Exhibit 99.1

OPERATING RESULTS

The following tables present selected audited consolidated financial data for Tenet Healthcare Corporation and its wholly owned and majority-owned subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2003 through 2007.

The operating results data presented above are not necessarily indicative of our future results of operations. Reasons for this include, but are not limited to: overall revenue and cost trends, particularly trends in patient accounts receivable collectability and associated provisions for doubtful accounts; the timing and magnitude of price changes; fluctuations in contractual allowances and cost report settlements and valuation allowances; managed care contract negotiations or terminations and payer consolidations; changes in Medicare regulations; Medicaid funding levels set by the states in which we operate; levels of malpractice insurance expense and settlement trends; impairment of long-lived assets and goodwill; restructuring charges; losses, costs and insurance recoveries related to natural disasters; litigation and investigation costs; acquisitions and dispositions of facilities and other assets; income tax rates and valuation allowances; the timing and amounts of stock option and restricted stock unit grants to employees and directors; and changes in occupancy levels and patient volumes. Factors that affect patient volumes and, thereby, our results of operations at our hospitals and related health care facilities include, but are not limited to: the business environment and demographics of local communities; the number of uninsured and underinsured individuals in local communities treated at our hospitals; seasonal cycles of illness; climate and weather conditions; physician recruitment, retention and attrition; advances in technology and treatments that reduce length of stay; local health care competitors; managed care contract negotiations or terminations; any unfavorable publicity about us, which impacts our relationships with physicians and patients; and the timing of elective procedures. These considerations apply to year-to-year comparisons as well.

1

BALANCE SHEET DATA

CASH FLOW DATA

INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of this section, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, is to provide a narrative explanation of our financial statements that enables investors to better understand our business, to enhance our overall financial disclosures, to provide the context within which financial information may be analyzed, and to provide information about the quality of, and potential variability of, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial and statistical information included herein relates to our continuing operations, with dollar amounts expressed in millions (except per-share amounts). This information should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. It includes the following sections:

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

KEY DEVELOPMENTS

We continue to focus on the execution of our turnaround strategies. While we have seen certain areas of improvement, we are still facing several industry and company-specific challenges that continue to negatively affect our progress. We are dedicated to improving our patients’, shareholders’ and other stakeholders’ confidence in us. We believe we will accomplish that by providing quality care and generating positive growth and earnings at our hospitals.

Key developments include the following:

2

3

SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES

Our June 2006 global civil settlement with the federal government and other previously announced settlements have resolved several material threats to our company and should help us move forward in our turnaround strategy. However, there are still significant challenges, both company-specific and industry-wide, that will impact the timing of our turnaround. Below is a summary of these items.

Company-Specific Volume Challenge

We believe the reasons for declines in our patient volumes include, but are not limited to, decreases in the demand for invasive cardiac procedures, increased competition, managed care contract negotiations or terminations, population trends in Florida, and the impact of our litigation and government investigations. In addition, we believe the challenges we face in physician recruitment, retention and attrition continue to be a primary contributor to our volume declines. Our operations depend on the efforts, abilities and experience of the physicians on the medical staffs of our hospitals, most of whom have no long-term contractual relationship with us. It is essential to our ongoing business that we attract and retain an appropriate number of quality physicians in all specialties on our medical staffs. Although overall we had a net gain in physicians added to our medical staffs during 2007, in some of our markets, physician recruitment and retention are still affected by a shortage of physicians in certain sought-after specialties and the difficulties that physicians experience in obtaining affordable malpractice insurance or finding insurers willing to provide such insurance. Other issues facing physicians, such as proposed decreases in Medicare payments, are forcing them to consider alternatives including relocating their practices or retiring sooner than expected. In some of our markets, we have not been able to attract physicians to our medical staffs at a rate to offset the physicians relocating or retiring.

We are taking a number of steps to address the problem of volume decline; however, due to the concentration of our hospitals in California, Florida and Texas, we may not be able to mitigate some factors contributing to volume declines. One of our initiatives is our Physician Relationship Program, which is centered around understanding the needs of physicians who admit patients both to our hospitals and to our competitors’ hospitals and responding to those needs with changes and improvements in our hospitals and operations. We have targeted capital spending in order to address specific needs or growth opportunities of our hospitals, which is expected to have a positive impact on their volumes. We have also sought to include all of our hospitals in the affected geographic area when negotiating new managed care contracts, which should result in additional volumes at facilities that were not previously a part of such managed care networks. In addition, we are completing clinical service line market demand analyses and profitability assessments to determine which services are highly valued that can be emphasized and marketed to improve results. This Targeted Growth Initiative has resulted in some reductions in unprofitable service lines in several locations, which have had a slightly negative impact on our volumes. However, the elimination of these unprofitable service lines will allow us to focus more resources on services that are more profitable.

Our Commitment to Quality initiative, which we launched in 2003, is further helping position us to competitively meet the volume challenge. We continue to work with physicians to implement the most current evidence-based techniques to improve the way we provide care. As a result of these efforts, our hospitals have improved substantially in quality metrics reported by the government and have been recognized by several managed care companies for their quality of care. We believe that quality of care improvements will continue to have the effect of increasing physician and patient satisfaction, potentially improving our volumes as a result.

Significant Industry Trends

Bad Debt—Like other organizations in the health care industry, we continue to provide services to a high volume of uninsured patients and more patients than in prior years with an increased burden of co-payments and deductibles as a result of changes in their health care plans. The discounting components of our Compact with Uninsured Patients (“Compact”) have reduced our provision for doubtful accounts recorded in our Consolidated Financial Statements, but they are not expected to mitigate the net economic effects of treating uninsured or underinsured patients. We continue to experience a high level of uncollectible accounts. Our collection efforts have improved, and we continue to focus, where applicable, on placement of

4

patients in various government programs such as Medicaid. However, unless our business mix shifts toward a greater number of insured patients or the trend of higher co-payments and deductibles reverses, we anticipate this high level of uncollectible accounts to continue.

Cost Pressures—Labor and supply expenses remain a significant cost pressure facing us as well as the industry in general. Controlling labor costs in an environment of fluctuating patient volumes and increased labor union activity will continue to be a challenge. Also, inflation and technology improvements are driving supply costs higher, and our efforts to control supply costs through product standardization, bulk purchases and improved utilization are constantly challenged.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS—OVERVIEW

Our turnaround timeframe has been and continues to be influenced by company-specific challenges and industry trends, including decreasing volumes, declining demand for inpatient cardiac procedures and high levels of bad debt, that continue to negatively affect our revenue growth and operating expenses. We believe our future profitability will be achieved through volume growth, appropriate reimbursement levels and cost control across our portfolio of hospitals. In order to disclose trends using data comparable to the prior year, operating statistics throughout Management’s Discussion and Analysis are presented on a same-hospital basis, where noted, and exclude the results of Coastal Carolina Medical Center, which we have not owned for a full 12 months. Below are some of these statistics and financial highlights for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.

Results of operations—Year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2006:

Results of operations—Year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the year ended December 31, 2005:

5

The table below shows the pretax and after-tax impact on continuing operations for each of the three years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 of the following items:

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES—OVERVIEW

Net cash provided by operating activities was $326 million in 2007 compared to net cash used in operating activities of $462 million in 2006. The increase of $788 million in net cash provided by operating activities was primarily due to payments for legal settlements that were $592 million lower in 2007 and net income tax refunds of $162 million received in 2007 compared to net income tax payments of $215 million in 2006, partially offset by $161 million of insurance recoveries received in 2006. The remaining decrease of $20 million in net cash provided by operating activities is primarily due to the timing of various other payables and receivables.

Purchases of property and equipment were $676 million and $681 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. In addition, in 2007, we spent approximately $36 million to purchase a hospital in South Carolina and $67 million for construction of hospitals in El Paso, Texas and Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. In 2006, we bought out the joint venture interest of a discontinued operation and purchased certain real estate from the joint venture partner for $28 million and spent $12 million on construction costs for the El Paso hospital. Proceeds from the sales of facilities and other assets related to discontinued operations during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 aggregated $91 million and $226 million, respectively. In 2007, we also received proceeds of $31 million from our investment in Metrocrest Hospital Authority bonds (essentially, the source of these proceeds was our final payment of $31 million under our lease agreement with the Authority to operate two hospitals in the Dallas, Texas area) and $82 million from the cash surrender value or basis reduction of certain life insurance policies. In addition, in 2007 we received $6 million of insurance recoveries for hurricane-related property damage. In 2006, we received $115 million in insurance proceeds for property damage caused by hurricanes in addition to the $161 million of insurance recoveries received during 2006 for business interruption and other hurricane-related costs ($276 million in total).

In November 2006, we entered into a five-year, $800 million senior secured revolving credit facility that replaced our $250 million letter of credit facility. The revolving credit facility is collateralized by patient accounts receivable at our acute care and specialty hospitals, and bears interest at our option based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 175 basis points or Citigroup’s base rate, as defined in the credit agreement, plus 75 basis points. At December 31, 2007, there were no cash borrowings outstanding under the revolving credit facility, and we had approximately $232 million of letters of credit outstanding. In addition, we had approximately $572 million of cash and cash equivalents on hand and borrowing capacity of $564 million under our revolving credit facility as of December 31, 2007.

We are currently in compliance with all covenants and conditions in our revolving credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes. (See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.)

6

SOURCES OF REVENUE

We receive revenues for patient services from a variety of sources, primarily managed care payers and the federal Medicare program, as well as state Medicaid programs, indemnity-based health insurance companies and self-pay patients (patients who do not have health insurance and are not covered by some other form of third-party arrangement).

The table below shows the sources of net patient revenues on a same-hospital basis, expressed as percentages of net patient revenues from all sources:

Our payer mix on same-hospital admissions basis, expressed as a percentage of total admissions from all sources, is shown below:

The increase in managed care – governmental admissions since 2005 is primarily due to an overall shift in our patient mix from Medicare and Medicaid to managed Medicare and managed Medicaid as further discussed below.

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

The Medicare program, the nation’s largest health insurance program, is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Medicare is a health insurance program primarily for individuals 65 years of age and older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease, and is provided without regard to income or assets. Medicaid is a program that pays for medical assistance for certain individuals and families with low incomes and resources, and is jointly funded by the federal government and state governments. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for the nation’s poor and most vulnerable individuals.

These government programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions, all of which could materially increase or decrease payments from these government programs in the future, as well as affect the cost of providing services to our patients and the timing of payments to our facilities. We are unable to predict the effect of future government health care funding policy changes on our operations. If the rates paid by governmental payers are reduced, if the scope of services covered by governmental payers is limited, or if we or one or more of our subsidiaries’ hospitals are excluded from participation in the Medicare or Medicaid program or any other government health care program, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

7

Medicare

Medicare offers its beneficiaries different ways to obtain their medical benefits. One option, the Original Medicare Plan, is a fee-for-service payment system. The other option, called Medicare Advantage, includes managed care, preferred provider organization, private fee-for-service and specialty plans. The major components of our net patient revenues for services provided to patients enrolled in the Original Medicare Plan for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 are set forth in the table below:

A general description of the types of payments we receive for services provided to patients enrolled in the Original Medicare Plan is provided below. Recent regulatory and legislative updates to the terms of these payment systems and their effect on our revenues can be found beginning on page 11.

Acute Care Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System

Diagnosis-Related Group Payments—Sections 1886(d) and 1886(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) set forth a system of payments for the operating and capital costs of inpatient acute care hospital admissions based on a prospective payment system. Under the inpatient prospective payment system (“IPPS”), Medicare payments for hospital inpatient operating services are made at predetermined rates for each hospital discharge. Discharges are classified according to a system of Medicare severity-adjusted diagnosis-related groups (“MS-DRGs”), which group patients with similar clinical characteristics that are expected to require similar amounts of hospital resources. CMS assigns to each MS-DRG a relative weight that represents the average resources required to care for cases in that particular MS-DRG, relative to the average resources used to treat cases in all MS-DRGs.

The base payment amount for the operating component of the MS-DRG payment is comprised of an average standardized amount that is divided into a labor-related share and a nonlabor-related share. Both the labor-related share of operating base payments and the base payment amount for capital costs are adjusted by geographic variations in labor and capital costs. These base payments are multiplied by the relative weight of the MS-DRG assigned to each case. Although these payments are adjusted for area labor and capital cost differentials, the adjustments do not take into consideration an individual hospital’s operating and capital costs. The MS-DRG operating and capital base rates are updated annually, giving consideration to the increased cost of goods and services purchased by hospitals.

Outlier Payments—Outlier payments are additional payments made to hospitals for treating Medicare patients who are costlier to treat than the average patient in the same MS-DRG. To qualify as a cost outlier, a hospital’s billed charges, adjusted to cost, must exceed the payment rate for the MS-DRG by a fixed threshold established annually by CMS. The Medicare fiscal intermediary calculates the cost of a claim by multiplying the billed charges by a cost-to-charge ratio that is typically based on the hospital’s most recent filed cost report. If the computed cost exceeds the sum of the MS-DRG payment plus the fixed threshold, the hospital receives 80% of the difference as an outlier payment.

Under the Act, CMS must project aggregate annual outlier payments to all prospective payment system (“PPS”) hospitals to be not less than 5% nor more than 6% of total MS-DRG payments (“Outlier Percentage”). The Outlier Percentage is determined by dividing total outlier payments by the sum of MS-DRG and outlier payments. CMS annually adjusts the fixed threshold to bring projected outlier payments within the mandated limit. A change to the fixed threshold affects total outlier payments by changing (1) the number of cases that qualify for outlier payments, and (2) the dollar amount hospitals receive for those cases that still qualify.

8

Disproportionate Share Payments—If a Medicare-participating hospital serves a disproportionate share of low-income patients, as determined annually based on certain statistical information defined by CMS, it receives a percentage add-on to the MS-DRG payment for each case. This percentage varies, depending on several factors that include the percentage of low-income patients served. During 2007, 42 of our hospitals in continuing operations qualified for disproportionate share payments.

Direct Graduate and Indirect Medical Education—The Medicare program provides additional reimbursement to approved teaching hospitals for additional expenses incurred by such institutions. This additional reimbursement, which is subject to certain limits, including intern and resident full-time equivalent (“FTE”) limits established in 1996, is made in the form of Direct Graduate Medical Education (“GME”) and Indirect Medical Education (“IME”) payments. During 2007, 15 of our hospitals in continuing operations were affiliated with academic institutions and were eligible to receive such payments. Medicare rules permit hospitals to enter into Medicare GME Affiliation Agreements for the purpose of applying the FTE limits on an aggregate basis, and some of our hospitals have entered into such agreements.

We have been contacted by CMS in connection with GME FTE limits and related reimbursement at Doctors Medical Center in Modesto, California as a result of our 1997 acquisition of a county-owned hospital in Modesto. We have annually collected approximately $2.5 million of GME reimbursement related to this matter. We replied to CMS that, based on our analysis of the transaction and the applicable CMS rules, we believe that the GME FTE limits and related reimbursement reported on the hospital’s cost report were substantially correct. In January 2008, CMS preliminarily advised us that they disagree with our analysis. We have not received formal notification of CMS’ determination in this regard and are continuing discussions with CMS. However, if we receive an adverse determination from CMS on this matter, it could result in a material charge to our future results of operations, and it could have a material impact on our cash flows in a future quarter.

Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System

Under the outpatient prospective payment system, hospital outpatient services, except for certain services that are reimbursed on a separate fee schedule, are classified into groups called ambulatory payment classifications (“APCs”). Services in each APC are similar clinically and in terms of the resources they require, and a payment rate is established for each APC. Depending on the services provided, hospitals may be paid for more than one APC for an encounter. CMS periodically updates the APCs and annually adjusts rates paid for each APC.

Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment System

Effective January 1, 2005, CMS implemented a new system of reimbursement for hospital inpatient psychiatric services to replace a cost-based payment system. The inpatient psychiatric facility prospective payment system (“IPF-PPS”) applies to psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units located within acute care hospitals that have been designated as exempt from the hospital inpatient prospective payment system. The IPF-PPS includes several provisions to ease the transition to the new payment system. For example, CMS is phasing in the IPF-PPS for existing hospitals and units over a three-year period to avoid disrupting the delivery of inpatient psychiatric services. Full payment under the IPF-PPS will be entirely phased in by the beginning of the fourth cost reporting year that begins after January 1, 2005. All of our hospitals will have been transitioned to the IRF-PPS by June 1, 2008. The IPF-PPS, which is based on prospectively determined per-diem rates, includes a stop-loss provision to protect providers against significant losses during the transition period, and an outlier policy that authorizes additional payments for extraordinarily costly cases.

Inpatient Rehabilitation Prospective Payment System

Rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units in acute care hospitals meeting certain criteria established by CMS are eligible to be paid as an inpatient rehabilitation facility (“IRF”) under the IRF prospective payment system (“IRF-PPS”). Payments under the IRF-PPS are made on a per-discharge basis. A patient classification system is used to assign patients in IRFs into case-mix groups. The IRF-PPS uses federal prospective payment rates across distinct case-mix groups.

Prior to July 1, 2004, a rehabilitation hospital or unit was eligible for classification as an IRF if it could show that, during its most recent 12-month cost reporting period, it served an inpatient population of whom at least 75 percent required intensive rehabilitation services for the treatment of one or more of ten specific conditions. This became known as the “75 percent rule.”

9

On May 7, 2004, CMS released a final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Changes to the Criteria for Being Classified as an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility” that revised the medical condition criteria rehabilitation hospitals and units must meet. This rule also replaced the “75 percent rule” compliance threshold with a three-year transition compliance threshold of 50%, 60% and 65% for years one, two and three, respectively, then a return to 75% in year four, commencing with cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2004. The three-year transition period was later delayed by one year, then was permanently set at 60% in 2007. See “– Regulatory and Legislative Changes” below. As of December 31, 2007, our inpatient rehabilitation hospital and all of our rehabilitation units were in compliance with the required 60% compliance threshold.

Cost Reports

The final determination of certain Medicare payments to our hospitals, such as disproportionate share, GME, IME and bad debt expense, are retrospectively determined based on our hospitals’ cost reports. The final determination of these payments often takes many years to resolve because of audits by the program representatives, providers’ rights of appeal, and the application of numerous technical reimbursement provisions.

For filed cost reports, we adjust the accrual for estimated cost report settlements based on those cost reports and subsequent activity, and record a valuation allowance against those cost reports based on historical settlement trends. The accrual for estimated cost report settlements for periods for which a cost report is yet to be filed is recorded based on estimates of what we expect to report on the filed cost reports and a corresponding valuation allowance is recorded as previously described. Cost reports must be filed generally within five months after the end of the annual cost report reporting period. After the cost report is filed, the accrual and corresponding valuation allowance may need to be adjusted.

Medicaid

Medicaid programs are funded by both the federal government and state governments. These programs and the reimbursement methodologies are administered by the states and vary from state to state and from year to year.

Estimated payments under various state Medicaid programs, excluding state-funded managed care Medicaid programs, constituted approximately 8.8%, 10.1% and 8.6% of net patient revenues at our continuing general hospitals for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These payments are typically based on fixed rates determined by the individual states. We also receive disproportionate share payments under various state Medicaid programs. For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, our revenue attributable to disproportionate share payments and other state-funded subsidy payments was approximately $165 million, $157 million and $108 million, respectively. The increase in revenue from disproportionate share payments and other state-funded subsidy payments is primarily attributable to additional funding provided by certain states, which was made available in part by additional annual state provider taxes on certain of our hospitals and changes in classification of state programs.

In May 2007, CMS issued a final rule, “Medicaid Program; Cost Limit for Providers Operated by Units of Government and Provisions to Ensure the Integrity of the Federal-State Financial Partnership,” that places limits and restrictions on Medicaid reimbursement to safety-net hospitals. Because of the congressional moratorium that was included in the federal fiscal year (“FFY”) 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act, this final rule cannot take effect before May 25, 2008. The provisions of the rule could materially reduce the amount of Medicaid payments we receive in the future.

Also in May 2007, CMS issued a proposed rule clarifying that the agency would no longer provide federal Medicaid matching funds for graduate medical education purposes. Congress responded to the CMS proposed rule to end federal support for GME payments by including in the FFY 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act language that places a one-year moratorium on any such restriction. The moratorium will last until May 23, 2008. We cannot predict what action, if any, Congress or CMS will take on this issue.

Further, many states in which we operate are facing budgetary challenges that pose a threat to Medicaid funding levels to hospitals and other providers. We expect these challenges to continue. In particular, announced funding changes will adversely impact our Georgia, Florida and North Carolina hospitals effective January 1, 2008 (an estimated $57 million reduction on an annual basis for both traditional Medicaid and managed Medicaid). On February 20, 2008, the Governor of California approved budget cuts of $2.2 billion that include across-the-board reductions to Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. The reductions include payment reductions and deferrals, as well as reductions in coverage. Barring legislative action to further modify the budget, the reductions go into effect on July 1, 2008. Based on our understanding of the budget reductions, we do not believe they will have a material impact on our results of operations or cash flows. Other proposed funding changes could impact our hospitals in other states; however, at this time, we cannot predict the extent of the impact of other states’ budget restrictions on our hospitals.

10

Regulatory and Legislative Changes

Recent regulatory and legislative updates to the terms of Medicare and Medicaid payment systems are provided below.

Payment and Policy Changes to the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System

Under Medicare law, CMS is required annually to update certain rules governing the inpatient prospective payment system. The updates generally become effective October 1, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. On August 1, 2007, CMS issued the Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and FFY 2008 Rates (“Final Rule”). On September 28, 2007, CMS issued a correction notice (“Correction Notice”) that corrects certain technical errors in the Final Rule. The Final Rule and Correction Notice include the following payment and policy changes:

According to CMS, projected aggregate spending from the reforms will not change. However, payments will increase for hospitals serving more severely ill patients and decrease for hospitals serving patients who are less severely ill. CMS projects that the combined impact of the payment and policy changes will yield an average 4.3% increase in payments for hospitals in large urban areas (populations over 1 million). This 4.3% increase includes CMS’ estimate of a 1.2% increase in anticipated payments resulting from coding and documentation improvements and the 1.2% Coding and Documentation Offset for FFY 2008 described above. On September 29, 2007, the President signed into law the Transitional Medical Assistance, Abstinence Education, and Qualifying Individuals Programs Extension Act of 2007, which includes a measure that reduces the Coding and Documentation Offsets for FFYs 2008 and 2009 by 50% to 0.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct a “look back” over those years, estimate what the offsets should have been, and adjust future rates to recapture the estimated excess payments in FFY 2010. Using the impact percentages in the Final Rule for hospitals in large urban areas, which did not change in the Correction Notice, and considering the impact of the subsequent legislative reduction in the Coding and

11

Documentation Offsets, each as applied to our Medicare IPPS payments for the 12 months ended September 30, 2007, the annual impact on our hospitals may result in an estimated increase in our Medicare revenues of approximately $64 million. Because of the uncertainty of the factors that may influence our future IPPS payments, including admission volumes, length of stay, case mix and the “look back” measure described above, we cannot provide any assurances regarding this estimate.

Payment and Policy Changes to the Medicare Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment System

On April 30, 2007, CMS issued a Notice of the Medicare Inpatient Psychiatric Facility (“IPF”) Prospective Payment System Update for the rate year beginning July 1, 2007 (“IPF-PPS Notice”). The IPF-PPS Notice includes the following payment and policy changes:

At December 31, 2007, 14 of our general hospitals in continuing operations operated inpatient psychiatric units. CMS projects that the combined impact of the proposed payment and policy changes will yield an average 3.1% increase in payments for all IPFs (including psychiatric units in acute care hospitals), and an average 1.1% increase in payments for psychiatric units of acute care hospitals located in urban areas. Using the urban unit impact percentage as applied to our Medicare IPF payments for the 12 months ended June 30, 2007, the annual impact of all changes on our psychiatric units may result in an estimated increase in our Medicare revenues of approximately $1 million. Because of the uncertainty of the factors that may influence our future IPF payments, including admission volumes, length of stay and case mix, we cannot provide any assurances regarding this estimate.

Payment and Policy Changes to the Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System

On July 31, 2007, CMS issued the Final Rule for the Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System for FFY 2008 (“IRF-PPS Rule”). The IRF-PPS Rule includes the following payment and policy changes:

In December 2007, the Medicare, Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (“SCHIP”) Extension Act of 2007 permanently set at 60% the threshold for rehabilitation hospitals and units to qualify as IRFs. The act also requires the continued the use of comorbidities in the determination of compliance, which use was set to expire on July 1, 2008. In order to fund these changes, the IRF-PPS market basket update to the payment rate for FFY 2008, which effective October 1, 2007 is 3.2%, will be reduced to zero effective April 1, 2008 and will remain frozen at zero through FFY 2009. Because our hospitals are currently meeting the 60% threshold, only the market basket rate freeze will impact our revenues in FFY 2008. The rate reduction effective April 1, 2008 will likely negate any expected annual increase from the Final Rule.

Payment and Policy Changes to the Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System

On November 1, 2007, CMS issued the Final Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Calendar Year 2008 Payment Rates (“OPPS Final Rule”). The OPPS Final Rule includes the following payment and policy changes:

12

CMS projects that the combined impact of the payment and policy changes in the OPPS Final Rule will yield an average 3.8% increase in payments for all hospitals, and an average 3.9% increase in payments for hospitals in large urban areas (populations over one million). According to CMS’ estimates, the projected annual impact of the final payment and policy changes for our hospitals is approximately $14 million, an increase of 4.7%. Because of the uncertainty of the factors that may influence our future OPPS payments, including volumes and case mix, we cannot provide any assurances regarding this estimate.

Long-Term Care Hospitals

CMS issued a final rule for long-term care hospitals on May 1, 2007 that provides for a 0.71% increase in the payment rate, increases the fixed outlier threshold from $14,887 to $20,738, and revises the payment methodologies for short-stay outliers. The rule also extends the existing 25% cap on admissions for long-term care units within hospitals to all long-term care hospitals such that more than 25% of a hospital’s admissions from a single source will be paid at the lower IPPS rate. However, in December 2007, the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (1) froze the final rule’s payment rate for FFY 2008 at the FFY 2007 level effective April 1, 2008, (2) rescinded the rule’s payment methodology changes for short-stay outliers and (3) placed a three-year moratorium on the application of the 25% cap on long-term acute care hospitals. We operate one long-term care hospital, but we cannot predict the impact the final rule might have on our Medicare net revenues from that hospital because of the restrictions imposed on the rule by the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act.

CMS’ Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program Report

Congress, through Section 5001(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, authorized the Secretary of HHS to develop a plan to implement value-based purchasing (“VBP”) commencing in FFY 2009 for Medicare hospital services paid under the IPPS. By statute, the plan must include consideration of: (1) the development and selection of measures of quality and efficiency in inpatient settings; (2) reporting, collection and validation of quality data; (3) the structure, size and source of value-based payment adjustments; and (4) disclosure of information on hospital performance.

On November 21, 2007, CMS issued a report to Congress with its plan to implement a VBP program. In the report, CMS proposes to transform Medicare from a passive payer of claims to an active purchaser of care. The options in the report build on the foundation of the current program of reporting hospital quality data for the annual payment update, which ties a portion of the IPPS annual payment update to a hospital meeting certain requirements, including reporting on a defined set of inpatient quality measures. Under CMS’ proposal, its VBP program would phase out those requirements and would make a portion of a hospital’s payments contingent on actual performance on specified measures, rather than simply on the hospital’s reporting data for these measures. Under VBP, payments to high-performing hospitals would be larger than those to lower performing hospitals because the IPPS would be used to provide financial incentives to drive improvements in clinical quality, patient-centeredness and efficiency. Public reporting of performance on Medicare’s Hospital Compare website, a key component of the current reporting program, would remain an essential component of VBP.

We cannot predict what action Congress or CMS may take with respect to the development or implementation of a VBP program, nor can we predict at this time what impact, if any, a VBP program might have on our results of operations or cash flows.

Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program provides health insurance to poor children. SCHIP is jointly financed, under the provisions of the Social Security Act, by federal and state governments and administered by the states. Within broad federal guidelines, each state determines the design of its program, eligibility groups, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative and operating procedures. SCHIP provided a capped amount of funds to states on a matching basis through September 30, 2007, when it expired. The Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, which was signed into law on December 29, 2007, extends funding through March 31, 2009.

13

Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) Initiative

Section 306 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 directs the Secretary of HHS to demonstrate the use of RACs under CMS’ Medicare Integrity Program in identifying underpayments and overpayments under the Medicare program, and recouping those overpayments. RACs are third-party organizations under contract with CMS, and the law provides that compensation paid to each RAC be based on a percentage of overpayment recoveries identified by the RAC. In 2005, CMS selected three states (California, Florida and New York) to pilot its RAC initiative. Our hospitals in California and Florida were initially excluded from the program because our fiscal intermediary is not located in the demonstration states. In 2007, CMS added three states (Arizona, Massachusetts and South Carolina) to the demonstration, and included hospitals served by our fiscal intermediary in the demonstration. The RAC demonstration is slated to end in March 2008; however, Section 302 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 makes the RAC program permanent and instructs CMS to use RACs to identify Medicare underpayments and overpayments nationwide by 2010. In November 2007, CMS released the revised RAC Statement of Work (“SOW”). The SOW includes several improvements, including placing certain restrictions on the claims subject to review by the RACs, and it delays implementation of the RAC program in some states. Several of our hospitals have received notices of overpayments resulting from RAC reviews. The overpayment determinations are subject to reconsideration and appeal through various forums, and we will pursue the reversal of the determinations where appropriate; however, we cannot predict the outcome of the appeals. In addition to overpayments identified by the RACs that are not reversed, we will incur additional costs to respond to requests for records and pursue the reversal of payment denials. We cannot predict the impact of future RAC reviews on our results of operations or cash flows.

MedPAC Recommendations

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”) is an independent Congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to advise Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. The Commission’s statutory mandate is quite broad; in addition to advising Congress on payments to private health plans participating in Medicare and providers in Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program, MedPAC is also tasked with analyzing access to care, quality of care and other issues affecting Medicare.

On January 10, 2008, MedPAC commenced a two-day public meeting to address ongoing Medicare issues and policy questions. Their recommendations affecting hospital payments include the following:

We cannot predict what actions, if any, Congress or CMS may take with respect to MedPAC’s recommendations or what impact those actions may have on our operations. Any actions could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows.

FFY 2009 Budget Proposal

On February 4, 2008, the White House released its FFY 2009 budget proposal, which includes nearly $182 billion in Medicare cuts over five years. The proposed cuts affecting hospitals include:

14

Most of the budget proposals require Congressional action, and we cannot predict what action, if any, Congress will take on these proposals.

Regulations Addressing Serious Medical Events

In an effort to encourage hospitals to improve quality of care, the Medicare program and certain state Medicaid programs have taken steps to reduce or withhold payments to hospitals for treatment given to patients whose conditions were caused by serious medical error. Under rules that go into effect on October 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer pay hospitals for the higher costs of care resulting from eight complications, including falls, objects left inside patients during surgery, pressure ulcers and three types of hospital-acquired infections. Certain states have established policies or proposed legislation to prohibit hospitals from charging or receiving payment from their Medicaid programs for highly preventable adverse medical events (sometimes called “serious reportable events” or “never events”), which were developed by the National Quality Forum, a non-profit organization that seeks to improve the quality of American healthcare. These errors include wrong-site surgery, serious medication mistakes and discharging a baby to the wrong mother, among others. In some states, including California, hospitals are required to report certain adverse events to a state agency charged with publicizing the events, as well as the results of any ensuing investigation conducted by the agency. We believe that our Commitment to Quality initiative, which utilizes the most current evidence-based techniques to improve the way we provide care, reduces our exposure to serious reportable events, but we are unable to predict the future impact of this development on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

PRIVATE INSURANCE

Managed Care

We currently have thousands of managed care contracts with various health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and preferred provider organizations (“PPOs”). HMOs generally maintain a full-service health care delivery network comprised of physician, hospital, pharmacy and ancillary service providers that HMO members must access through an assigned “primary care” physician. The member’s care is then managed by his or her primary care physician and other network providers in accordance with the HMO’s quality assurance and utilization review guidelines so that appropriate health care can be efficiently delivered in the most cost-effective manner. HMOs typically provide no benefit or reimbursement to their members who use non-contracted health care providers for non-emergency care.

PPOs generally offer limited benefits to members who use non-contracted health care providers. PPO members who use contracted health care providers receive a preferred benefit, typically in the form of lower co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles. As employers and employees have demanded more choice, managed care plans have developed hybrid products that combine elements of both HMO and PPO plans.

The amount of our managed care net patient revenue during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was $4.2 billion, $3.8 billion and $3.7 billion, respectively. Approximately 60% of our managed care net patient revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 was derived from our top ten managed care payers. National payers generate approximately 50% of our total net managed care revenues. The remainder comes from regional or local payers. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, approximately 53% and 51%, respectively, of our net accounts receivable related to continuing operations were due from managed care payers.

We expect managed care governmental admissions to continue to increase as a percentage of total managed care admissions over the near term. However, the managed Medicare and Medicaid insurance plans typically generate lower yields than commercial managed care plans, which have been experiencing an improved pricing trend. Although we have had ten consecutive quarters of improved year-over-year managed care pricing, we expect some moderation in the pricing percentage increases in the future.

Indemnity

An indemnity-based agreement generally requires the insurer to reimburse an insured patient for health care expenses after those expenses have been incurred by the patient, subject to an increasing number of policy conditions and exclusions. Unlike an HMO member, a patient with indemnity insurance is free to control his or her utilization of health care and selection of health care providers.

15

SELF-PAY PATIENTS

Self-pay patients are patients who do not qualify for government programs payments, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and who do not have some form of private insurance and, therefore, are responsible for their own medical bills. A significant portion of our self-pay patients is being admitted through our hospitals’ emergency departments and often requires high-acuity treatment. High-acuity treatment is more costly to provide and, therefore, results in higher billings, which are the least collectible of all accounts. We believe our level of self-pay patients has been higher in the last several years than previous periods due to a combination of broad economic factors, including reductions in state Medicaid budgets, increasing numbers of individuals and employers who choose not to purchase insurance, and an increased burden of co-payments and deductibles to be made by patients instead of insurers.

Self-pay accounts pose significant collectability problems. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, approximately 9% and 7%, respectively, of our net accounts receivable related to continuing operations were due from self-pay patients. Further, a significant portion of our provision for doubtful accounts relates to self-pay patients. We have performed systematic analyses to focus our attention on drivers of bad debt for each hospital. Specifically, pilots for new initiatives to ensure patients are receiving the optimal level of care at the appropriate time in the best setting are being introduced in a few of our hospitals to minimize inappropriate use of our emergency departments for non-emergent and non-urgent services. While emergency department use is the primary contributor to our provision for doubtful accounts in the aggregate, this is not the case at all hospitals. As a result, we are increasing our focus on targeted initiatives that concentrate on non-emergency department patients. These initiatives are intended to promote process efficiencies in working self-pay accounts we deem highly collectible. This is just one example of our continuous improvement efforts dedicated to modifying and refining our processes, enhancing our technology and improving staff training throughout the revenue cycle in an effort to increase collections and reduce accounts receivable.

Over the longer term, several other initiatives we have previously announced should also help address this challenge. For example, our Compact is designed to offer managed care-style discounts to most uninsured patients, which enables us to offer lower rates to those patients who historically have been charged standard gross charges. A significant portion of those charges had previously been written down in our provision for doubtful accounts. Under the Compact, the discount offered to uninsured patients is recognized as a contractual allowance, which reduces net operating revenues at the time the self-pay accounts are recorded. The uninsured patient accounts, net of contractual allowances recorded, are further reduced to their net realizable value through provision for doubtful accounts based on historical collection trends for self-pay accounts and other factors that affect the estimation process.

We also provide charity care to patients who are financially unable to pay for the health care services they receive. Most patients who qualify for charity care are charged a per-diem amount for services received, subject to a cap. Except for the per-diem amounts, our policy is not to pursue collection of amounts determined to qualify as charity care; therefore, we do not report these amounts in net operating revenues or in provision for doubtful accounts. Charity care gross charges for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $629 million, $605 million and $550 million, respectively. Both the cost of providing these benefits and the forgone revenue under our Compact would be substantially less than the gross charge amounts.

16

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 COMPARED TO THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006

The following two tables summarize our net operating revenues, operating expenses and operating income (loss) from continuing operations, both in dollar amounts and as percentages of net operating revenues, for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006:

Net operating revenues of our continuing general hospitals include inpatient and outpatient revenues, as well as nonpatient revenues (primarily rental income, management fee revenue and income from services such as cafeterias, gift shops and parking) and other miscellaneous revenue. Net operating revenues of other operations primarily consist of revenues from (1) physician practices, (2) rehabilitation hospitals and a long-term-care facility, and (3) equity earnings of unconsolidated affiliates that are not directly associated with our general hospitals. None of our individual hospitals represented more than 5% of our net operating revenues or more than 15% of our total assets, excluding goodwill and intercompany receivables, at December 31, 2007 and 2006.

Net operating revenues from our other operations were $172 million and $139 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Since 2006, we have seen an increase in revenues from physician practices. Equity earnings of unconsolidated affiliates, included in our net operating revenues from other operations, were $20 million and $6 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

17

The table below shows certain selected historical operating statistics for our continuing general hospitals:

18

The table below shows certain selected historical operating statistics for our continuing general hospitals on a same-hospital basis. The impact of our acquisition of Coastal Carolina Medical Center at the end of June 2007 is excluded from same-hospital statistics for the year ended December 31, 2007.

REVENUES

During the year ended December 31, 2007, net operating revenues from continuing operations increased 5.5% compared to the year ended December 31, 2006.

Same-hospital outpatient visits, surgeries, patient days and admissions were lower during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2006 by 1.7%, 2.6%, 1.9% and 0.9%, respectively. We believe the following factors continue to contribute to the overall decline in our inpatient and outpatient volume levels: (1) loss of patients to competing health care providers; (2) challenges in physician recruitment, retention and attrition, specifically with respect to recruiting physicians at our Florida hospitals to replace doctors who have retired or relocated; (3) strategic reduction of services related to our Targeted Growth Initiative discussed in “Executive Overview – Significant Challenges – Company-Specific Volume Challenge” above; (4) population trends in Florida; and (5) unfavorable publicity about us, which impacts our relationships with physicians and patients.

Our same-hospital net inpatient revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased by 3.7% compared to the prior year. There were various positive and negative factors impacting our net inpatient revenues.

The positive factors include:

19

The negative factors include:

Same-hospital net outpatient revenues during the year ended December 31, 2007 increased 8.5% compared to the year ended December 31, 2006, although overall same-hospital outpatient visits decreased 1.7% in 2007. The primary reason for the same-hospital net outpatient revenue increase is improved managed care pricing.

SALARIES, WAGES AND BENEFITS

Salaries, wages and benefits expense as a percentage of net operating revenues was flat for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2006. Salaries, wages and benefits per adjusted patient day increased approximately 5.5% in 2007 compared to 2006. The increase is primarily due to merit increases since the prior year and a greater number of employed physicians.

As of December 31, 2007, approximately 22% of the employees at our continuing and discontinued hospitals and related health care facilities were represented by labor unions. Labor relations at our facilities generally have been satisfactory. We, and the hospital industry in general, are continuing to see an increase in the amount of union activity across the country. As union activity increases at our hospitals, our salaries, wages and benefits expense may increase more rapidly than our net operating revenues.

In November 2007, we entered into new collective bargaining agreements with the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) to replace expired collective bargaining agreements at 14 hospitals in California and two hospitals in Florida. We also entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the SEIU at Coral Gables Hospital in Florida after certain employees voted in favor of union representation at that facility in March 2007. The SEIU agreements set stable and competitive wage increases within our budgeted expectations for union-represented employees. In August 2007, we entered into successor, four-year collective bargaining agreements with the California Nurses Association (“CNA”) that cover nurses at nine hospitals in California. The CNA agreements provide for wage increases within our budgeted expectations. We have also entered into separate “peace accords” with both the SEIU and the CNA that provide each union with limited access to attempt to organize our employees. In March 2007, we reached an agreement with the United Nurses Associations of California (“UNAC”) on a new labor contract for nurses represented at four hospitals in California. The UNAC agreement includes improvements in employee wages, work rules and benefits. We do not anticipate that any of the union and labor agreements we reached in 2007 will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Included in salaries, wages and benefits expense in the year ended December 31, 2007 is $40 million of stock-based compensation expense compared to $50 million in 2006. The decrease is due to the vesting of higher grant-date fair value awards from prior years and the issuance of new awards at lower grant-date fair values primarily due to our lower stock price.

SUPPLIES

Supplies expense as a percentage of net operating revenues decreased slightly for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 2006; however, supplies expense per adjusted patient day increased approximately 3.5% in 2007 compared to 2006. This increase in supplies expense reflected higher costs for implants and pacemakers due to inflation and technology improvements, partially offset by lower cardiovascular and pharmaceutical supply costs, which resulted from a decrease in cardiovascular procedures and our efforts to use more cost-effective pharmaceuticals.

We strive to control supplies expense through product standardization, bulk purchases, contract compliance, improved utilization and operational improvements that should minimize waste. The items of current cost reduction focus continue to be cardiac stents and pacemakers, orthopedic implants and high-cost pharmaceuticals. We also utilize the group-purchasing strategies and supplies-management services of Broadlane, Inc., a company in which we currently hold a 48% interest. Broadlane offers group-purchasing procurement strategy, outsourcing and e-commerce services to the health care industry.

20

PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS

The provision for doubtful accounts as a percentage of net operating revenues increased 0.6% for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 2006, primarily due to higher self-pay revenues. The table below shows the net accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts by payer:

A significant portion of our provision for doubtful accounts relates to self-pay patients. Collection of accounts receivable has been a key area of focus, particularly over the past several years, as we have experienced adverse changes in our business mix. Our current estimated collection rate on self-pay accounts is approximately 36%, including collections from point-of-service through collections by our in-house collection agency or external collection vendors. This self-pay collection rate includes payments made by patients, including co-payments and deductibles paid by patients with insurance, prior to an account being classified and assigned to our in-house self-pay collection group. The comparable self-pay collection percentage as of December 31, 2006 was approximately 32%. Our provision for doubtful accounts in the fourth quarter of 2007 includes a $16 million favorable adjustment in the estimate of necessary bad debt reserve levels at year-end primarily related to uninsured patients’ billings in 2007 compared to a favorable adjustment of $8 million in the fourth quarter of 2006. The change in anticipated collections as of December 31, 2007 was based on a look-back period of 18 months of collections.

We have performed systematic analyses to focus our attention on drivers of bad debt for each hospital. Specifically, pilots for new initiatives to ensure patients are receiving the optimal level of care at the appropriate time in the best setting are being introduced in a few of our hospitals to minimize inappropriate use of our emergency departments for non-emergent and non-urgent services. While emergency department use is the primary contributor to our provision for doubtful accounts in the aggregate, this is not the case at all hospitals. As a result, we are increasing our focus on targeted initiatives that concentrate on non-emergency department patients. These initiatives are intended to promote process efficiencies in working self-pay accounts we deem highly collectible. This is just one example of our continuous improvement efforts dedicated to modifying and refining our processes, enhancing our technology and improving staff training throughout the revenue cycle in an effort to increase collections and reduce accounts receivable.

Payment pressure from managed care payers has also affected our provision for doubtful accounts. We continue to experience ongoing managed care payment delays and disputes; however, we are working with these payers to obtain adequate and timely reimbursement for our services. Our current estimated collection rate on managed care accounts is approximately 98%, which includes collections from point-of-service through collections by our in-house collection agency or external collection vendors. The comparable managed care collection percentage as of December 31, 2006 was approximately 97%.

We continue to focus on revenue cycle initiatives to improve cash flow. One specific initiative that was started during the three months ended September 30, 2006 and is expected to be completed in 2008 is the Center for Patient Access Services, which is a centralized dedicated operation that performs financial clearance, including completing insurance eligibility checks, documenting verification of benefits, providing required notifications to managed care payers, obtaining pre-authorizations when

21

necessary and contacting the patient to offer pre-service financial counseling. Although we continue to improve our methodology for evaluating the collectability of our accounts receivable, we may incur future charges if there are unfavorable changes in the trends affecting the net realizable value of our accounts receivable.

We manage our provision for doubtful accounts using hospital-specific goals and benchmarks such as (1) total cash collections, (2) point-of-service cash collections, (3) accounts receivable days outstanding (“AR Days”), and (4) accounts receivable aging. The following tables present the approximate aging by payer of our continuing operations’ net accounts receivable of $1.198 billion and $1.143 billion, excluding cost report settlements payable and valuation allowances of $15 million and $39 million, at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively:

Our AR Days from continuing operations were 52 days at both December 31, 2007 and 2006. AR Days at December 31, 2007 and 2006 are within our target of less than 60 days. AR Days are calculated as our accounts receivable from continuing operations on the last date in the relevant quarter divided by our revenue from continuing operations for the quarter ended on that date divided by the number of days in the quarter.

As of December 31, 2007, we had a cumulative total of patient account assignments dating back at least three years or older of approximately $4.5 billion related to our continuing operations being pursued by our in-house and outside collection agencies or vendors. These accounts have already been written off and are not included in our receivables or in the allowance for doubtful accounts; however, an estimate of future recoveries from all the accounts at collection agencies is determined based on our historical experience and recorded in accounts receivable.

Patient advocates from our Medical Eligibility Program (“MEP”) screen patients in the hospital to determine whether those patients meet eligibility requirements for financial assistance programs. They also expedite the process of applying for these government programs. Receivables from patients who are potentially eligible for Medicaid are classified as Medicaid pending, under our MEP, with appropriate contractual allowances recorded. Based on recent trends, approximately 80% of all accounts in our MEP are ultimately approved for benefits under a government program such as Medicaid.

22

The following table shows the approximate amount of net accounts receivable in our MEP, still awaiting determination of eligibility under a government program at December 31, 2007 and 2006, by aging category:

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

Other operating expenses as a percentage of net operating revenues were 22.8% and 23.1% for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Other operating expense per adjusted patient day increased approximately 5.7% in 2007 compared to 2006 due to higher physician fees, contracted services and information technology services costs. Also included in other operating expenses is malpractice expense of $163 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $174 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The decrease is due primarily to lower patient volume levels, tort reform in several states, and reduced claims experience and ultimate indemnity paid on claims.

Also included in other operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2007 is $3 million in net gains compared to $3 million in net losses in the year ended December 31, 2006. The 2007 amount includes an $8 million net gain on the sale of a medical office building in Florida, offset by various immaterial losses on sales of equipment.

IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS AND GOODWILL AND RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded net impairment and restructuring charges of $49 million, net of insurance recoveries of $5 million, compared to $318 million, net of insurance recoveries of $3 million, for the year ended December 31, 2006. The primary reason for the decrease is lower impairment charges in 2007. See Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail of these charges and related liabilities.

In the second quarter of 2006, we announced several changes to our operating structure. Because of the restructuring of our regions, our goodwill reporting units (as defined in Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”) changed in the second quarter of 2006, requiring us to perform a goodwill impairment evaluation. Based on this evaluation, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of approximately $35 million during the three months ended June 30, 2006 based on the estimated fair value of goodwill associated with the reconfigured reporting units. In addition, as part of our annual impairment test, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $152 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2006 for our former Central-Northeast region due to a lower estimated fair value as a result of adverse industry and company-specific challenges that continued to affect our operating results and our anticipated future financial trends, including reduced patient volumes, high levels of bad debt expense related to uninsured and underinsured patients, and continued pressure on labor and supply costs. We estimated the fair value of the goodwill based on appraisals, established market values of comparable assets, or internal estimates of future net cash flows.

Our impairment tests presume stable or, in some cases, improving results in our hospitals. If these expectations are not met, or if in the future negative trends occur that impact our future outlook, further impairments of long-lived assets and goodwill may occur, and we will incur additional restructuring charges. Future restructuring of our regions that changes our goodwill reporting units could also result in further impairments of our goodwill.

LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATION COSTS

Litigation and investigation costs in continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2007 were $13 million compared to $766 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The amount for 2007 includes a $7 million increase in the estimated liabilities for wage and hour actions and other unrelated employment matters further described in Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The 2006 expenses primarily consisted of legal settlements with the federal government and costs to defend ourselves in various lawsuits.

23

INCOME TAX BENEFIT

Income taxes in the year ended December 31, 2007 included:

Income taxes in the year ended December 31, 2006 included:

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 COMPARED TO THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

The following two tables summarize our net operating revenues, operating expenses and operating loss from continuing operations, both in dollar amounts and as percentages of net operating revenues, for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.