Item 1. Business

We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 1994. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are made available free of charge through our website, located at http://www.davita.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC also maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov where these reports and other information about us can be obtained. The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference into this report.

Overview of DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc.

The Company consists of two major divisions, Kidney Care and HealthCare Partners (HCP). Kidney Care is comprised of our U.S. dialysis and related lab services, our ancillary services and strategic initiatives, including our international operations and our corporate administrative support. Our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business is our largest line of business, which is a leading provider of kidney dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end stage renal disease (ESRD). Our HCP division is a patient- and physician-focused integrated healthcare delivery and management company with over two decades of providing coordinated, outcomes-based medical care in a cost-effective manner.

For financial information about our reportable segments please read “Note 25 Segment Reporting” to the consolidated financial statements included in this report.

Kidney Care Division

U.S. dialysis and related lab services business overview

Our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business is a leading provider of kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from ESRD. As of December 31, 2015, we provided dialysis and administrative services in the U.S. through a network of 2,251 outpatient dialysis centers in 46 states and the District of Columbia, serving a total of approximately 180,000 patients. We also provide acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 900 hospitals and related laboratory services throughout the U.S. Our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business accounted for approximately 62% of our 2015 consolidated net revenues. All references in this document to dialysis and related lab services refer only to our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business.

The loss of kidney function is normally irreversible. Kidney failure is typically caused by Type I and Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, polycystic kidney disease, long-term autoimmune attack on the kidney and prolonged urinary tract obstruction. ESRD is the stage of advanced kidney impairment that requires continued dialysis treatments or a kidney transplant to sustain life. Dialysis is the removal of toxins, fluids and salt from the blood of patients by artificial means. Patients suffering from ESRD generally require dialysis at least three times a week for the rest of their lives.

According to United States Renal Data System, there were approximately 468,000 ESRD dialysis patients in the U.S. in 2013. The underlying ESRD dialysis patient population has grown at an approximate compound rate of 3.6% from 2000 to 2013, the latest period for which such data is available. The growth rate is attributable to the aging of the population, increased incidence rates for diseases that cause kidney failure such as diabetes and hypertension, lower mortality rates for dialysis patients and growth rates of minority populations with higher than average incidence rates of ESRD.

Since 1972, the federal government has provided healthcare coverage for ESRD patients under the Medicare ESRD program regardless of age or financial circumstances. ESRD is the first and only disease state eligible for Medicare coverage both for dialysis and dialysis-related services and for all benefits available under the Medicare program. For patients with Medicare coverage, all ESRD payments for dialysis treatments are made under a single bundled payment rate. See page 5 for further details.

Although Medicare reimbursement limits the allowable charge per treatment, it provides industry participants with a relatively predictable and recurring revenue stream for dialysis services provided to patients without commercial insurance. For the year ended December 31, 2015, approximately 89% of our total dialysis patients were covered under some form of government-based programs, with approximately 76% of our dialysis patients covered under Medicare and Medicare-assigned plans.

Treatment options for ESRD

Treatment options for ESRD are dialysis and kidney transplantation.

Dialysis options

· Hemodialysis

Hemodialysis, the most common form of ESRD treatment, is usually performed at a freestanding outpatient dialysis center, at a hospital-based outpatient center, or at the patient’s home. The hemodialysis machine uses an artificial kidney, called a dialyzer, to remove toxins, fluids and salt from the patient’s blood. The dialysis process occurs across a semi-permeable membrane that divides the dialyzer into two distinct chambers. While blood is circulated through one chamber, a pre-mixed fluid is circulated through the other chamber. The toxins, salt and excess fluids from the blood cross the membrane into the fluid, allowing cleansed blood to return back into the patient’s body. Each hemodialysis treatment that occurs in the outpatient dialysis centers typically lasts approximately three and one-half hours and is usually performed three times per week.

Hospital inpatient hemodialysis services are required for patients with acute kidney failure primarily resulting from trauma, patients in early stages of ESRD and ESRD patients who require hospitalization for other reasons. Hospital inpatient hemodialysis is generally performed at the patient’s bedside or in a dedicated treatment room in the hospital, as needed.

Some ESRD patients who are healthier and more independent may perform home-based hemodialysis in their home or residence through the use of a hemodialysis machine designed specifically for home therapy that is portable, smaller and easier to use. Patients receive training, support and monitoring from registered nurses, usually in our outpatient dialysis centers, in connection with their dialysis treatment. Home-based hemodialysis is typically performed with greater frequency than dialysis treatments performed in outpatient dialysis centers and on varying schedules.

· Peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis uses the patient’s peritoneal or abdominal cavity to eliminate fluid and toxins and is typically performed at home. The most common methods of peritoneal dialysis are continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), and continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis (CCPD). Because it does not involve going to an outpatient dialysis center three times a week for treatment, peritoneal dialysis is an alternative to hemodialysis for patients who are healthier, more independent and desire more flexibility in their lifestyle. However, peritoneal dialysis is not a suitable method of treatment for many patients, including patients who are unable to perform the necessary procedures and those at greater risk of peritoneal infection.

CAPD introduces dialysis solution into the patient’s peritoneal cavity through a surgically placed catheter. Toxins in the blood continuously cross the peritoneal membrane into the dialysis solution. After several hours, the patient drains the used dialysis solution and replaces it with fresh solution. This procedure is usually repeated four times per day.

CCPD is performed in a manner similar to CAPD, but uses a mechanical device to cycle dialysis solution through the patient’s peritoneal cavity while the patient is sleeping or at rest.

Kidney transplantation

Although kidney transplantation, when successful, is generally the most desirable form of therapeutic intervention, the shortage of suitable donors, side effects of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals given to transplant recipients and dangers associated with transplant surgery for some patient populations limit the use of this treatment option.

Dialysis and related lab services we provide

Outpatient hemodialysis services

As of December 31, 2015, we operated or provided administrative services through a network of 2,251 outpatient dialysis centers in the U.S. that are designed specifically for outpatient hemodialysis. In 2015, our overall network of U.S. outpatient dialysis centers increased by 72 primarily as a result of the opening of new dialysis centers, net of center closures and divestitures, and acquisitions, representing a total increase of approximately 3.3% from 2014.

As a condition of our enrollment in Medicare for the provision of dialysis services, we contract with a nephrologist or a group of associated nephrologists to provide medical director services at each of our dialysis centers. In addition, other nephrologists may apply for practice privileges to treat their patients at our centers. Each center has an administrator, typically a registered nurse, who supervises the day-to-day operations of the center and its staff. The staff of each center typically consists of registered nurses, licensed practical or vocational nurses, patient care technicians, a social worker, a registered dietician, biomedical technician support and other administrative and support personnel.

Under Medicare regulations, we cannot promote, develop or maintain any kind of contractual relationship with our patients that would directly or indirectly obligate a patient to use or continue to use our dialysis services, or that would give us any preferential rights other than those related to collecting payments for our dialysis services. Our total patient turnover, which is based upon all causes, averaged approximately 25% in both 2015 and 2014. However, in 2015, the overall number of patients to whom we provided services in the U.S. increased by approximately 4.1% from 2014, primarily from the opening of new dialysis centers and acquisitions, and continued growth within the industry.

Hospital inpatient hemodialysis services

As of December 31, 2015, we provided hospital inpatient hemodialysis services, excluding physician services, to patients in approximately 900 hospitals throughout the U.S. We render these services based on a contracted per-treatment fee that is individually negotiated with each hospital. When a hospital requests our services, we typically administer the dialysis treatment at the patient’s bedside or in a dedicated treatment room in the hospital, as needed. In 2015, hospital inpatient hemodialysis services accounted for approximately 4.2% of our total U.S. dialysis treatments.

Home-based hemodialysis services

Many of our outpatient dialysis centers offer certain support services for dialysis patients who prefer and are able to perform either home-based hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis in their homes. Home-based hemodialysis support services consist of providing equipment and supplies, training, patient monitoring, on-call support services and follow-up assistance. Registered nurses train patients and their families or other caregivers to perform either home-based hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.

ESRD laboratory services

We own two separately incorporated, licensed, clinical laboratories which specialize in ESRD patient testing. These specialized laboratories provide routine laboratory tests for dialysis and other physician-prescribed laboratory tests for ESRD patients and are an integral component of overall dialysis services that we provide. Our laboratories provide these tests predominantly for our network of ESRD patients throughout the U.S. These tests are performed to monitor a patient’s ESRD condition, including the adequacy of dialysis, as well as other medical conditions of the patient. Our laboratories utilize information systems which provide information to certain members of the dialysis centers’ staff and medical directors regarding critical outcome indicators.

Management services

We currently operate or provide management and administrative services pursuant to management and administrative services agreements to 31 outpatient dialysis centers located in the U.S. in which we either own a minority equity investment or are wholly-owned by third parties. Management fees are established by contract and are recognized as earned typically based on a percentage of revenues or cash collections generated by the outpatient dialysis centers.

Quality care

We employ 240 clinical service teammates in our dialysis and related lab services business. The primary focus of this group is assuring and facilitating processes that aim to achieve superior clinical outcomes at our centers.

Our physician leadership in the Office of the Chief Medical Officer (OCMO) for our dialysis and related lab services business includes twelve senior nephrologists, led by our Chief Medical Officer, with a variety of academic, clinical practice, and clinical research backgrounds. Our Physician Council is an advisory body to senior management. The Physician Council is currently composed of three physicians with extensive experience in clinical practice in addition to the members of OCMO and currently nine Group Medical Directors.

Sources of revenue—concentrations and risks

Our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business net revenues represent approximately 62% of our consolidated net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015. Our U.S. dialysis and related lab services revenues are derived primarily from our core business of providing dialysis services, the administration of pharmaceuticals, related laboratory services and to a lesser extent management fees generated from providing management and administrative services to certain outpatient dialysis centers, as discussed above.

The sources of our dialysis and related lab services revenues are principally from government-based programs, including Medicare and Medicare-assigned plans, Medicaid and Medicaid-assigned plans and commercial insurance plans.

The following table summarizes our U.S. dialysis services revenues by source and modality for the year ended December 31, 2015:

	Revenue
Source	percentages
Medicare and Medicare-assigned plans		56	%
Medicaid and Medicaid-assigned plans		6	%
Other government-based programs		4	%
Total government-based programs		66	%
Commercial (including hospital inpatient dialysis services)		34	%
Total dialysis and related lab services revenues		100	%

	Revenue
Modality	percentages
Outpatient hemodialysis centers		79	%
Peritoneal dialysis and home-based hemodialysis		16	%
Hospital inpatient hemodialysis		5	%
Total dialysis and related lab services revenues		100	%

Medicare revenue

Government dialysis related payment rates in the U.S. are principally determined by federal Medicare and state Medicaid policy. For patients with Medicare coverage, all ESRD payments for dialysis treatments are made under a single bundled payment rate which provides a fixed payment rate to encompass all goods and services provided during the dialysis treatment, including certain pharmaceuticals, such as Epogen^® (EPO), vitamin D analogs and iron supplements, irrespective of the level of pharmaceuticals administered to the patient or additional services performed. Most lab services are also included in the bundled payment. The bundled payment rate is also adjusted for certain patient characteristics, a geographic usage index and certain other factors.

An important provision in the law is an annual adjustment, or market basket update, to the ESRD Prospective Payment System (PPS) base rate. Absent action by Congress, the PPS base rate is automatically updated annually by a formulaic inflation adjustment. In December 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the 2014 final rule for the ESRD PPS, which phases in the payment reductions mandated by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), as modified by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, which will reduce our market basket inflation adjustment by 1.25% in each of 2016 and 2017, and 1% in 2018. CMS published the 2015 final rule for the ESRD PPS, which increased payments to dialysis facilities modestly by 0.3% to 0.5%, although rural facilities received a decrease of 0.5%. CMS recently issued the 2016 final rule for the ESRD PPS, which cuts dialysis facilities’ bundled payment rate for 2016 as compared to 2015 while increasing funds for certain co-morbidities and other patient health factors, and rural facilities. CMS believes its 2016 final rule for the ESRD PPS will (i) increase overall payments to both hospital-based and freestanding dialysis facilities by approximately 0.2%, and (ii) decrease overall payments to rural dialysis facilities by approximately 0.1%.

As a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and subsequent activity in Congress, a $1.2 trillion sequester (across-the-board spending cuts) in discretionary programs took effect on March 1, 2013. In particular, a 2% reduction to Medicare payments took effect on April 1, 2013, which was subsequently extended through 2014 and 2015. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 extended the BCA’s annual 2% reduction to Medicare payments through fiscal year 2025. These across-the-board spending cuts have affected and will continue to adversely affect our revenues, earnings and cash flows.

The CMS Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Center (Innovation Center) is currently working with various healthcare providers to develop, refine and implement Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and other innovative models of care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. We are currently uncertain of the extent to which the long-term operation and evolution of these models of care, including ACOs, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative, Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) Model (which includes the development of ESRD Seamless Care Organizations (ESCOs)), the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative, the Duals Demonstration, or other models, will impact the healthcare market over time. Our U.S. dialysis business may choose to participate in one or several of these models either as a partner with other providers or independently. We currently participate in the CEC Model with the Innovation Center, including with organizations in Arizona, Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In areas where our U.S. dialysis business is not directly participating in this or other Innovation Center models, some of our patients may be assigned to an ACO, another ESRD Care Model, or another program, in which case the quality and cost of care that we furnish will be included in an ACO’s, another ESRD Care Model’s or other programs’ calculations. As new models of care emerge and evolve, we may be at risk for losing our Medicare patient base, which would have a materially adverse effect on our revenues, earnings and cash flow. Other initiatives in the government or private sector may also arise, including the development of models similar to ACOs, independent practice associations (IPAs) and integrated delivery systems or evolutions of those concepts which could adversely impact our business.

We anticipate that we will continue to experience increases in our operating costs in 2016 that will outpace any net Medicare rate increases that we may receive, which could significantly impact our operating results. In addition, we expect to continue experiencing increases in operating costs that are subject to inflation, such as labor and supply costs, regardless of whether there is a compensating inflation-based increase in Medicare payment rates or in payments under the bundled payment rate system.

ESRD patients receiving dialysis services become eligible for primary Medicare coverage at various times, depending on their age or disability status, as well as whether they are covered by a commercial insurance plan. Generally, for a patient not covered by a commercial insurance plan, Medicare becomes the primary payor for ESRD patients receiving dialysis services either immediately or after a three-month waiting period. For a patient covered by a commercial insurance plan, Medicare generally becomes the primary payor after 33 months, which includes the three-month waiting period, or earlier if the patient’s commercial insurance plan coverage terminates. When Medicare becomes the primary payor, the payment rates we receive for that patient shift from the commercial insurance plan rates to Medicare payment rates, which are significantly lower than commercial insurance rates.

Medicare pays 80% of the amount set by the Medicare system for each covered dialysis treatment. The patient is responsible for the remaining 20%. In most cases, a secondary payor, such as Medicare supplemental insurance, a state Medicaid program or a commercial health plan, covers all or part of these balances. Some patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, but otherwise cannot afford secondary insurance, can apply for premium payment assistance from charitable organizations through a program offered by the American Kidney Fund. We and other dialysis providers support the American Kidney Fund and similar programs through voluntary contributions. If a patient does not have secondary insurance coverage, we are generally unsuccessful in our efforts to collect from the patient the remaining 20% portion of the ESRD composite rate that Medicare does not pay. However, we are able to recover some portion of this unpaid patient balance from Medicare through an established cost reporting process by identifying these Medicare bad debts on each center’s Medicare cost report.

Medicaid revenue

Medicaid programs are state-administered programs partially funded by the federal government. These programs are intended to provide health coverage for patients whose income and assets fall below state-defined levels and who are otherwise uninsured. These programs also serve as supplemental insurance programs for co-insurance payments due from Medicaid-eligible patients with primary coverage under the Medicare program. Some Medicaid programs also pay for additional services, including some oral medications that are not covered by Medicare. We are enrolled in the Medicaid programs in the states in which we conduct our business.

Commercial revenue

Before a patient becomes eligible to have Medicare as their primary payor for dialysis services, a patient’s commercial insurance plan, if any, is responsible for payment of such dialysis services for the first 33 months, as discussed above. Although commercial payment rates vary, average commercial payment rates established under commercial contracts are generally significantly higher than Medicare rates. The payments we receive from commercial payors generate nearly all of our profits. Payment methods from commercial payors can include a single lump-sum per treatment, referred to as bundled rates, or in other cases separate payments for dialysis treatments and pharmaceuticals, if used as part of the treatment, referred to as Fee-for-Service (FFS) rates. Commercial payment rates are the result of negotiations between us and insurers or third-party administrators. Our out-of-network payment rates are on average higher than in-network commercial contract payment rates. In 2015, we continued to enter into some commercial contracts, covering certain patients that will primarily pay us under a single bundled payment rate for all dialysis services provided to these patients. However, some of the contracts will pay us for certain other services and pharmaceuticals in addition to the bundled payment. These contracts typically contain annual price escalator provisions. We are continuously in the process of negotiating agreements with our commercial payors and if our negotiations result in overall commercial contract payment rate reductions in excess of our commercial contract payment rate increases, our revenues and operating results could be negatively impacted. In addition, if there is an increase in job losses in the U.S., or depending upon changes to the healthcare regulatory system by CMS and/or the impact of healthcare insurance exchanges, we could experience a decrease in the number of patients covered under traditional commercial insurance plans. Patients with commercial insurance who cannot otherwise maintain coverage frequently rely on financial assistance from charitable organizations, such as the American Kidney Fund. If these patients are unable to obtain or continue to receive such financial assistance, our revenues, earnings, and cash flow could be substantially reduced.

Approximately 34% of our dialysis services revenues and approximately 11% of our dialysis patients were associated with commercial payors for the year ended December 31, 2015. Commercial patients as a percentage of our total dialysis patients increased by approximately 1% in 2015 as compared to 2014. Less than 1% of our dialysis and related lab services revenues are due directly from patients. There is no single commercial payor that accounted for more than 10% of total dialysis and related lab services revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The healthcare reform legislation enacted in 2010 introduced healthcare insurance exchanges which provide a marketplace for eligible individuals and small employers to purchase healthcare insurance. Although we cannot predict the long term effects of these exchanges, we believe the healthcare insurance exchanges could ultimately result in a reduction in patients covered by traditional commercial insurance or an increase of patients covered through the exchanges under more restrictive commercial plans with lower reimbursement rates. Approximately 11 million individuals were enrolled in the exchanges in 2015, as compared to approximately eight million in 2014. To the extent that the ongoing implementation of such exchanges results in a reduction in reimbursement rates for our services from commercial and/or government payors, our operating results could be adversely affected.

Revenue from other pharmaceuticals and EPO

The impact of physician-prescribed pharmaceuticals on our overall revenues that are separately billable has significantly decreased since Medicare’s single bundled payment system went into effect beginning in January 2011, as well as some additional commercial contracts that pay us a single bundled payment rate. Approximately 2% of our total dialysis and related lab services revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to 3% in 2014, are associated with the administration of separately-billable physician-prescribed pharmaceuticals. Of this, the administration of EPO that was separately billable, accounted for approximately half of our separately billable pharmaceuticals of our dialysis and related lab services revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015. EPO is produced by a single manufacturer, Amgen USA Inc. (Amgen). Any interruption of supply or product cost increases could impact our operations.

Evaluations on the utilization and reimbursement for erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs), like EPO, which have occurred in the past and may occur in the future, and related actions by the U.S. Congress and federal agencies, could result in further restrictions on the utilization and reimbursement for ESAs. Additionally, commercial payors have also increasingly examined their administration policies for EPO and, in some cases, have modified those policies. Changes in labeling of EPO and other pharmaceuticals in a manner that alters physician practice patterns or accepted clinical practices, changes in private and governmental payment criteria, including the introduction of EPO administration policies or the conversion to alternate types of administration of EPO or other pharmaceuticals that result in further decreases in utilization of EPO for patients covered by commercial payors, which pay for pharmaceuticals separately, could have a material impact on our operating results. Further increased utilization of EPO for patients for whom the cost of EPO is included in a bundled reimbursement rate could also have a material impact on our operating results.

Physician relationships

An ESRD patient generally seeks treatment at an outpatient dialysis center near his or her home where his or her treating nephrologist has practice privileges. Our relationships with local nephrologists and our ability to meet their needs and the needs of their patients are key factors in the success of our dialysis operations. Approximately 4,900 nephrologists currently refer patients to our outpatient dialysis centers. As is typical in the dialysis industry, one or a few physicians, including the outpatient dialysis center’s medical director, usually account for all or a significant portion of an outpatient dialysis center’s patient base.

Participation in the Medicare ESRD program requires that dialysis services at an outpatient dialysis center be under the general supervision of a medical director who is a licensed physician. We have engaged physicians or groups of physicians to serve as medical directors for each of our outpatient dialysis centers. At some outpatient dialysis centers, we also separately contract with one or more other physicians to serve as assistant or associate medical directors or to direct specific programs, such as home dialysis training programs. We have approximately 950 individual physicians and physician groups under contract to provide medical director services.

Medical directors for our dialysis centers enter into written contracts with us that specify their duties and fix their compensation generally for periods of ten years. The compensation of our medical directors is the result of arm’s length negotiations and generally depends upon an analysis of various factors such as the physician’s duties, responsibilities, professional qualifications and experience, among others.

Our medical director contracts for our dialysis centers generally include covenants not to compete. Also, except as described below, when we acquire an outpatient dialysis center from one or more physicians or where one or more physicians own minority interests in our outpatient dialysis centers, these physicians have agreed to refrain from owning interests in other competing outpatient dialysis centers within a defined geographic area for various time periods. These non-compete agreements restrict the physicians from owning or providing medical director services to other outpatient dialysis centers, but do not prohibit the physicians from referring patients to any outpatient dialysis center, including competing centers. Many of these non-compete agreements continue for a period of time beyond expiration of the corresponding medical director agreements, although some expire at the same time as the medical director agreement. Occasionally, we experience competition from a new outpatient dialysis center established by a former medical director following the termination of his or her relationship with us. As part of our Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA), as described below, we also have agreed not to enforce investment non-compete restrictions relating to dialysis clinics or programs that were established pursuant to a partial divestiture joint venture transaction. Therefore, to the extent a joint venture partner or medical director has a contract(s) with us covering dialysis clinics or programs that were established pursuant to a partial divestiture, we will not enforce the investment non-compete provision relating to those clinics and/or programs.

If a significant number of physicians, including an outpatient dialysis center’s medical directors, were to cease referring patients to our outpatient dialysis centers, our business could be adversely affected.

Government regulation

Our dialysis operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local governmental regulations. These regulations require us to meet various standards relating to, among other things, government payment programs, dialysis facilities and equipment, management of centers, personnel qualifications, maintenance of proper records, and quality assurance programs and patient care.

Because we are subject to a number of governmental regulations, our business could be adversely impacted by:

· Loss or suspension of federal certifications;

· Loss or suspension of licenses under the laws of any state or governmental authority from which we generate substantial revenues;

· Exclusion from government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid;

· Significant reductions or lack of inflation-adjusted increases in payment rates or reduction of coverage for dialysis and ancillary services and related pharmaceuticals;

· Civil or criminal liability, fines, damages and monetary penalties for violations of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Physician Self-Referral law (Stark Law), the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and other violations of law or failures to meet regulatory requirements;

· Civil or criminal liability, claims for monetary damages from patients who believe their protected health information (PHI) or other confidential health information has been used or disclosed in violation of federal and state patient privacy laws;

· Mandated changes to our practices or procedures that significantly increase operating expenses; or

· Refunds of payments received from government payors and government healthcare program beneficiaries because of any failures to meet applicable requirements.

We expect that our industry will continue to be subject to substantial regulation, the scope and effect of which are difficult to predict. Our activities could be reviewed or challenged by regulatory authorities at any time in the future. This regulation and scrutiny could have a material adverse impact on us.

Licensure and certification

Our dialysis centers are certified by CMS, as is required for the receipt of Medicare payments. In some states, our outpatient dialysis centers also are required to secure additional state licenses and permits. Governmental authorities, primarily state departments of health, periodically inspect our centers to determine if we satisfy applicable federal and state standards and requirements, including the conditions of participation in the Medicare ESRD program.

To date, we have not experienced significant difficulty in maintaining our licenses or enrolling in state Medicaid programs. However, we have experienced some delays in obtaining Medicare certifications from CMS.

Federal Anti-Kickback Statute

The federal Anti-Kickback statute contained in the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended (Anti-Kickback Statute), prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, or order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Federal criminal penalties for the violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute include imprisonment, fines and exclusion of the provider from future participation in the federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and fines of up to $25,000 or both. Larger fines can be imposed upon corporations under the provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the Alternate Fines Statute. Individuals and entities convicted of violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are subject to mandatory exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs for a minimum of five years. Civil penalties for violation of this law include up to $50,000 in monetary penalties per violation, repayments of up to three times the total payments between the parties and suspension

from future participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Court decisions have held that the statute may be violated even if only one purpose of remuneration is to induce referrals. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Health Reform Acts) amended the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to clarify the intent that is required to prove a violation. Under the statute as amended, the defendant need not have known of the existence of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or had the specific intent to violate it. In addition, the Health Reform Acts amended the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that any claims submitted from an arrangement that violates the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false for purposes of the FCA.

The Anti-Kickback Statute includes statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors that protect certain arrangements. Business transactions and arrangements that are structured to comply fully with an applicable safe harbor do not violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. However, transactions and arrangements that do not satisfy all elements of a relevant safe harbor do not necessarily violate the law. When an arrangement does not satisfy a safe harbor, the arrangement must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of the parties’ intent and the arrangement’s potential for abuse. Arrangements that do not satisfy a safe harbor may be subject to greater scrutiny by enforcement agencies.

We enter into several arrangements with physicians that potentially implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute. These arrangements include:

Medical Director Agreements. Because our medical directors refer patients to our dialysis centers, our arrangements with these physicians are designed to substantially comply with the safe harbor for personal service arrangements. Although the Medical Director Agreements we enter into with physicians substantially comply with the safe harbor for personal service arrangements, including the requirement that compensation be consistent with fair market value, the safe harbor requires that when services are provided on a part-time basis, the agreement must specify the schedule of intervals of services, and their precise length and the exact charge for such services. Because of the nature of our medical directors’ duties, it is impossible to fully satisfy this technical element of the safe harbor. We believe that our fair market value arrangements with physicians who serve as medical directors do not violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; however, these arrangements could be subject to scrutiny since they do not expressly describe the schedule of part-time services to be provided under the arrangement.

Joint Ventures. We own a controlling interest in numerous U.S. dialysis related joint ventures. For the year ended December 31, 2015, these joint ventures represented approximately 23% of our dialysis and related lab services revenues. We may continue to increase the number of our joint ventures. Our relationships with physicians and other referral sources relating to these joint ventures do not fully satisfy the safe harbor for investments in small entities. Although failure to comply with a safe harbor does not render an arrangement illegal under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, an arrangement that does not operate within a safe harbor may be subject to scrutiny and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has warned in the past that certain joint venture relationships have a potential for abuse. Based upon the foregoing, physician joint ventures that fall outside the safe harbors are not, by definition, prohibited by law. Instead, such joint ventures require case-by-case evaluation under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

In this regard, we have structured our joint ventures to satisfy as many elements of the safe harbor for investments in small entities as we believe are commercially reasonable. For example, we believe that these investments are offered and made by us on a fair market value basis and provide returns to the investors in proportion to their actual investment in the venture. We believe that our joint venture arrangements do not violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; however, since the arrangements do not satisfy all of the requirements of an applicable safe harbor, these arrangements could be subject to challenge on the ground that they are intended to induce patient referrals. In that regard, we were subject to investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the OIG related to our relationships with physicians, including our joint ventures, and whether those relationships and joint ventures comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the FCA. In October 2014, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the United States and relator David Barbetta to resolve the then pending 2010 and 2011 U.S. Attorney physician relationship investigations. In connection with the resolution of this matter, and in exchange for the OIG’s agreement not to exclude us from participating in the federal healthcare programs, we have entered into a five-year CIA with the OIG.

Lease Arrangements. We lease space for numerous dialysis centers from entities in which physicians, hospitals or medical groups hold ownership interests, and we sublease space to referring physicians at approximately 270 of our dialysis centers as of December 31, 2015. These arrangements comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor for space rentals in all material respects. Therefore, we believe that these lease arrangements should not be subject to challenge under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

Common Stock. Some medical directors and other referring physicians may own our common stock. We believe that these interests materially satisfy the requirements of the Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor for investments in large publicly traded companies. Therefore, we believe that these investments should not be subject to challenge under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

Discounts. Our dialysis centers sometimes acquire certain items and services that may be reimbursed by a federal healthcare program at a discount. We believe that our vendor contracts that include discount or rebate provisions are in compliance with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor for discounts, and accordingly, we believe that our discounted vendor contracts should not be subject to challenge under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

If any of our business transactions or arrangements, including those described above, were found to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, we could face criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other state and federal healthcare programs. Any findings that we have violated these laws could have a material adverse impact on our operations.

Stark Law

The federal Physician Self-Referral law, known as the Stark Law, prohibits a physician who has a financial relationship, or who has an immediate family member who has a financial relationship, with entities providing Designated Health Services (DHS), from referring Medicare patients to such entities for the furnishing DHS, unless an exception applies. DHS includes enumerated items and services, including home health services, outpatient prescription drugs, inpatient and outpatient hospital services and clinical laboratory services. The Stark Law also prohibits the DHS entity receiving a prohibited referral from filing a claim or billing for the services arising out of the prohibited referral. The prohibition applies regardless of the reasons for the financial relationship and the referral; unlike the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, intent to induce referrals is not required. Sanctions for violation of the Stark Law include denial of payment for claims for services provided in violation of the prohibition, refunds of amounts collected in violation of the prohibition, a civil penalty of up to $15,000 for each service arising out of the prohibited referral, exclusion from the federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and a civil penalty of up to $100,000 against parties that enter into a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law prohibition. Furthermore, Stark Law violations can form the basis for FCA liability as discussed below. The types of financial arrangements between a physician and a DHS entity that trigger the self-referral prohibitions of the Stark Law are broad and include direct and indirect ownership and investment interests and compensation arrangements.

The definition of DHS under the Stark Law excludes services paid under a composite rate, even if some of the components bundled in the composite rate are DHS, unless the DHS services are themselves payable through a composite rate. Although the new ESRD bundled payment system is no longer titled a composite rate, we believe that the former composite rate payment system and the current bundled system are both composite systems excluded from the Stark Law. Since most services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries provided in our dialysis centers are reimbursed through a composite or bundled rate, the services performed in our facilities generally are not DHS, and the Stark Law referral prohibition does not apply to those services. Likewise, the definition of inpatient hospital services, for purposes of the Stark Law, also excludes inpatient dialysis performed in hospitals that are not certified to provide ESRD services. Consequently, our arrangements with such hospitals for the provision of dialysis services to hospital inpatients do not trigger the Stark Law referral prohibition.

In addition, although prescription drugs are DHS, there is an exception in the Stark Law for EPO and other specifically enumerated dialysis drugs when furnished in or by an ESRD facility, in compliance with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and applicable billing requirements. The exception is available only for drugs included on a list of CPT/HCPCS codes published by CMS, and in the case of home dialysis, the exception applies only to EPO, Aranesp^® and equivalent drugs dispensed by the facility for use at home. While we believe that most drugs furnished by our dialysis centers are covered by the exception, dialysis centers may administer drugs that are not on the list of CPT/HCPCS codes and therefore do not meet this exception. In order for a physician who has a financial relationship with a dialysis center to order one of these drugs from the center and for the center to obtain Medicare reimbursement, another exception must apply.

We have entered into several types of financial relationships with referring physicians, including compensation arrangements. If an arrangement does not meet a Stark Law exception, we could in the future be required to change our practices, face civil penalties, pay substantial fines, return certain payments received from Medicare and beneficiaries or otherwise experience a material adverse effect as a result of a challenge to payments made pursuant to referrals from these physicians under the Stark Law.

Medical Director Agreements. We believe that our medical director agreements satisfy the personal services arrangement exception to the Stark Law. While we believe that the compensation provisions included in our medical director agreements are the result of arm’s length negotiations and result in fair market value payments for medical director services, an enforcement agency could nevertheless challenge the level of compensation that we pay our medical directors.

Lease Agreements. Some of our dialysis centers are leased from entities in which referring physicians hold interests and we sublease space to referring physicians at some of our dialysis centers. The Stark Law provides an exception for lease arrangements if specific requirements are met. We believe that our leases and subleases with referring physicians satisfy the requirements for this exception.

Common Stock. Some medical directors and other referring physicians may own our common stock. We believe that these interests satisfy the Stark Law exception for investments in large publicly traded companies.

Joint Ventures. Some of our referring physicians also own equity interests in entities that operate our dialysis centers. None of the Stark Law exceptions applicable to physician ownership interests in entities to which they make DHS referrals apply to the kinds of ownership arrangements that referring physicians hold in several of our subsidiaries that operate dialysis centers. Accordingly, these dialysis centers do not bill Medicare for DHS referrals from physician owners. If the dialysis centers bill for DHS referred by physician owners, the dialysis center would be subject to the Stark Law penalties described above.

While we believe that most of our operations do not implicate the Stark Law, particularly under the ESRD bundled payment system, and that to the extent that our dialysis centers furnish DHS, they either meet an exception or do not bill for services that do not meet a Stark Law exception, if CMS determined that we have submitted claims in violation to the Stark Law, we would be subject to the penalties described above. In addition, it might be necessary to restructure existing compensation agreements with our medical directors and to repurchase or to request the sale of ownership interests in subsidiaries and partnerships held by referring physicians or, alternatively, to refuse to accept referrals for DHS from these physicians. Any such penalties and restructuring could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Fraud and abuse under state law

Many states in which we operate dialysis centers have statutes prohibiting physicians from holding financial interests in various types of medical facilities to which they refer patients. Some of these statutes could potentially be interpreted broadly as prohibiting physicians who hold shares of our publicly traded stock from referring patients to our dialysis centers if the centers use our laboratory subsidiary to perform laboratory services for their patients. Some states also have laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that may affect our ability to receive referrals from physicians with whom we have financial relationships, such as our medical directors. Some state Anti-Kickback Statutes also include civil and criminal penalties. Some of these statutes include exemptions applicable to our medical directors and other physician relationships or for financial interests limited to shares of publicly traded stock. Some, however, include no explicit exemption for medical director services or other services for which we contract with and compensate referring physicians or for joint ownership interests of the type held by some of our referring physicians or for financial interests limited to shares of publicly traded stock. If these statutes are interpreted to apply to referring physicians with whom we contract for medical director and similar services, to referring physicians with whom we hold joint ownership interests or to physicians who hold interests in DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. limited solely to our publicly traded stock, we may be required to terminate or restructure some or all of our relationships with or refuse referrals from these referring physicians and could be subject to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, refund requirements and exclusions from government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Such events could negatively affect the decision of referring physicians to refer patients to our centers.

The False Claims Act

The FCA is a means of policing false bills or false requests for payment in the healthcare delivery system. In part, the FCA authorizes the imposition of up to three times the government’s damages and civil penalties on any person who:

· Knowingly presents or causes to be presented to the federal government, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

· Knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the federal government;

· Conspires to defraud the federal government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid; or

· Knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government.

In addition, amendments to the FCA impose severe penalties for the knowing and improper retention of overpayments collected from government payors. Under these provisions, within 60 days of identifying an overpayment, a provider is required to notify CMS or the Medicare Administrative Contractor of the overpayment and the reason for it and return the overpayment. As a result of these provisions, our procedures for identifying and processing overpayments may be subject to greater scrutiny. We have made significant investments to accelerate the time it takes us to identify and process overpayments and we may be required to make additional investments in the future. Acceleration in our ability to identify and process overpayments could result in us refunding overpayments to government or other payors sooner than we have in the past. A significant acceleration of these refunds could have a material adverse effect on our operating cash flows.

The penalties for a violation of the FCA range from $5,500 to $11,000 (adjusted for inflation) for each false claim, plus up to three times the amount of damages caused by each false claim, which is generally equal to the amounts received directly or indirectly

from the government for each such false claim. The federal government has used the FCA to prosecute a wide variety of alleged false claims and fraud allegedly perpetrated against Medicare and state healthcare programs, including coding errors, billing for services not rendered, the submission of false cost reports, billing for services at a higher payment rate than appropriate, billing under a comprehensive code as well as under one or more component codes included in the comprehensive code and billing for care that is not considered medically necessary. The Health Reform Acts provide that claims tainted by a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false for purposes of the FCA. Some courts have held that filing claims or failing to refund amounts collected in violation of the Stark Law can form the basis for liability under the FCA. In addition to the provisions of the FCA, which provide for civil enforcement, the federal government can use several criminal statutes to prosecute persons who are alleged to have submitted false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.

Privacy and Security

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing privacy and security regulations, as amended by the federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), (collectively referred to as HIPAA), require us to provide certain protections to patients and their health information. The HIPAA privacy and security regulations extensively regulate the use and disclosure of PHI and require covered entities, which include healthcare providers, to implement and maintain administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the security of such information. Additional security requirements apply to electronic PHI. These regulations also provide patients with substantive rights with respect to their health information.

The HIPAA privacy and security regulations also require our centers to impose compliance obligations by written agreement on certain contractors, known as business associates, to whom they disclose PHI. Covered entities may be subject to penalties as a result of a business associate violating HIPAA if the business associate is found to be an agent of the covered entity. Business associates are also directly subject to liability under the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. In instances where our centers act as a business associate to a covered entity, there is the potential for additional liability beyond the center’s covered entity status.

Covered entities must report breaches of unsecured PHI to affected individuals without unreasonable delay but not to exceed 60 days of discovery of the breach by a covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. HHS is required to publish on its website a list of all covered entities that report a breach involving more than 500 individuals. All non-permitted uses or disclosures of unsecured PHI are presumed to be breaches unless the covered entity or business associate establishes that there is a low probability the information has been compromised. Various state laws and regulations may also require us to notify affected individuals in the event of a data breach involving individually identifiable information without regard to whether there is a low probability of the information being compromised.

Penalties for impermissible use or disclosure of PHI were increased by the HITECH Act by imposing tiered penalties of up to $50,000 per violation and up to $1.5 million per year for the same type of violation. In addition, HIPAA provides for criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and ten years in prison, with the severest penalties for obtaining and disclosing PHI with the intent to sell, transfer or use such information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm. Further, state attorneys general may bring civil actions seeking either injunction or damages in response to violations of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations that threaten the privacy of state residents. We believe our HIPAA Privacy and Security Program sufficiently addresses HIPAA requirements.

Healthcare reform

In March 2010, broad healthcare reform legislation was enacted in the U.S. Although many of the provisions of the legislation did not take effect immediately and continue to be implemented, and some have been and may be modified before or during their implementation, the reforms could have an impact on our business in a number of ways. We cannot predict how employers, private payors or persons buying insurance might react to these changes or what form many of these regulations will take before implementation.

The law requires that all non-grandfathered individual and small group health plans sold in a state, including plans sold through the state-based exchanges created pursuant to the healthcare reform laws, cover essential health benefits (EHBs) in ten general categories. The scope of the benefits is intended to equal the scope of benefits under a typical employer plan.

In December 2011, the CMS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight published an Essential Health Benefits Bulletin (EHB Bulletin) describing the approach it was taking regarding the implementation of the EHB Bulletin requirement. For the two year transition period (from 2014 through 2015) the law required states to define an EHB benchmark plan that would set the general standards for the EHB that must be covered by plans in the state, subject to certain overarching federal requirements. States that did not define an EHB benchmark plan must use the small group plan with the largest enrollment in the state.

On February 25, 2013, for example, HHS issued the final rule governing the standards applicable to EHB benchmark plans, new definitions, actuarial value requirements and methodology, and published a list of plan benchmark options that states can use to develop EHBs. The rule describes specific coverage requirements that (i) prohibit discrimination against individuals because of pre-existing or chronic conditions on health plans applicable to EHBs, (ii) ensure network adequacy of essential health providers, and (iii) prohibit benefit designs that limit enrollment and that prohibit access to care for enrollees. Subsequent regulations relevant to the EHB have continued the benchmark plan approach for 2016 and future years and have implemented clarifications and modifications to the existing EHB regulations, including the prohibition on discrimination, network adequacy standards and other requirements. In recent years, CMS has issued an annual Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters rulemaking and related guidance setting for standards for insurance plans provided through the exchanges.

Other aspects of the 2010 healthcare reform laws may affect our business, as well, including changes affecting the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Other regulations

Our dialysis and related lab services operations are subject to various state hazardous waste and non-hazardous medical waste disposal laws. These laws do not classify as hazardous most of the waste produced from dialysis services. Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations require employers to provide workers who are occupationally subject to blood or other potentially infectious materials with prescribed protections. These regulatory requirements apply to all healthcare facilities, including dialysis centers, and require employers to make a determination as to which employees may be exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials and to have in effect a written exposure control plan. In addition, employers are required to provide or employ hepatitis B vaccinations, personal protective equipment and other safety devices, infection control training, post-exposure evaluation and follow-up, waste disposal techniques and procedures and work practice controls. Employers are also required to comply with various record-keeping requirements. We believe that we are in material compliance with these laws and regulations.

A few states have certificate of need programs regulating the establishment or expansion of healthcare facilities, including dialysis centers. We believe that we are in material compliance with all applicable state certificate of need laws.

Capacity and location of our U.S. dialysis centers

Typically we are able to increase our capacity by extending hours at our existing dialysis centers, expanding our existing dialysis centers, relocating our dialysis centers, developing new dialysis centers and by acquiring dialysis centers. The development of a typical outpatient dialysis center by us generally requires approximately $2.8 million for leasehold improvements, equipment and first-year working capital. Based on our experience, a new outpatient dialysis center typically opens within a year after the property lease is signed, normally achieves operating profitability in the second year after Medicare certification and normally reaches maturity within three to five years. Acquiring an existing outpatient dialysis center requires a substantially greater initial investment, but profitability and cash flows are generally accelerated and more predictable. To a limited extent, we enter into agreements to provide management and administrative services to outpatient dialysis centers in which we either own a minority equity investment, or are wholly-owned by third parties in return for management fees, which are typically based on a percentage of revenues or cash collections of the managed center’s operations.

The table below shows the growth of our U.S. dialysis operations by number of dialysis centers.

	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Number of centers at beginning of year		2,179			2,074			1,954			1,809			1,612
Acquired centers		6			18			26			93			170		⁽¹⁾
Developed centers		72			105			98			70			65
Net change in centers with management and administrative services agreements*		2			—			4			(8	)		1
Sold and closed centers**		(3	)		(2	)		(5	)		(1	)		(32	)	⁽¹⁾
Closed centers***		(5	)		(16	)		(3	)		(9	)		(7	)
Number of centers at end of year		2,251			2,179			2,074			1,954			1,809

(1) In 2011, we acquired 113 dialysis centers and divested a total of 30 centers in connection with our acquisition of DSI Renal Inc. (DSI).

* Represents dialysis centers in which we either own a minority equity investment, or are wholly-owned by third parties.

** Represents dialysis centers that were sold and/or closed for which patients were not retained.

*** Represents dialysis centers that were closed for which the majority of patients were retained and transferred to one of our other existing outpatient dialysis centers.

As of December 31, 2015, we operated or provided administrative services to a total of 2,251 U.S. outpatient dialysis centers. A total of 2,220 of such centers are consolidated in our financial statements. Of the remaining 31 unconsolidated U.S. outpatient dialysis centers, we own a minority equity investment in 22 centers and provide management and administrative services to nine centers that are wholly-owned by third parties. The locations of the 2,220 U.S. outpatient dialysis centers consolidated in our financial statements at December 31, 2015 were as follows:

State	Centers		State	Centers		State	Centers
California		259	Minnesota		50	Nebraska		15
Texas		199	New Jersey		50	Massachusetts		12
Florida		169	Wisconsin		40	Mississippi		11
Georgia		123	Colorado		37	District of Columbia		10
Ohio		115	Oklahoma		36	Idaho		9
Pennsylvania		102	Louisiana		35	West Virginia		8
Illinois		85	South Carolina		35	New Mexico		5
Michigan		77	Kentucky		34	New Hampshire		4
North Carolina		69	Washington		34	Utah		4
Virginia		65	Arkansas		33	Maine		3
Maryland		60	Arizona		26	South Dakota		3
Indiana		59	Iowa		26	North Dakota		2
Missouri		56	Kansas		26	Montana		1
Alabama		55	Connecticut		25	Rhode Island		1
New York		55	Oregon		24
Tennessee		54	Nevada		19

Ancillary services and strategic initiatives businesses, including our international operations

As of December 31, 2015, our ancillary services and strategic initiatives consisted primarily of pharmacy services, disease management services, vascular access services, clinical research, physician services, direct primary care and our international dialysis operations. Our ancillary services and strategic initiatives, including our international operations, accounted for approximately 10.0% of our consolidated net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015, and relate primarily to our core business of providing kidney care services.

Ancillary services and strategic initiatives consist primarily of the following as of December 31, 2015:

· Pharmacy services. DaVita Rx is a pharmacy that specializes in providing oral medications and medication management services to patients with ESRD and other chronic diseases. The main objective of the pharmacy is to improve clinical outcomes and reduce total healthcare costs by facilitating increased patient compliance and to provide our patients a convenient way to fill their prescription needs. Revenues are recognized as prescriptions are filled and shipped to patients or when services are completed.

· Disease management services. VillageHealth provides advanced care management services to health plans and government agencies for employees/members diagnosed with ESRD and/or CKD. Through a combination of clinical coordination, medical claims analysis and information technology, we endeavor to assist our customers and patients in obtaining superior renal healthcare and improved clinical outcomes, as well as helping to reduce overall medical costs. Revenues are typically based upon an established contract fee and are recognized as earned over the contract period and can include additional fees for cost savings recognized by certain customers. In 2015, VillageHealth operated Medicare Advantage ESRD Special Needs Plans in partnership with two payors that work with CMS to provide ESRD patients full service healthcare. We are at risk for all medical costs of the program in excess of the capitation payments. Furthermore, in October 2015, VillageHealth entered into a management service agreement to support three ESCO joint ventures in which the Company is an investor through certain wholly- or majority-owned dialysis clinics. The ESCOs were formed under the Innovation Center’s CEC Model to demonstrate the coordination of care for ESRD patients in a dialysis-center oriented ACO setting. Each ESCO joint venture has a shared risk arrangement with CMS for this program.

· Vascular access services. Lifeline provides management and administrative services to physician-owned vascular access clinics that provide vascular services for dialysis and other patients. Lifeline is also the majority-owner of nine vascular access clinics and wholly-owns one vascular access clinic. Management fees generated from providing management and administrative services are recognized as earned typically based on a percentage of revenues or cash collections generated by the clinics. Revenues associated with the vascular access clinics that are majority-owned are recognized in the period when the services are provided.

· Clinical research programs. DaVita Clinical Research (DCR) is a provider-based specialty clinical research organization with a full spectrum of services for clinical drug research and device development. DCR uses its extensive, applied database and real-world healthcare experience to assist in the design, recruitment and completion of retrospective, prospective pragmatic and clinical trials. Revenues are based upon an established fee per study, as determined by contract with drug companies and other sponsors and are recognized as earned according to the contract terms.

· Physician services. Nephrology Practice Solutions (NPS) is an independent business that partners with physicians committed to providing outstanding clinical and integrated care to patients. NPS provides nephrologist employment opportunities in select markets and offers physician practice management services to nephrologists under administrative services agreements. These services include physician practice management, billing and collections, credentialing, coding, and other support services that enable physician practices to increase efficiency and manage their administrative needs. Fees generated from these services are recognized as earned typically based upon flat fees or cash collections generated by the physician practice. NPS also provides leading nephrology recruitment and staffing services which are billed on a per search basis.

· Direct primary care. Paladina Health is a healthcare services organization that operates membership-based primary care clinics mainly through employer-based on-site and near-site clinics. The clinics offer patients more personalized and improved access to primary care physicians, including unlimited visits and same-day or next-day appointments. Physicians focus on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Revenues are recognized over the membership period.

International dialysis operations

As of December 31, 2015, we operated or provided administrative services to a total of 118 outpatient dialysis centers located in ten countries outside of the U.S., serving approximately 10,000 patients. Our international dialysis operations continue to grow steadily and expand as a result of developing and acquiring outpatient dialysis centers in various strategic markets. However, our overall net revenues generated from our international operations represented approximately 1% of our consolidated net revenues during 2015. Our international operations are included as a component of our ancillary services and strategic initiatives. The table below summarizes the number and locations of our international outpatient dialysis centers.

	2015			2014			2013			2012
Number of centers at beginning of year		91			73			36			11
Acquired centers		21			9			38			13
Developed and hospital operated centers		7			11			2			9
Managed centers, net		(1	)		—			—			3
Closed centers		—			(2	)		(3	)		—
Number of centers at end of year		118			91			73			36

The locations of our international outpatient dialysis centers are as follows:

Malaysia			38
Germany			20
Colombia			15
India			13
Saudi Arabia			10
Poland			8
Portugal			5
Taiwan			5
China			3
Singapore			1
			118

Corporate Administrative Support

Corporate administrative support consists primarily of labor, benefits and long-term incentive compensation costs for departments which provide support to all of our different operating lines of business. Corporate administrative support costs were approximately $19 million, $13 million and $53 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These expenses are included in our consolidated general and administrative expenses and are offset by the allocation of management fees. The increase in corporate administrative support costs in 2015 as compared to 2014 was due to an increase in professional fees.

HealthCare Partners Division

HealthCare Partners business overview

HCP is a patient- and physician-focused integrated healthcare delivery and management company with over two decades of experience providing coordinated, outcomes-based medical care in a cost-effective manner. As of December 31, 2015, HCP had approximately 807,400 members under its care in southern California, Colorado, central and south Florida, southern Nevada, central New Mexico and central Arizona through capitation contracts with some of the nation’s leading health plans. Of these members, approximately 317,400 individuals were patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and the remaining approximately 490,000 individuals were managed care members whose health coverage is provided through their employer or who have individually acquired health coverage directly from a health plan or as a result of their eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

HCP patients as well as the patients of HCP’s associated physicians, physician groups and IPAs benefit from an integrated approach to medical care that places the physician at the center of patient care. As of December 31, 2015, HCP delivered services to its members via a network of 547 associated group full-time primary care physicians, over 2,900 associated group and other network primary care physicians, 240 network hospitals, and several thousand associated group and network specialists. Together with hundreds of case managers, registered nurses and other care coordinators, these medical professionals utilize a comprehensive information technology system, sophisticated risk management techniques and clinical protocols to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to HCP’s members.

U.S. healthcare spending has increased steadily over the past twenty years. These increases have been driven, in part, by the aging of the baby boomer generation, lack of healthy lifestyle both in terms of exercise and diet, rapidly increasing costs in medical technology and pharmaceutical research, and provider reimbursement structures that may promote volume over quality in a FFS environment. These factors, as well as the steady growth of the U.S. population, have made the healthcare industry a growing market. In 2014, CMS reported that healthcare accounted for 17.5% of the U.S. economy and healthcare spending increased 5.3% to reach $3.0 trillion. Medicare spending grew 5.5% to $620 billion in 2014 or 20% of National Health Expenditures, according to CMS. Medicare outlays accounted for 14% of the Federal Budget in 2014 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Medicare is frequently the focus of discussions on how to moderate the growth of both federal spending and healthcare spending in the U.S.

Growth in Medicare spending is expected to continue due to population demographics. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the overall U.S. population grew 57% from 1970 through 2015, while the number of Medicare enrollees grew by 157% from 1970 to 2013 based on the latest publicly available CMS data. As an increasing number of the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, the senior market is expected to be 20% of the total U.S. population by 2030 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Medicare Advantage is an alternative to the traditional FFS Medicare program, which permits Medicare beneficiaries to receive benefits from a managed care health plan. Medicare Advantage plans contract with CMS to provide benefits that are at least comparable to those offered under the traditional FFS Medicare program in exchange for a fixed monthly premium payment per member from CMS. The monthly premium varies based on the county in which the member resides, as adjusted to reflect the plan members’ demographics and the members’ risk scores. Individuals who elect to participate in the Medicare Advantage program typically receive greater benefits than traditional FFS Medicare Part B beneficiaries, including additional preventive services, vision, dental and prescription drug benefits, and often have lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional FFS Medicare.

Managed care health plans were developed, primarily during the 1980s, in an attempt to mitigate the rising cost of providing healthcare benefits to populations covered by traditional health insurance. These managed care health plans enroll members through their employers. As a result of the prevalence of these health plans, many seniors now becoming eligible for Medicare have been interacting with managed care companies through their employers for the last 30 years. Individuals turning 65 now are likely to be far more familiar with the managed care setting than previous Medicare populations. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2014, Medicare Advantage represents only 31% of total Medicare members, creating a significant opportunity for additional Medicare Advantage penetration of newly eligible seniors.

In an effort to reduce the number of uninsured and to begin to control healthcare expenditures, President Obama signed the Health Reform Acts into law in March 2010, which were affirmed, in substantial part, by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2012. The Health Reform Acts provide for a reduction of up to 27 million uninsured individuals by 2019, while potentially increasing Medicaid coverage by up to 15 million individuals. CMS projects that the total number of uninsured Americans will fall to 23 million in 2023 from 45 million in 2012. These previously uninsured Americans and potentially newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries represent a significant new market opportunity for health plans. We believe that health plans looking to cover these newly eligible individuals under fixed premium arrangements will seek provider arrangements that can effectively manage the cost and quality of the care being provided to these newly eligible individuals.

In 2006, Medicare began to pay Medicare Advantage health plans under a bidding process. Plans bid against county-level benchmarks established by Medicare based on the prior year’s Medicare Advantage county payment rate and increased by the projected national growth rate in per capita Medicare spending. Those payment rates were at least as high as per capita FFS Medicare

spending in each county and often substantially higher because Congress set floors to raise the lowest rates to stimulate plan growth in areas where plans historically had not found it profitable to enter. If a plan’s bid is higher than the benchmark, enrollees pay the difference in the form of a monthly premium. If the bid is lower than the benchmark, the Medicare program retains 25% of the difference as savings and the plan receives 75% of the difference as a rebate, which must be returned to enrollees in the form of additional benefits or reduced premiums. Plan payments are also adjusted based on enrollees’ risk profiles. The formula for base payment is a combination of the base rate for the enrollee’s county of residence, multiplied by the enrollee’s risk score.

One of the primary ways in which the Health Reform Acts will fund increased health insurance coverage is through cuts in Medicare Advantage reimbursement. County benchmarks are transitioning to a system in which each county’s benchmark in 2017 will be a certain percentage (ranging from 95% to 115%) of FFS. In a March 2015 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) estimated that 2016 Medicare Advantage benchmarks, bids, and payments would average 107%, 94%, and 102% of FFS spending, respectively.

Despite the fact that the plan bids average less than FFS spending, payments for enrollees in these plans usually exceed FFS spending because the benchmarks are high relative to FFS spending. For example, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) as a group bid an average of 90% of FFS spending, yet 2015 payments for HMO enrollees are estimated to average 101% of FFS spending because the benchmarks, including the quality bonuses, average 106% of FFS spending.

As a result of the above, plans would generally have to bid significantly lower than FFS or the Medicare Advantage benchmark for CMS to begin to save money on Medicare Advantage. As a result of the transition of county benchmarks from 95% to 115% of FFS, Medicare Advantage benchmarks on average are expected to be reduced to parity with FFS by 2017. Given that CMS will retain 25% of the difference of any plans bid below benchmark, the overall Medicare Advantage program should realize savings as compared to FFS in 2017, which would result in lower payments to Medicare Advantage plans and to HCP.

Many health plans recognize both the opportunity for growth from senior members as well as the potential risks and costs associated with managing additional senior members. In regions operated by HCP and numerous other markets, many health plans subcontract a significant portion of the responsibility for managing patient care to integrated medical systems such as HCP. These integrated healthcare systems, whether medical groups or IPAs, offer a comprehensive medical delivery system and sophisticated care management know-how and infrastructure to more efficiently provide for the healthcare needs of the population enrolled with that health plan. While reimbursement models for these arrangements vary around the country, health plans in California, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona often prospectively pay the integrated healthcare system a fixed Per Member Per Month (PMPM) amount, or capitation payment, which is often based on a percentage of the amount received by the health plan. The capitation payment is for much—and sometimes virtually all—of the care needs of the applicable membership. Capitation payments to integrated healthcare systems, in the aggregate, represent a prospective budget from which the system manages care-related expenses on behalf of the population enrolled with that system. To the extent that these systems manage care-related expenses under the capitated levels, the system realizes an operating profit. On the other hand, if care-related expenses exceed projected levels, the system will realize an operating deficit. Since premiums paid represent a significant amount per person, there is a significant revenue opportunity for an integrated medical system like HCP that is able to effectively manage its costs under a capitated arrangement.

Integrated medical systems, such as HCP, that have scale are positioned to spread an individual member’s cost experience across a wider population and realize the benefits of pooling medical risk among large numbers of patients. In addition, integrated medical systems with years of managed care experience can utilize their sizeable medical experience data to identify specific medical care and quality management strategies and interventions for potential high cost cases and aggressively manage them to improve the health of its population base and, thus, lower cost. Many integrated medical systems, like HCP, have also established physician performance metrics that allow them to monitor quality and service outcomes achieved by participating physicians in order to reward efficient, high quality care delivered to members and initiate improvement efforts for physicians whose results can be enhanced.

Healthcare reform

The U.S. healthcare system, including the Medicare Advantage program, is subject to a broad array of new laws and regulations as a result of the Health Reform Acts. This legislation made significant changes to the Medicare program and to the health insurance market overall. The Health Reform Acts are considered by some to be the most dramatic change to the U.S. healthcare system in decades. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the individual mandate to obtain health insurance coverage under this legislation is constitutional and also found that the expanded Medicaid benefit included in the legislation is constitutional if states can opt out of the expanded Medicaid benefit without losing their funding under the pre-reform Medicaid program. In a separate, subsequent case, the U.S. Supreme Court also upheld the use of subsidies to individuals in federally-facilitated healthcare exchanges, rejecting an argument that such subsidies would apply only in the state-run healthcare exchanges.

The Health Reform Acts reflect sweeping legislation that, once fully implemented, may have a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system generally and the operations of HCP’s business. There are numerous steps required to implement the Health Reform Acts, and implementation remains ongoing. Congress also has enacted, and may continue to seek, legislative changes that alter, delay, or eliminate some of their provisions. For example, under the 2016 Omnibus budget agreement, Congress voted to delay certain new

taxes that the Health Reform Acts had enacted, including the excise tax on certain high-cost health plans, the medical device tax, and the tax on health insurers. These and other changes contribute to the uncertainty of the ongoing implementation and impact of the Health Reform Acts; they also underscore the potential for additional reform going forward.

One provision of the Health Reform Acts required CMS to establish a Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) that promotes accountability and coordination of care through the creation of ACOs. The program allows certain providers and suppliers (including hospitals, physicians and other designated professionals) to voluntarily form ACOs and work together along with other ACO participants to invest in infrastructure and redesign delivery processes to achieve high quality and efficient delivery of services. In 2014, HCP entered into an agreement with CMS to participate in the MSSP in California, Florida and Nevada. Under this program, HCP is striving to attain improved clinical outcomes to its Medicare FFS patients in a more cost-effective manner, and will have the opportunity to share with CMS in any financial savings created.

Payor environment

Government programs

HCP derives a significant portion of its revenues from services rendered to beneficiaries of Medicare (including Medicare Advantage), Medicaid, and other governmental healthcare programs.

Medicare. The Medicare program was established in 1965 and became effective in 1967 as a federally funded U.S. health insurance program for persons aged 65 and older, and it was later expanded to include individuals with ESRD and certain disabled persons, regardless of income or age. Since its formation, Medicare has grown to an approximately $620 billion program in 2014, covering approximately 55 million Americans and, based on the growing number of eligible beneficiaries and increases in the cost of healthcare, CBO projects that net Medicare spending will increase from $527 billion in 2015 to $866 billion in 2024.

Initially, Medicare was offered only on a FFS basis. Under the Medicare FFS payment system, an individual can choose any licensed physician enrolled in Medicare and use the services of any hospital, healthcare provider or facility certified by Medicare. CMS reimburses providers for covered services if CMS considers them medically necessary.

FFS Medicare pays for physician services according to a physician fee schedule (PFS) set each year by CMS in accordance with formulas mandated by Congress. Historically, CMS annually adjusted the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (Medicare PFS) payment rates based on an updated formula that included application of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). On April 1, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, which provided for a 0% update to the 2015 Medicare PFS through March 31, 2015. Subsequently, on April 16, 2015, President Obama signed and enacted into law H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, which, among other things, repealed the SGR and instituted a 0% update to the single conversion factor under the Medicare PFS from January 1 through June 30, 2015, a 0.5% update for July 2015 through the end of 2019, and a 0% update for 2020 through 2025. For 2026 and subsequent years, the update will be either 0.75% or 0.25%, depending on which Alternate Payment Model (APM) the physician participates. Given that the payment updates for APMs have yet to take effect, we cannot determine the impact of such payment models on our business at this time.

In addition, in recent years, Congress has enacted various laws seeking to reduce the federal debt level and contain healthcare expenditures. For example, the BCA called for the establishment of a Joint Select Committee (the Committee) on Deficit Reduction, tasked with reducing the federal debt level. However, because the Committee did not draft a proposal by the BCA’s deadline, President Obama issued an initial sequestration order on March 1, 2013 that imposed automatic spending cuts on various federal programs. Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and a bill signed by the President on February 15, 2014, sequestration has been extended through fiscal year 2024. Medicare payments to providers are subject to such cuts, although the BCA generally limited the Medicare cuts to two percent. For fiscal year 2024, however, Medicare sequestration amounts will be realigned such that there will be a 4.0 percent sequester for the first six months and a zero percent sequester for the second six months.

The instability of the federal budget may lead to legislation that could result in further cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments to providers. In recent years, the government has enacted a patchwork of appropriations legislation to temporarily suspend the debt ceiling and continue government operations. The Medicare program is frequently mentioned as a target for spending cuts. Spending cuts to the Medicare program could adversely affect our operating results.

Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a Medicare health plan program developed and administered by CMS as an alternative to the original FFS Medicare program. Under the Medicare Advantage program, Medicare beneficiaries may choose to receive benefits under a managed care health plan that provides benefits at least comparable to those offered under the original Medicare FFS payment system in exchange for which the health plan receives a monthly per patient premium payment from CMS. The Medicare Advantage monthly premium varies based on the county in which the member resides, and is adjusted to reflect the demographics and estimated risk profile of the members that enroll. Once a person is authorized by CMS to participate in Medicare Advantage, health plans compete for enrollment based on benefit design differences such as co-payments or deductibles, availability of preventive care, attractiveness of and access to a network of hospitals, physicians and ancillary providers and premium contribution

or, most often in Medicare Advantage plans, the absence of any monthly premium. In certain parts of the country, many health plans that provide Medicare Advantage benefits subcontract with integrated medical systems such as HCP to transfer the responsibility for managing patient care.

In 2004, CMS adopted a risk adjustment payment system for Medicare Advantage health plans in which the participating health plans’ premiums are adjusted based on the actual illness burden of the members that enroll. The model bases a portion of the total CMS reimbursement payments on various clinical and demographic factors, including hospital inpatient diagnoses, additional diagnosis data from ambulatory treatment settings, hospital outpatient department and physician visits, gender, age and Medicaid eligibility. CMS requires that all managed care companies capture, collect and submit the necessary diagnosis code information to CMS twice a year for reconciliation with CMS’s internal database. Medical providers, such as HCP, provide this diagnosis code information to health plan customers for submission to CMS. Under this system, the risk-adjusted portion of the total CMS payment to the Medicare Advantage plans will equal the local rate set forth in the traditional demographic rate book, adjusted to reflect the plan members’ gender, age and morbidity.

Most Medicare beneficiaries have the option to enroll in private health insurance plans that contract with Medicare under the Medicare Advantage program. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the share of Medicare beneficiaries in such plans has risen rapidly in recent years; it reached approximately 31% in 2015 from approximately 13% in 2004. Plan costs for the standard benefit package can be significantly lower or higher than the corresponding cost for beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare FFS payment program, but prior to the Health Reform Acts, private plans were generally paid a higher average amount, and they used the additional payments to reduce enrollee cost-sharing requirements, provide extra benefits, and/or reduce Medicare premiums. These enhancements were valuable to enrollees, but also resulted in higher Medicare costs overall and higher premiums for all Medicare Part B beneficiaries and not just those enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. The Health Reform Acts require that future payments to plans be based on benchmarks in a range of 95% to 115% of local FFS Medicare costs, with bonus amounts payable to plans meeting high quality-of-care standards. In addition, health plans offering Medicare Advantage are required to spend at least 85% of their premium dollars on medical care, the so-called medical loss ratio (MLR). Since HCP is not a health plan, except for DaVita HealthCare Partners Plan (DHPP) it is not subject to the 85% MLR requirement (see “HealthCare Partners Division—Knox-Keene” below). However, payments that health plans make to HCP will apply in full towards the health plans’ 85% MLR requirement. If a health plan does not meet the 85% MLR requirement, it must provide a rebate to its customers. Any such shortfalls will not impact amounts paid by health plans to HCP.

Medicaid. Medicaid is a federal entitlement program administered by the states that provides healthcare and long-term care services and support to low-income Americans. Medicaid is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenditures based on each state’s federal medical assistance percentage, which is calculated annually and varies inversely with average personal income in the state. Subject to federal rules, each state establishes its own eligibility standards, benefit packages, payment rates and program administration within broad federal statutory and regulatory guidelines. Every state Medicaid program must balance a number of potentially competing demands, including the need for quality care, adequate provider access, and cost-effectiveness. In an effort to improve quality and provide more uniform and cost-effective care, many states have implemented Medicaid managed care programs to improve access to coordinated healthcare services, including preventative care, and to control healthcare costs. Under Medicaid managed care programs, a health plan receives capitation payments from the state. The health plan, in turn, arranges for the provision of healthcare services by contracting with a network of medical providers, such as HCP. HCP has entered into capitation agreements with health plans to manage approximately 122,600 Medicaid managed care members in its southern California and Florida markets.

Commercial payors

According to a survey conducted from January through June 2015 by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust, approximately 63% of non-elderly U.S. citizens received their healthcare benefits through their employers, which contracted with health plans to administer these healthcare benefits. Patients enrolled in health plans offered through an employment setting are generally referred to as commercial members. Commercial employer-sponsored health plan enrollment was approximately 147 million in 2015, according to the survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the percentage of workers covered increased by approximately 1% from 62% in 2014. Under the Health Reform Acts, many uninsured individuals and many individuals who receive their health insurance benefits through small employers may purchase their healthcare benefits through insurance exchanges in which health plans compete directly for individual or small group members’ enrollment. HCP derives a significant amount of its enrollment from commercial members; however, these members represent a disproportionately small share of HCP’s operating profits.

Whether in the Medicare Advantage, commercial or Medicaid market, managed care health plans seek to provide a coordinated and efficient approach to managing the healthcare needs of their enrolled populations. By negotiating with providers, such as pharmacies, hospitals and physicians, and indirectly trying to influence physicians’ behavior through various incentive and penalty schemes, managed care companies attempt to enhance their profitability by limiting their medical costs. These health plans have shown success in mitigating certain components of medical cost, but we believe they are limited by their indirect relationship with

physicians, who in the aggregate direct most of their patients’ healthcare costs. We believe that physician-led and professionally-managed integrated medical systems such as HCP’s have a greater opportunity to influence cost and improve quality due to the close coordination of care at the most effective point of contact with the patient—the primary care physician.

Capitation and FFS revenue

There are a number of different models under which an integrated medical system receives payment for managing and providing healthcare services to its members.

Fee-for-service structure. Under traditional FFS reimbursement, physicians are paid a specified FFS that they provide during a patient visit. Under this structure, physician compensation is solely related to the volume of patient visits and procedures performed, thus offering limited financial incentive to focus on cost containment and preventative care. FFS revenues are derived primarily from HCP’s physician services and hospice care.

Capitation structure. Under capitation, payors pay a fixed amount per enrolled member, thereby subcontracting a significant portion of the responsibility and risks for managing patient care to physicians. Global capitation represents a prospective budget from which the provider system then manages care-related expenses including payments to associated providers outside the group, such as hospitals and specialists. Compared to traditional FFS models, we believe that capitation arrangements better align provider incentives with both quality and efficiency of care for a population of patients. We believe that this approach improves the quality of the experience for patients and the potential profitability for efficient care providers.

Since premiums paid represent a significant amount per person, the revenue and, when costs are effectively managed, profit opportunity available to an integrated medical system under a capitated arrangement can be significant. This is particularly the case for patients with multiple diseases and senior members. We believe that the advantages, savings and efficiencies made possible by the capitated model are most pronounced when the care demands of the population are the most severe and require the most coordination, such as for the senior population or patients with chronic, complex and follow-on diseases. While organized coordination of care is central to the capitated model, it is also well suited to the implementation of preventative care and disease management over the long-term since physicians have a financial incentive to improve the overall health of their patient population.

The inherent risk in assumption of global care risk relates to potential losses if a number of individual patients’ medical costs exceed the expected amount. This risk is especially significant to individual practitioners or smaller physician groups who lack the scale required to spread the risk over a broad population. HCP has the scale, comprehensive medical delivery resources, significant infrastructure to support practicing physicians, and demonstrated care management know-how to spread the risk of losses over a large patient population.

Global model. In Florida and Arizona, HCP may contract directly with health plans under global capitation arrangements that include hospital services, because state law permits HCP to assume financial responsibility for both professional and institutional services. In New Mexico, HCP assumed financial responsibility for professional services only.

In California, entities that maintain full or restricted licenses under the California Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene) are permitted to assume financial responsibility for both professional and institutional services. As described below, in December 2013, HCP obtained a restricted Knox-Keene license and therefore may enter into global capitation arrangements with health plans through which HCP will assume financial responsibility for both professional and institutional services.

In Nevada, HCP enters into global capitation arrangements to assume financial responsibility for both professional and institutional services. However, the Nevada Division of Insurance (NDI) has not opined on whether it is appropriate for an entity like HCP to enter into global capitation arrangements and assume financial responsibility for the provision of both professional and institutional services to either Medicare Advantage enrollees or enrollees of commercial health plans. In order to avoid an adverse finding by the NDI with respect to HCP’s global capitation arrangements in Nevada, HCP applied for an insurance license from the NDI and obtained the license in 2015. HCP is currently evaluating its ability to assign any of its existing contracts to the NDI license holder. Because of the current global capitation to HCP, and HCP’s assumption of nearly the entire professional and institutional risk in Nevada, Florida and Arizona, HCP’s health plan customers function primarily to support HCP in undertaking marketing and sales efforts to enroll members and processing claims in these states.

Risk-sharing model. In California, HCP currently utilizes a capitation model in several different forms. While there are variations specific to each arrangement, HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group and HealthCare Partners Associates Medical Group, Inc. (collectively HCPAMG), which are medical groups that have entered into management services agreements with HCP, have historically contracted with health plans to receive a PMPM or percentage of premium (POP) capitation payment for professional (physician) services and assumed the financial responsibility for professional services. In some cases, the health plans separately enter into capitation contracts with third parties (typically hospitals) who directly receive a capitation payment and assume contractual financial responsibility for institutional (hospital) services. In other cases, the health plan does not pay a capitation payment to the

hospital, but rather administers and pays fee-for-service claims for hospital expenses. In both cases, HCPAMG has been responsible under its health plan agreements for managing the care dollars associated with both the professional and institutional services provided for in the HCPAMG capitation payment. In the case of institutional services and as a result of its managed care-related administrative services agreements with hospitals, HCPAMG has recognized a percentage of the surplus of institutional revenues less institutional expense as HCPAMG net revenues and has also been responsible for some percentage of any short-fall in the event that institutional expenses exceed institutional revenues. In connection with HCP’s obtaining a restricted Knox-Keene license in California, substantially all of the California health plan contracts, along with the revenues received under such contracts, have been assigned from HCPAMG to DHPP. In addition, HCP now has the legal authority to transition these health plan contracts to global capitation arrangements in which HCP is responsible for arranging professional and institutional services in exchange for a single capitation payment. HCP is in the process of evaluating and identifying which risk-sharing arrangements, if any, will be converted to global capitation arrangements, subject to HCP’s and the applicable health plan’s satisfactory negotiation and approval, as well as approval from the Department of Managed Healthcare. Completion of such evaluation and possible conversion is expected to occur over time.

Government regulation

In addition to the laws and regulations to which our dialysis and related lab services business are subject to, the internal operations of HCP and its contractual relationships with healthcare providers such as hospitals, other healthcare facilities, and healthcare professionals are subject to extensive and increasing regulation by numerous federal, state, and local government entities. These laws and regulations often are interpreted broadly and enforced aggressively by multiple government agencies, including the OIG, the DOJ, and various state authorities. Many of these laws and regulations are the same as those that impact our dialysis and related lab services business. For example:

· HCP’s financial relationships with healthcare providers including physicians and hospitals could subject HCP to criminal and civil sanctions and penalties under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute;

· The referral of Medicare patients by HCP-associated physicians for the provision of DHS may subject the parties to sanctions and penalties under the federal Stark Law;

· HCP’s financial relationships and those of its associated physicians may subject the parties to penalties and sanctions under state fraud and abuse law;

· HCP’s submission of claims to governmental payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs for services provided by its associated physicians and clinical personnel may subject HCP to sanction and penalties under the FCA; and

· HCP’s handling of PHI may subject HCP to sanctions and penalties under HIPAA and its implementing privacy and security regulations, as amended by the HITECH Act and state medical privacy laws which often include penalties and restrictions that are more severe than those which arise under HIPAA.

A finding that claims for services were not covered or not payable, or the imposition of sanctions associated with a violation of any of these healthcare laws and regulations, could result in criminal or civil penalties and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs and could have a material adverse effect on HCP’s business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot guarantee that the arrangements or business practices of HCP will not be subject to government scrutiny or be found to violate certain healthcare laws. Government audits, investigations and prosecutions, even if we are ultimately found to be without fault, can be costly and disruptive to HCP’s business. Moreover, changes in healthcare legislation or government regulation may restrict HCP’s existing operations, limit their expansion or impose additional compliance requirements and costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on HCP’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The following includes brief descriptions of some, but not all, of the laws and regulations that, in addition to those described in relation to our dialysis and related lab services business, affect HCP. HCP is also subject to the laws and regulations that apply to our U.S. dialysis and related lab services business, see “The dialysis and related lab services business overview—Government regulation” above.

Licensing, certification, accreditation and related laws and guidelines. HCP clinical personnel are subject to numerous federal, state and local licensing laws and regulations, relating to, among other things, professional credentialing and professional ethics. Since HCP clinical personnel perform services in medical office settings, hospitals and other types of healthcare facilities, HCP may indirectly be subject to laws applicable to those entities as well as ethical guidelines and operating standards of professional trade associations and private accreditation commissions, such as the American Medical Association and the Joint Commission. There are penalties for non-compliance with these laws and standards, including loss of professional license, civil or criminal fines and penalties, loss of hospital admitting privileges, federal healthcare program disenrollment, loss of billing privileges, and exclusion from participation in various governmental and other third-party healthcare programs.

Professional licensing requirements. HCP’s clinical personnel, including physicians, must satisfy and maintain their professional licensing in the states where they practice medicine. Activities that qualify as professional misconduct under state law may subject them to sanctions, including the loss of their licenses and could subject HCP to sanctions as well. Many state boards of medicine impose reciprocal discipline, that is, if a physician is disciplined for having committed professional misconduct in one state where he or she is licensed, another state where he or she is also licensed may impose the same discipline even though the conduct did not occur in that state. Therefore, if an HCP-associated physician is licensed in multiple states, sanctions or loss of licensure in one state may result in sanction or the loss of licensure in other states. Professional licensing sanctions may also result in exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other third-party programs.

Corporate practice of medicine and fee splitting. California, Nevada and Arizona are three states in which HCP operates that have laws that prohibit business entities, such as our Company and our subsidiaries, from practicing medicine, employing physicians to practice medicine or exercising control over medical decisions by physicians (known collectively as the corporate practice of medicine). These states also prohibit entities from engaging in certain financial arrangements, such as fee-splitting, with physicians. In some states these prohibitions are expressly stated in a statute or regulation, while in other states the prohibition is a matter of judicial or regulatory interpretation.

In California, a violation of the corporate practice of medicine prohibition constitutes the unlawful practice of medicine, which is a public offense punishable by fines and other criminal penalties. In addition, any physician who participates in a scheme that violates California’s corporate practice of medicine prohibition may be punished for aiding and abetting a lay entity in the unlawful practice of medicine. In Nevada, violation of the corporate practice of medicine rules by a lay entity also constitutes the unlawful practice of medicine. This violation is a felony punishable by fines and other criminal penalties. Physicians in Nevada can similarly be punished for aiding and abetting in the unlicensed practice of medicine. In Arizona, although state statutes establish professional corporations for the provision of professional services including medical services, state statutes and regulations do not specifically address the corporate practice of medicine prohibition or proscribe penalties for its violation. Accordingly, a violation of the corporate practice of medicine prohibition as set forth in Arizona case law would, at least, be deemed illegal and result in the voiding of the offending employment or contractual relationship at issue.

In California, Nevada and Arizona, where the corporate practice of medicine is prohibited, HCP has historically operated by maintaining long-term management contracts with multiple associated professional organizations which, in turn, employ or contract with physicians to provide those professional medical services required by the enrollees of the payors with which the professional organizations contract. Under these management agreements, HCP performs only non-medical administrative services, does not represent that it offers medical services, and does not exercise influence or control over the practice of medicine by the physicians or the associated physician groups with which it contracts. For example, in California, HCP has full-service management contracts with HCPAMG. The HCPAMG entities are owned by California-licensed physicians and professional medical corporations and contract with physicians to provide professional medical services. In Nevada, HCP’s Nevada subsidiaries have similar management agreements with Nevada professional corporations that employ and contract with physicians to provide professional medical services.

In Arizona, HCP arranges for the provision of patient care services through an IPA named Arizona Integrated Physicians (AIP). AIP is a professional corporation that contracts with independent physicians and medical group practices. In this way, the professional medical services required by HCP members in Arizona are provided by AIP and structured to be in compliance with Arizona’s corporate practice of medicine laws.

Some of the relevant laws, regulations, and agency interpretations in California, Nevada and Arizona have been subject to limited judicial and regulatory interpretation. Moreover, state laws are subject to change. Regulatory authorities and other parties, including HCP’s associated physicians, may assert that, despite the management agreements and other arrangements through which HCP operates, we are engaged in the prohibited corporate practice of medicine or that HCP’s arrangements constitute unlawful fee-splitting. If this were to occur, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, HCP’s agreements could be found legally invalid and unenforceable (in whole or in part), or we could be required to restructure its contractual arrangements.

If we were required to restructure HCP’s operating structures in California, Nevada or Arizona due to determination that a corporate practice of medicine violation existed, such a restructuring might include revisions of the California, Nevada or Arizona management services agreements, which might include a modification of the management fee, and/or establishing an alternative structure. For example, our subsidiaries in Nevada or Arizona might have to obtain the equivalent of a California Knox-Keene license in such state in order to comply with the corporate practice of medicine rules while contracting directly with payors and, in turn, physicians, to provide physician services to the payors’ enrollees. In California, HCP’s restricted Knox-Keene license has created potential flexibility for HCP in the event regulatory authorities seek to enforce corporate practice of medicine or fee splitting laws based upon current management services relationships with HCPAMG. HCP’s restricted Knox-Keene license allows DHPP to contract with or employ physicians as a result of an exemption from California’s corporate practice of medicine laws applicable to Knox-Keene licensees.

Knox-Keene. The California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) licenses and regulates Health Care Service Plans (HCSPs) pursuant to Knox-Keene. In addition to administering Knox-Keene’s various patient’s rights protections for HCSP-enrolled individuals, the DMHC is responsible for ensuring the financial sustainability over time of HCSPs and other regulated entities. As such, the DMHC is charged with continually monitoring the financial health of regulated entities. The DMHC’s Division of Financial Oversight conducts examinations of the fiscal and administrative affairs of licensed HCSPs to protect consumers and providers from potential insolvencies. Financial examination reviews include examinations of cash flow, premium receivables, intercompany transactions and medical liabilities. The examination also ensures that there is adequate tangible net equity (TNE), as determined according to calculations included in Knox-Keene. The TNE regulations for organizations holding a Knox-Keene license, like HCP, vary depending on circumstances, but generally require any licensee to have on hand in cash or cash equivalents a minimum of the greater of (i) $1 million, (ii) the sum of 2% of the first $150 million of annualized premium revenues plus 1% of annualized premium revenues in excess of $150 million, or (iii) the sum of 8% of the first $150 million of annualized healthcare expenditures (except those paid on a capitated basis or managed hospital payment basis) plus 4% of the annualized healthcare expenditures, except those paid on a capitated basis or managed hospital payment basis, which are in excess of $150 million. In its sole discretion, DMHC may require, as a condition to obtaining or maintaining an HCSP license, that a licensee accept certain contractual undertakings such that the licensee is obligated to maintain TNE in amounts greater than the minimum amount described above. Such contractual undertakings may require 130% or more of TNE to be maintained by a licensee.

The DMHC interprets Knox-Keene to apply to both HCSPs and downstream contracting entities, including provider groups that enter into global risk contracts with licensed HCSPs. A global risk contract is a healthcare services contract in which a downstream contracting entity agrees to provide both professional (physician) services and institutional (hospital) services subject to an at-risk or capitated reimbursement methodology. According to DMHC, entities that accept global risk must obtain a restricted Knox-Keene license. Under a restricted Knox-Keene license, entities may enter into global risk contracts with other licensed HCSPs. Holders of restricted Knox-Keene licenses must comply with the same financial requirements as HCSPs with full licenses, including demonstrating specific levels of TNE, but are granted waivers from meeting marketing and other terms of full Knox-Keene licensure. The consequences of operating without a license include civil penalties, criminal penalties and the issuance of cease and desist orders.

DHPP holds a restricted Knox-Keene license, which was approved by DMHC on December 31, 2013. This allows HCP to contract directly with HCSPs to simplify its historic contractual and financial structure and to facilitate expansion into new markets in California. However, this also subjects HCP and DHPP to additional regulatory burdens, including (i) regulatory oversight of operations, (ii) the need to seek approval for all material business changes, (iii) significant requirements to maintain certain TNE levels, and (iv) other operating limitations imposed by Knox-Keene and its regulations. Under its restricted Knox-Keene license, DHPP is prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends or making any distribution of cash or property to DHPP’s parent, affiliates, or shareholders, if such a distribution would cause DHPP to fail to maintain TNE, have insufficient working capital or cash flow as required by DMHC regulation or otherwise be unable to provide or arrange healthcare services. In addition, DHPP is subject to DMHC oversight and must seek approval before incurring any debt or guaranteeing any debt relating to DHPP’s parent, affiliates, or shareholders. DHPP must also submit proposed global capitation contracts to DMHC for approval.

HCP services

Approximately 90% of HCP’s operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015 were derived from multi-year capitation contracts with health plans. Under these contracts, HCP’s health plan customers delegate full responsibility for member care to physicians and healthcare facilities that are part of HCP’s provider network. In return, HCP receives a PMPM fee for each HCP member. As a result, HCP has financial and clinical accountability for a population of members. In California, HCP does not assume direct financial risk for institutional (hospital) services in most cases, but is responsible for managing the care dollars associated with both the professional (physician) and institutional services being provided for the PMPM fee attributable to both professional and institutional services. In those cases and as a result of its managed care-related administrative services agreements with hospitals, HCP recognizes the surplus of institutional revenues less institutional expense as HCP net revenues and is also responsible for any short-fall in the event that institutional expenses exceed institutional revenues. In addition to revenues recognized for financial reporting purposes, HCP measures its total care dollars under management. This includes the PMPM fee payable to third parties for institutional (hospital) services where HCP manages the care provided to its members by hospitals and other institutional services. These fees are not included in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2015, HCP’s total consolidated operating revenues were $3.755 billion and total care dollars under management were $4.952 billion.

HCP provides complete medical care through a network of participating physicians and other healthcare professionals. Through its group model, HCP employs, directly (where permitted by state law) and through its associated physician groups, approximately 547 associated group full-time primary care physicians. Through its IPA model, HCP contracts with a network of over 2,900 associated groups and other network primary care physicians who provide care for HCP’s members in an independent office setting. These physicians are complemented by several thousand network specialists and 240 network hospitals that provide specialty or institutional care to the patients of HCP’s associated physicians, physician groups and IPAs.

In order to comply with local regulations prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine, many of HCP’s group physicians are employed by associated medical groups with which HCP has entered into long-term management agreements. The largest of these HCP managed medical groups is HCPAMG, which employs, directly or indirectly, over 600 full-time primary care physicians, specialists and hospitalists. See “Governmental Regulations—Corporate Practice of Medicine and Fee Splitting” above.

HCP does not own hospitals, although hospitals are an essential part of its provider network. In most cases, HCP contracts or otherwise aligns with hospitals to manage the utilization, readmission and cost of hospital services. Most HCP patients receive specialty care through HCP’s network based on referrals made by their primary care physician. These specialists may be reimbursed based on capitation, case rates or on a discounted FFS rate.

HCP group physicians typically see 15 to 20 patients per day, which we believe is an appropriate benchmark to ensure there is sufficient time to understand all of the patients’ clinical needs. HCP care teams, including nurses, engage in outreach to patients in order help monitor fragile and high risk patients, and help improve adherence to physicians’ care plans. During these visits, HCP’s physicians, nurses and educators use the time to educate patients and manage their healthcare needs. The goal of this preventative care delivery model is to keep patients healthy. Education improves self-management and compliance which allows the patient to recognize early signs of their disease and seek appropriate care. We believe this translates into earlier intervention, which in turn leads to fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital admissions and fewer hospital bed days (the most expensive location for healthcare). This clinical model seeks to provide early diagnosis of disease or deterioration in a chronic and complex condition and provide preventive care to maintain optimal health and avert unnecessary hospitalization. Clinic-based case managers and hospitalists coordinate with the primary care physicians to ensure that patients are receiving proper care whether they are in the clinic, in the hospital or are not regularly accessing healthcare. Physicians and case managers encourage patients to regularly visit the clinics in order to enhance their day-to-day health and diagnose any illness or deterioration in condition as early as possible.

HCP’s information technology system, including HCP’s electronic health record and data warehouse, is designed to support the HCP delivery model with data-driven opportunities to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of the care received by its members. Using informatics technology, HCP has created disease registries that track large numbers of patients with defined medical conditions. HCP applies the data from these registries to manage the care for patients with similar medical conditions which we believe leads to a better medical outcome. We believe this approach to using data is effective because the information is communicated by the patient’s physician rather than the health plan or disease management companies.

HCP employs a wide variety of other information applications to service IPA and network providers using web connectivity. The HCP Connect! on-line portal provides web-based eligibility, referrals, electronic claims submission and explanation of benefits, and other communication vehicles for individual physician offices. The success of this suite of applications has enhanced HCP’s ability to manage its IPA networks, and has resulted in significant back-office efficiencies for HCP and its associated physician groups. HCP has further expanded its ability to share key utilization and clinical data with its internal and contracted physicians and specialists through the Physician Information Portal and the Clinical Viewer. Through these secure web portals, a physician is able to obtain web-based, point of care information regarding a patient, including diagnosis history, provide quality indicators, historical risk-adjustment coding information, pharmacy medication history, and other key information. In addition to its web-portals geared towards physicians, HCP has recently introduced a patient on-line portal to enable HCP’s patients to securely view their own clinical information, schedule physician appointments and interact electronically with their physicians. HCP believes these tools help lead to high quality clinical outcomes, create internal efficiencies, and enhance the satisfaction of its associated physicians and patients.

In addition, HCP uses its data to carefully track high utilizing patients through robust data warehousing and data mining technologies. HCP filters the data warehouse to identify and reach out to patients with high-utilization patterns who are inefficiently using resources, such as visiting an emergency room when either a same-day appointment or urgent care center would be more appropriate and satisfactory for the member. High utilizing patients are identified and tracked as part of HCP’s electronic health record by their physician and HCP’s care management staff. Specific care plans are attached to each of these patients and tracked carefully for full compliance. The objective is to proactively manage their care at times when these patients are either not compliant with the care plan or when changing circumstances require care managers to develop new and more suitable care plans. By using these resources, HCP has achieved improvements in quality of care, satisfaction and cost.

We believe HCP is well positioned to effectively leverage marketplace demands for greater provider accountability, measurable quality results and cost efficient medical care. We believe that HCP’s business model is likely to continue to be an attractive alternative for health plans looking for high quality, cost effective delivery systems, physicians seeking an attractive practice environment and patients interested in a highly integrated approach to managing their medical care. Additionally, we believe that the scale of HCP’s business allows it to spread capitation risk over a large population of members, invest in comprehensive analytic and healthcare information tools as well as clinical and quality measurement infrastructure, and recognize administrative and operating efficiencies. For these reasons, we believe that HCP offers patients, physicians and health plans a proven platform for addressing many of the most pressing challenges facing the U.S. healthcare system, including rising medical costs.

We also believe HCP has the ability to demonstrably improve medical outcomes and patient satisfaction while effectively managing costs through the following unique competitive strategies and internal progress and systems:

· HCP’s clinical leadership and associated group and network physicians devote significant efforts to ensure that HCP’s members receive the most appropriate care in the most appropriate manner.

· HCP is committed to maximizing its patients’ satisfaction levels.

· HCP has the scale which, combined with its strong reputation and high quality patient care, makes it an attractive partner for health plans, compared to smaller provider groups that may have a higher risk of default and may not have the same resources to devote and develop the same level of patient care.

· HCP has over two decades of experience in managing complex disease cases for its population of patients. As a result, HCP has developed a rich dataset of patient care experiences and outcomes which permits HCP to proactively monitor and intervene in improving the care of its members.

· HCP’s senior management team possesses substantial experience with the healthcare industry with average experience of nearly 20 years, as of December 31, 2015.

Locations of HCP clinics

As of December 31, 2015, HCP managed a total of 226 medical clinics, of which 62 clinics were located in California, 13 clinics were located in Colorado, 79 clinics were located in Florida, 55 clinics were located in Nevada, 14 clinics were located in New Mexico and three clinics were located in Georgia. As described above, HCP members in Arizona receive services at independent physician and medical group practice offices. In this way, HCP does not directly manage clinics in Arizona.

Competition

U.S. and International dialysis competition

The U.S. dialysis industry has consolidated significantly over time but still remains highly competitive, particularly in terms of acquiring existing outpatient dialysis centers. We continue to face a high degree of competition in the U.S. dialysis industry from large and medium-sized providers who compete directly with us for the acquisition of dialysis businesses, relationships with physicians to act as medical directors and for individual patients, as well as skilled clinical personnel. In addition, as we continue our international dialysis expansion into various international markets, we face competition from large and medium-sized providers for acquisition targets as well as physician relationships. Because of the ease of entry into the dialysis business and the ability of physicians to own dialysis centers and/or also be medical directors for their own centers, competition for growth in existing and expanding markets is not limited to large competitors with substantial financial resources. Acquisitions, developing new outpatient dialysis centers, patient retention and physician relationships are a critical component of our growth strategy and our business could be adversely affected if we are not able to continue to make dialysis acquisitions on reasonable and acceptable terms, continue to develop new outpatient dialysis centers, maintain or establish new relationships with physicians or if we experience significant patient attrition to our competitors. Competition for qualified physicians to act as medical directors and for inpatient dialysis services agreements with hospitals is also intense. Occasionally, we have also experienced competition from former medical directors or referring physicians who have opened their own outpatient dialysis centers. We also experience competitive pressures from other dialysis providers in connection with negotiating contracts with commercial healthcare payors and in recruiting and retaining qualified skilled clinical personnel.

The two largest dialysis companies, Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) and our Company, account for approximately 72% of outpatient dialysis patients in the U.S. with our Company serving approximately 36% of the total outpatient dialysis patients. Approximately 45% of the centers not owned by us or FMC are owned or controlled by hospitals or non-profit organizations. Hospital-based and non-profit dialysis units typically are more difficult to acquire than physician-owned dialysis centers.

FMC also manufactures a full line of dialysis supplies and equipment in addition to owning and operating outpatient dialysis centers worldwide. This may give FMC cost advantages over us because of its ability to manufacture its own products. Additionally, FMC has been one of our largest suppliers of dialysis products and equipment over the last several years. In January 2010, we entered into and subsequently extended an agreement with FMC to purchase a certain amount of dialysis equipment, parts and supplies from FMC through February 29, 2016. We are currently renegotiating this agreement to extend the period of the agreement and to finalize the costs of our dialysis products. In addition, we entered in to a product supply agreement with Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter) that commits us to purchase a certain amount of dialysis supplies through 2018. Our purchases of products in these categories generally offered by both FMC and Baxter represent approximately 4% of our total U.S. dialysis operating expenses. In 2015, we purchased hemodialysis products and supplies from both FMC and Baxter that each represented approximately 2% of our total U.S.

dialysis operating expenses. The amount of purchases in future years from FMC will depend upon a number of factors, including the operating requirements of our centers, the number of centers we acquire, and growth of our existing centers.

HCP’s competition

HCP’s business is highly competitive. HCP competes with managed care organizations, hospitals, medical groups and individual physicians in its markets. HCP competes with other primary care physician groups or physicians who contract with health plans for membership. Health plans contract with care providers on the basis of costs, reputation, scope, efficiency and stability. Individual members select a primary care physician at the time of membership with the health plan. Location, name recognition, quality indicators and other factors go into that decision. For example, in California, HCP competes with both Permanente Medical Group, which is the exclusive provider for Kaiser, and Heritage Provider Network. However, HCP’s principal competitors for members and health plan contracts vary by market.

Corporate compliance program

Our businesses are subject to extensive federal, state and local government regulations. Management has designed and implemented a corporate compliance program as part of our commitment to comply fully with all applicable laws and regulations and to maintain the high standards of conduct we expect from all of our teammates. We continuously review this program and enhance it as necessary. The primary purposes of the program include:

· Assessing and identifying risks for existing and new businesses;

· Increasing, through training and education, the awareness of our teammates and affiliated professionals of the necessity of complying with all applicable laws, regulations and company policies and procedures;

· Auditing and monitoring the activities of our operating units and business support functions on a regular basis to identify potential instances of noncompliance in a timely manner; and

· Ensuring that we take steps to resolve instances of noncompliance or to address areas of potential noncompliance as promptly as we become aware of them.

We have a code of conduct that each of our teammates and affiliated professionals must follow and we have a confidential toll-free hotline for teammates and patients to report potential instances of noncompliance. Our Chief Compliance Officer administers the compliance program. The Chief Compliance Officer reports directly to our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Executive Officer of Kidney Care and Chair of the Compliance Committee of our Board of Directors (Board Compliance Committee). On October 22, 2014, DaVita signed a CIA with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. The CIA:

· requires that we maintain certain elements of our compliance programs;

· imposes certain expanded compliance-related requirements during the term of the CIA, including increased training for teammates, physician partners and board members, implementing a series of procedures prior to entering into arrangements with referrals sources, execution of annual certifications by senior executives that evidence compliance with federal healthcare laws and regulations, internal compliance policies and the CIA, imposition of an executive recoupment program and quarterly and annual reports to the OIG;

· requires the formal allocation of certain oversight responsibility to the Board Compliance Committee and a resolution from that committee that it has made reasonable inquiry into the operations of the compliance program and the retention of an independent compliance advisor in year three of the CIA;

· contains certain business restrictions related to a subset of our joint venture arrangements, including our agreeing to:

1. unwind 11 joint venture transactions, all of which have been completed,

2. not enter into certain types of partial divestiture joint venture transactions with nephrologists during the term of the CIA, and

3. certain other restrictions;

· requires that we engage an Independent Monitor who will provide additional oversight and reporting to the OIG for the term of the CIA.

The costs associated with compliance with the CIA could be substantial and may be greater than we currently anticipate. In addition, in the event of a breach of the CIA, we may become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, and/or be excluded from participation on federal healthcare programs. The OIG notified us that it considered us to be in breach of the CIA because of three implementation deficiencies. We have remediated the deficiencies and have paid certain stipulated penalties. The costs associated with compliance with the CIA or any liability, or consequences associated with breach thereof, could have an adverse effect on our revenues, earnings and cash flows.

Insurance

We maintain insurance for property and general liability, professional liability, directors’ and officers’ liability, workers compensation and other coverage in amounts and on terms deemed adequate by management, based on our actual claims experience and expectations for future claims. Future claims could, however, exceed our applicable insurance coverage. Physicians practicing at our dialysis centers are required to maintain their own malpractice insurance, and our medical directors are required to maintain coverage for their individual private medical practices. Our liability policies cover our medical directors for the performance of their duties as medical directors at our outpatient dialysis centers. HCP also maintains general and professional liability insurance through various independent and related parties. HCP has purchased its primary general and professional liability insurance from California Medical Group Insurance (CMGI) in which HCP owns a 67% equity interest.

Teammates

As of December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 60,400 teammates, including our international teammates:

●

Licensed professional staff (physicians, nurses and other

healthcare professionals)

25,000

●

Other patient care and center support staff and laboratory

personnel

24,600

●

Corporate, billing and regional administrative staff

10,800

Our businesses require skilled healthcare professionals with specialized training for treating patients with complex care needs. Recruitment and retention of nurses are continuing concerns for healthcare providers due to short supply. We have an active program of investing in our professional healthcare teammates to help ensure we meet our recruitment and retention targets, including expanded training opportunities, tuition reimbursements and other incentives.

DVA - Davita Inc.