

Table of Contents

while we believe that our arrangements with physicians comply with applicable Stark Law exceptions, the Stark Law is a strict liability statute for which no intent to violate the law is required.

These laws and regulations are extremely complex, and, in many cases, we do not have the benefit of regulatory or judicial interpretation. In the future, it is possible that different interpretations of these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our arrangements for facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. A determination that we have violated one or more of these laws could subject us to liabilities, including civil penalties, exclusion of one or more facilities from participation in the government healthcare programs and, for violations of certain laws and regulations, criminal penalties. Even the public announcement that we are being investigated for possible violations of these laws could cause our reputation to suffer and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we cannot predict whether other similar legislation or regulations at the federal or state level will be adopted, what form such legislation or regulations may take or what their impact on us may be.

The construction and operation of healthcare facilities in the U.S. are subject to extensive federal, state and local regulation relating to, among other things, the adequacy of medical care, equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures, fire prevention, rate-setting, compliance with building codes and environmental protection. Additionally, such facilities are subject to periodic inspection by government authorities to assure their continued compliance with these various standards. If we fail to adhere to these standards, we could be subject to monetary penalties or restrictions on our ability to operate.

All of our facilities that handle and dispense controlled substances must comply with strict federal and state regulations regarding the purchase, storage, distribution and disposal of such controlled substances. The potential for theft or diversion of such controlled substances for illegal uses has led the federal government as well as a number of states and localities to adopt stringent regulations not applicable to many other types of healthcare providers. Compliance with these regulations is expensive and these costs may increase in the future.

Property owners and local authorities have attempted, and may in the future attempt, to use or enact zoning ordinances to eliminate our ability to operate a given treatment facility or program. Local governmental authorities in some cases also have attempted to use litigation and the threat of prosecution to force the closure of certain comprehensive treatment facilities. If any of these attempts were to succeed or if their frequency were to increase, our revenue would be adversely affected and our operating results might be harmed. In addition, such actions may require us to litigate which would increase our costs.

Many of our U.S. Facilities are also accredited by third-party accreditation agencies such as The Joint Commission or CARF. If any of our existing healthcare facilities lose their accreditation or any of our new facilities fail to receive accreditation, such facilities could become ineligible to receive reimbursement under Medicare or Medicaid.

Federal, state and local regulations determine the capacity at which many of our U.S. Facilities may be operated. State licensing standards require many of our U.S. Facilities to have minimum staffing levels; minimum amounts of residential space per student or patient and adhere to other minimum standards. Local regulations require us to follow land use guidelines at many of our U.S. Facilities, including those pertaining to fire safety, sewer capacity and other physical plant matters.

Similarly, providers of behavioral healthcare services in the U.K. are also subject to a highly regulated business environment. Failure to comply with regulations, lapses in the standards of care, the receipt of poor ratings or lower ratings, the receipt of a negative report that leads to a determination of regulatory noncompliance, or the failure to cure any defect noted in an inspection report could lead to substantial penalties, including the loss of registration or closure of one or more facilities as well as damage to reputation.

Our operations in the U.K. are subject to a high level of regulation and supervision, ranging from the initial establishment of new facilities, which are subject to registration and licensing requirements, to the recruitment and appointment of staff, occupational health and safety, duty of care to service users, clinical and educational standards, conduct of our professional and support staff, the environment, public health and other areas. The regulatory requirements differ across our divisions, though almost all of our activity in England in relation to mental healthcare, elderly care and learning disability care are regulated by the CQC and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, its local equivalent. In addition, our children’s homes, residential schools and colleges in England are regulated by OFSTED, and in Scotland and Wales by their local equivalent, and all of our schools must be licensed by the Department for Education. See “Item 1. Business—Regulation—U.K. Overview” for further details on the key U.K. regulations to which we are subject.

Inspections by CQC, OFSTED, and other regulators can be carried out on both an announced and unannounced basis depending on the specific regulatory provisions relating to the different healthcare, social care and specialist education services we provide.

34

Table of Contents

A failure to comply with regulations, the receipt of a poor rating or a lower rating, or the receipt of a negative report that leads to a determination of regulatory non-compliance or our failure to cure any defect noted in an inspection report could result in reputational damage, fines, the revocation or suspension of the registration of any facility or service or a decrease in, or cessation of, the services provided by us at any given facility. Additionally, where placements are funded by Local Authorities, most Local Authorities monitor performance and where there are shortcomings may impose punitive measures. These can, for example, include the suspension of new placements (known in the industry as “embargoes”) and, in extreme cases, removal of all residents placed by that authority, which in turn may affect the level of referrals from other publicly funded entities and our occupancy levels.

Furthermore, new regulations or regulatory bodies may be introduced in the future or existing regulations and regulatory bodies may be amended or replaced and we may not adapt to such changes quickly enough, or in a cost-efficient manner. For example, the U.K. government appointed Monitor (now part of NHS Improvement) as the market regulator for healthcare providers in 2012 by way of a licensing regime. Any failure by us to comply with the licensing regime could result in NHS Improvement revoking our license, which would mean we would be unable to operate. In addition, such regulatory changes may preclude management from executing its business plan as intended, including the timing for new developments and openings.

We cannot guarantee that current laws, regulations and regulatory assessment methodologies will not be modified or replaced in the future. There can be no assurance that our business, results of operations and financial condition will not be adversely affected by any future regulatory developments or that the cost of compliance with new regulations will not be material.

If we fail to cultivate new or maintain established relationships with referral sources, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our ability to grow or even to maintain our existing level of business depends significantly on our ability to establish and maintain close working relationships with physicians, managed care companies, insurance companies, educational consultants and other referral sources. We may not be able to maintain our existing referral source relationships or develop and maintain new relationships in existing or new markets. If we lose existing relationships with our referral sources, the number of people to whom we provide services may decline, which may adversely affect our revenue. If we fail to develop new referral relationships, our growth may be restrained.

We may be required to spend substantial amounts to comply with statutes and regulations relating to privacy and security of PHI.

There are currently numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives in both the U.S. and the U.K. addressing patient privacy and information security concerns. In particular, federal regulations issued under HIPAA require our U.S. Facilities to comply with standards to protect the privacy, security and integrity of PHI. These requirements include the adoption of certain administrative, physical, and technical safeguards; development of adequate policies and procedures, training programs and other initiatives to ensure the privacy of PHI is maintained; entry into appropriate agreements with so-called business associates; and affording patients certain rights with respect to their PHI, including notification of any breaches. Compliance with these regulations requires substantial expenditures, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, our management has spent, and may spend in the future, substantial time and effort on compliance measures.

In addition to HIPAA, we are subject to similar, and in some cases more restrictive, state and federal privacy regulations. For example, the federal government and some states impose laws governing the use and disclosure of health information pertaining to mental health and/or substance abuse treatment that are more stringent than the rules that apply to healthcare information generally. As public attention is drawn to the issues of the privacy and security of medical information, states may revise or expand their laws concerning the use and disclosure of health information, or may adopt new laws addressing these subjects.

Violations of the privacy and security regulations could subject our operations to substantial civil monetary penalties and substantial other costs and penalties associated with a breach of data security, including criminal penalties. We may also be subject to substantial reputational harm if we experience a substantial security breach involving PHI.

We are subject to uncertainties regarding recent health reform and budget legislation.

Recent developments with respect to the implementation of PPACA have created uncertainty for many healthcare providers. For example, the Tax Act will effectively repeal the individual health insurance mandate imposed under PPACA by eliminating the tax penalty associated with failure to obtain and maintain coverage. Additionally, President Trump’s administration has taken certain executive actions that may promote the availability of alternative forms of health insurance outside PPACA’s requirements and otherwise affect the implementation of PPACA. We cannot predict how these changes to, or the potential repeal, replacement or further modification of, PPACA will affect our business, results of operations, cash flow, capital resources and liquidity, or whether we will be able to adapt successfully thereto.

35

Table of Contents

We are similarly unable to guarantee that current U.K. laws, regulations and regulatory assessment methodologies will not be modified or replaced in the future. Additionally, there is a risk that budget constraints, public spending cuts (such as the cuts announced by the U.K. government in the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review and implemented in the 2011 and 2012 government budgets) or other financial pressures could cause the NHS and Local Authorities to reduce funding for the types of services that we provide. Although the government has announced that revenue funding for NHS England will grow by an average of 3.4% a year over the next five years from 2019, most of this funding will be needed to cover increases in NHS pay and to meet increased demand, particularly for acute and emergency services. Such policy changes in the U.K. could lead to fewer services from the independent sector being purchased by publicly funded entities or material changes being made to their procurement practices, any of which could materially reduce our revenue. These and other future developments and amendments may negatively impact our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “—Expanding our operations internationally poses additional risks to our business.”

The industry trend on value-based purchasing may negatively impact our revenue.

There is a trend in the healthcare industry toward value-based purchasing of healthcare services. These value-based purchasing programs include both public reporting of quality data and preventable adverse events tied to the quality and efficiency of care provided by facilities. Governmental programs including Medicare and Medicaid currently require hospitals to report certain quality data to receive full reimbursement updates. In addition, Medicare does not reimburse for care related to certain preventable adverse events. Many large commercial payors currently require hospitals to report quality data, and several commercial payors do 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 our results of operations, but it could negatively impact our revenue if we are unable to meet quality standards established by both governmental and private payers.

We operate in a highly competitive industry, and competition may lead to declines in patient volumes.

The healthcare industry is highly competitive, and competition among healthcare providers (including hospitals) for patients, physicians and other healthcare professionals has intensified in recent years. There are other healthcare facilities that provide behavioral and other mental health services comparable to those offered by our facilities in each of the geographical areas in which we operate. Some of our competitors are owned by tax-supported governmental agencies or by non-profit corporations and may have certain financial advantages not available to us, including endowments, charitable contributions, tax-exempt financing and exemptions from sales, property and income taxes. Some of our for-profit competitors are local, independent operators or physician groups with strong established reputations within the surrounding communities, which may adversely affect our ability to attract a sufficiently large number of patients in markets where we compete with such providers. We also face competition from other for-profit entities, who may possess greater financial, marketing or research and development resources than us or may invest more funds in renovating their facilities or developing technology.

If our competitors are better able to attract patients, recruit and retain physicians and other healthcare professionals, expand services or obtain favorable managed care contracts at their facilities, we may experience a decline in patient volume and our results of operations may be adversely affected.

The NHS is the principal provider and customer of mental healthcare services in the U.K. NHS in-house beds account for approximately 70% of the total mental health hospital beds providing care in the U.K. As the preferred provider, there is often a bias toward referrals to NHS, and therefore NHS facilities have maintained high occupancy rates. Under the NHS Long Term Plan, preferential treatment of NHS providers is likely to increase and while independent operators may have emerged to satisfy the demand for mental health services not supplied by the NHS, this trend could be reversed. In addition to the NHS, we face competition in the U.K. from independent sector providers and other publicly funded entities for individuals requiring care and for appropriate sites on which to develop or expand facilities in the U.K. Should we fail to compete effectively with our peers and competitors in the industry, or if the competitive environment intensifies, individuals may be referred elsewhere for services that we provide, negatively impacting our ability to secure referrals and limiting the expansion of our business.

The trend by insurance companies and managed care organizations to enter into sole-source contracts may limit our ability to obtain patients.

Insurance companies and managed care organizations in the U.S. are entering into sole-source contracts with healthcare providers, which could limit our ability to obtain patients since we do not offer the range of services required for these contracts. Moreover, private insurers, managed care organizations and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid and Medicare, are beginning to carve-out specific services, including mental health and substance abuse services, and establish small, specialized networks of providers for such services at fixed reimbursement rates. Continued growth in the use of carve-out arrangements could materially adversely affect our

36

Table of Contents

business to the extent we are not selected to participate in such networks or if the reimbursement rate in such networks is not adequate to cover the cost of providing the service.

Our performance depends on our ability to recruit and retain quality psychiatrists and other physicians.

The success and competitive advantage of our facilities depends, in part, on the number and quality of the psychiatrists and other physicians on the medical staffs of our facilities and our maintenance of good relations with those medical professionals. Although we employ psychiatrists and other physicians at many of our facilities, psychiatrists and other physicians generally are not employees of our facilities, and, in a number of our markets, they have admitting privileges at competing hospitals providing acute or inpatient behavioral healthcare services. Such physicians (including psychiatrists) may terminate their affiliation with us at any time or admit their patients to competing healthcare facilities or hospitals. If we are unable to attract and retain sufficient numbers of quality psychiatrists and other physicians by providing adequate support personnel and facilities that meet the needs of those psychiatrists and other physicians, they may stop referring patients to our facilities and our results of operations may decline.

It may become difficult for us to attract and retain an adequate number of psychiatrists and other physicians to practice in certain of the communities in which our facilities are located. Our failure to recruit psychiatrists and other physicians to these communities or the loss of such medical professionals in these communities could make it more difficult to attract patients to our facilities and thereby may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, our ability to recruit psychiatrists and other physicians is closely regulated. The form, amount and duration of assistance we can provide to recruited psychiatrists and other physicians is limited by the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, state anti-kickback statutes, and related regulations.

Some of our employees are represented by labor unions and any work stoppage could adversely affect our business.

Increased labor union activity could adversely affect our labor costs. At December 31, 2019, labor unions represented approximately 405 of our employees at four of our U.S. Facilities through seven collective bargaining agreements. The Royal College of Nursing represents nursing employees at our facilities in the U.K. We cannot assure you that employee relations will remain stable. Furthermore, there is a possibility that work stoppages could occur as a result of union activity, which could increase our labor costs and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. To the extent that a greater portion of our employee base unionizes and the terms of any collective bargaining agreements are significantly different from our current compensation arrangements, it is possible that our labor costs could increase materially and our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

We depend on key management personnel, and the departure of one or more of our key executives or a significant portion of our local facility management personnel could harm our business.

The expertise and efforts of our senior executives and the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, medical directors, physicians and other key members of our facility management personnel are important to the success of our business. The loss of the services of one or more of our senior executives, including our U.K. senior management team, or of a significant portion of our facility management personnel could significantly undermine our management expertise and our ability to provide efficient, quality healthcare services at our facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition

We could face risks associated with, or arising out of, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.

We are subject to various federal, foreign, state and local laws and regulations that:

Compliance with these laws and regulations could increase our costs of operation. Violation of these laws may subject us to significant fines, penalties or disposal costs, which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We could be responsible for the investigation and remediation of environmental conditions at currently or formerly owned, operated or leased sites, as well as for associated liabilities, including liabilities for natural resource damages, third-party property damage or personal injury resulting from lawsuits that could be brought by the government or private litigants, relating to our operations, the

37

Table of Contents

operations of facilities or the land on which our facilities are located. We may be subject to these liabilities regardless of whether we operate, lease or own the facility, and regardless of whether such environmental conditions were created by us or by a prior owner or tenant, or by a third party or a neighboring facility whose operations may have affected such facility or land. That is because liability for contamination under certain environmental laws can be imposed on current or past owners, lessors or operators of a site without regard to fault. We cannot assure you that environmental conditions relating to our prior, existing or future sites or those of predecessor companies whose liabilities we may have assumed or acquired will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

State efforts to regulate the construction or expansion of healthcare facilities in the U.S. could impair our ability to operate and expand our operations.

A majority of the states in which we operate facilities in the U.S. have enacted certificate of need (“CON”) laws that regulate the construction or expansion of healthcare facilities, certain capital expenditures or changes in services or bed capacity. In giving approval for these actions, these states consider the need for additional or expanded healthcare facilities or services. Our failure to obtain necessary state approval could (i) result in our inability to acquire a targeted facility, complete a desired expansion or make a desired replacement, (ii) make a facility ineligible to receive reimbursement under the Medicare or Medicaid programs or (iii) result in the revocation of a facility’s license or imposition of civil or criminal penalties, any of which could harm our business.

In addition, significant CON reforms have been proposed in a number of states that would increase the capital spending thresholds and provide exemptions of various services from review requirements. In the past, we have not experienced any material adverse effects from such requirements, but we cannot predict the impact of these changes upon our operations.

We may be unable to extend leases at expiration, which could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We lease the real property on which a number of our facilities are located. Our lease agreements generally give us the right to renew or extend the term of the leases and, in certain cases, purchase the real property. These renewal and purchase rights generally are based upon either prescribed formulas or fair market value. Management expects to renew, extend or exercise purchase options with respect to our leases in the normal course of business; however, there can be no assurance that these rights will be exercised in the future or that we will be able to satisfy the conditions precedent to exercising any such renewal, extension or purchase options. Furthermore, the terms of any such options that are based on fair market value are inherently uncertain and could be unacceptable or unfavorable to us depending on the circumstances at the time of exercise. If we are not able to renew or extend our existing leases, or purchase the real property subject to such leases, at or prior to the end of the existing lease terms, or if the terms of such options are unfavorable or unacceptable to us, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Controls designed to reduce inpatient services may reduce our revenue.

Controls imposed by Medicare, Medicaid and commercial third-party payors designed to reduce admissions and lengths of stay, commonly referred to as “utilization review,” have affected and are expected to continue to affect our facilities. Inpatient utilization, average lengths of stay and occupancy rates continue to be negatively affected by payor-required preadmission authorization and utilization review and by payor pressure to maximize outpatient and alternative healthcare delivery services for less acutely ill patients. Efforts to impose more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. For example, PPACA expanded the potential use of prepayment review by Medicare contractors by eliminating certain statutory restrictions on its use. Utilization review is also a requirement of most non-governmental managed-care organizations and other third-party payors. Although we are unable to predict the effect these controls and changes will have on our operations, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates and fees could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, the outsourcing of behavioral healthcare to the private sector is a relatively recent development in the U.K. There has been some opposition to outsourcing. While we anticipate that the NHS will continue to rely increasingly upon outsourcing, we cannot assure you that the outsourcing trend will continue. The absence of future growth in the outsourcing of behavioral healthcare services could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are required to treat patients with emergency medical conditions regardless of ability to pay.

In accordance with our internal policies and procedures, as well as EMTALA, we provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to one of our hospitals seeking medical treatment (whether or not such individual is eligible for insurance benefits and regardless of ability to pay) to determine if such individual has an emergency medical condition. If it is determined that such person has an emergency medical condition, we provide such further medical examination and treatment as is required to stabilize the patient’s medical condition, within the facility’s capability, or arrange for the transfer of the individual to another medical

38

Table of Contents

facility in accordance with applicable law and the treating hospital’s written procedures. Our hospitals may face substantial civil penalties if we fail to provide appropriate screening and stabilizing treatment or fail to facilitate other appropriate transfers as required by EMTALA.

An increase in uninsured or underinsured patients or the deterioration in the collectability of the accounts of such patients could harm our results of operations.

Collection of receivables from third-party payors and patients is critical to our operating performance. Our primary collection risks relate to uninsured patients and the portion of the bill that is the patient’s responsibility, which primarily includes co-payments and deductibles. We determine the transaction price based on established billing rates reduced by contractual adjustments provided to third-party payors, discounts provided to uninsured patients and implicit price concessions. Contractual adjustments and discounts are based on contractual agreements, discount policies and historical experience. Implicit price concessions are based on historical collection experience. At December 31, 2019, our estimated implicit price concessions represented approximately 12% of our accounts receivable balance as of such date. Significant changes in business office operations, payor mix, economic conditions or trends in federal and state governmental health coverage (including the repeal, replacement or modification of PPACA) could affect our collection of accounts receivable, cash flow and results of operations. If we experience unexpected increases in the growth of uninsured and underinsured patients or in bad debt expenses, our results of operations will be harmed.

A cyber security incident could cause a violation of HIPAA and other privacy laws and regulations or result in a loss of confidential data.

A cyber-attack that bypasses our information technology (“IT”) security systems causing an IT security breach, loss of PHI 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, financial condition or results 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 PHI, other confidential data or proprietary business information.

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If we are unable to maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, we may be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis, may suffer adverse regulatory consequences or violations of NASDAQ listing rules and may breach the covenants under our financing arrangements. There could also be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. If we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting in the future (including any material weakness in the controls of businesses we have acquired), their correction could require additional remedial measures which could be costly, time-consuming and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are responsible for an underfunded pension liability related to our acquisition of Partnerships in Care. In addition, we may be required to increase funding of the pension plans and/or be subject to restrictions on the use of excess cash.

Partnerships in Care is the sponsor of a defined benefit pension plan (the Partnerships in Care Limited Pension and Life Assurance Plan) that covers approximately 180 members in the U.K., most of whom are inactive and retired former employees. As of May 1, 2005, this plan was closed to new participants but then-current participants continue to accrue benefits, and effective May 2015, active participants no longer accrued benefits. At December 31, 2019, the net deficit recognized under GAAP in respect of this plan was £3.2 million.

Future sales of common stock by our existing stockholders may cause our stock price to fall.

The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by us or our existing stockholders, particularly our largest stockholders, our directors and executive officers, in the market, or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales might also make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities at a time and price that we deem appropriate.

39

Table of Contents

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they were to change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish regular reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.

We incur substantial costs as a result of being a public company.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. We incur costs associated with complying with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), and related rules implemented by the SEC and NASDAQ. Enacted in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act contains significant corporate governance and executive compensation-related provisions, some of which the SEC has implemented by adopting additional rules and regulations in areas such as executive compensation. The expenses incurred by public companies generally for reporting and corporate governance purposes have been increasing. Management expects these laws and regulations to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly, although management is currently unable to estimate these costs with any degree of certainty. These laws and regulations could make it more difficult or costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. These laws and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our executive officers. Furthermore, if we are unable to satisfy our obligations as a public company, we could be subject to delisting of our common stock, fines, sanctions and other regulatory action and potentially civil litigation.

Provisions of our charter documents or Delaware law could delay or prevent an acquisition of us, even if the acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and could make it more difficult for stockholders to change management.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. This is because these provisions may prevent or frustrate attempts by stockholders to replace or remove our management. These provisions include:

Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person that together with its affiliates owns or within the last three years has owned 15% of voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Although we have elected not to be subject to Section 203 of the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation contains provisions that have the same effect as Section 203, except that they provide that Waud Capital Partners, L.L.C. (“WCP”), its affiliates and any investment fund managed by WCP and any persons to whom WCP sells at least five percent (5%) of our outstanding voting stock will be deemed to have been approved by our board of directors, and thereby not subject to the restrictions set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that have the same effect as Section 203 of the DGCL. Accordingly, the provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that adopts a modified version of Section 203 of the DGCL may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of us.

As a result of these provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law, the price investors may be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock may be limited.

40

Table of Contents

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We intend to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in our business or for other corporate purposes and do not anticipate that cash dividends with respect to common stock will be paid in the foreseeable future. Any decision as to the future payment of dividends will depend on our results of operations, financial position and such other factors as our board of directors, in its discretion, deems relevant. In addition, the terms of our debt substantially limit our ability to pay dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be a stockholder’s sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

41

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties.

The following table lists, by state or country, the number of behavioral healthcare facilities directly or indirectly owned and operated by us at December 31, 2019:

Additionally, we provided outpatient services in Montana at December 31, 2019. See “Business— U.S. Operations” and “Business— U.K. Operations— Description of U.K. Facilities” for a summary description of our U.S. Facilities and U.K. Facilities that we own and lease. We currently lease approximately 61,000 square feet of office space at 6100 Tower Circle, Franklin, Tennessee, for our corporate headquarters. Our headquarters and facilities are generally well maintained and in good operating condition.

42

Table of Contents

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are, from time to time, subject to various claims, lawsuits, governmental investigations and regulatory actions, including claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, overpayments, breach of contract, securities law violations, tort and employment related claims. In these actions, plaintiffs request a variety of damages, including, in some instances, punitive and other types of damages that may not be covered by insurance. In addition, healthcare companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, audit requests and other inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. These investigations can result in repayment obligations, and violations of the False Claims Act can result in substantial monetary penalties and fines, the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement and exclusion from participation in governmental health programs. In addition, the federal False Claims Act permits private parties to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions.

On April 1, 2019, a consolidated complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00988, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased securities of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. At this time, we are not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages.  

On February 21, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Davydov v. Joey A. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00167, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a second related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Beard v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0441, which is pending the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider selling. On June 11, 2019, the Davydov and Beard actions were consolidated and ordered stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss that was filed in the St. Clair County v. Acadia Healthcare case described above. At this time, we are not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the cases are in their early stages.  

In the fall of 2017, the Office of Inspector General issued subpoenas to three of our facilities requesting certain documents from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida issued a civil investigative demand to one of our facilities in December 2017 requesting certain documents from November 2012 to the date of the demand. In April 2019, the Office of Inspector General issued subpoenas relating to six additional facilities requesting certain documents and information from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The government’s investigation of each of these facilities is focused on claims not eligible for payment because of alleged violations of certain regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, medical necessity, admission eligibility, discharge decisions, length of stay and patient care issues. We are cooperating with the government’s investigation but are not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with these investigations.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

43

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our common stock is listed for trading on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “ACHC.”

Stockholders

As of February 28, 2020, there were approximately 512 holders of record of our common stock.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

During the three months ended December 31, 2019, the Company withheld shares of Company common stock to satisfy employee minimum statutory tax withholding obligations payable upon the vesting of restricted stock, as follows:

Dividends

We have never declared or paid dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business and to repay indebtedness, and therefore we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Additionally, because we are a holding company, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock is limited by restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make distributions to us, including restrictions under the terms of the agreements governing our indebtedness. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors, subject to compliance with covenants in current and future agreements governing our indebtedness (including our Amended and Restated Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing our Senior Notes), and will depend upon our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant.

44

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The selected financial data presented below for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, and at December 31, 2019 and 2018, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, and at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included herein. The selected consolidated financial data below should be read in conjunction with the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial data presented below does not give effect to our acquisitions prior to the respective date of such acquisitions.

45

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations with our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include any statements that address future results or occurrences. In some cases you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “would,” “should,” “could” or the negative thereof. Generally, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” “plan” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. In particular, statements about our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance contained are forward-looking statements.

We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While we believe these expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside of our control, which could cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from any results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to:

46

Table of Contents