Latest news with #Pfeifer
Business Wire
01-08-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Oshkosh Corporation Reports 2025 Second Quarter Results
OSHKOSH, Wis.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE: OSK), a leading innovator of purpose-built vehicles and equipment, today reported 2025 second quarter net income of $204.8 million, or $3.16 per diluted share, compared to net income of $168.6 million, or $2.56 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted 1 net income was $220.6 million, or $3.41 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2025 compared to $219.8 million, or $3.34 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2024. Comparisons in this news release are to the second quarter of 2024, unless otherwise noted. Consolidated sales in the second quarter of 2025 decreased $114.8 million, or 4.0 percent, to $2.73 billion primarily due to lower sales volume in the Access and Transport segments, partially offset by higher Vocational segment sales volume and improved pricing. Consolidated operating income in the second quarter of 2025 increased 11.8 percent to $291.7 million, or 10.7 percent of sales, compared to $260.9 million, or 9.2 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. The increase in operating income was primarily due to lower intangible asset impairments and improved sales mix, offset in part by lower sales volume. Adjusted 1 operating income in the second quarter of 2025 decreased 4.7 percent to $312.9 million, or 11.5 percent of sales, compared to $328.2 million, or 11.5 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. 'We delivered a strong second quarter, with adjusted earnings per share of $3.41, up 2.1 percent from the prior year, reflecting disciplined execution and broad-based strength across our portfolio,' said John Pfeifer, president and chief executive officer of Oshkosh Corporation. 'Our Vocational segment continued to perform well, and our Access segment remained resilient and delivered another impressive quarter, helping to drive solid overall results. 'This quarter featured several strategic highlights, including the launch of our new micro-sized JLG® scissor lift, a three-year contract extension for our Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles program with the U.S. Army and our successful Investor Day in June, where we outlined our 2028 financial targets. 'Given our strong performance in the second quarter and continued visibility in our Vocational and Transport segments, we are raising our full-year expectations for adjusted earnings per share to be approximately $11.00. Despite ongoing uncertainties in the global trade environment, we remain confident in our ability to navigate these challenges while delivering value for customers and shareholders,' added Pfeifer. Factors affecting second quarter results for the Company's business segments included: Access - Access segment sales for the second quarter of 2025 decreased $150.9 million, or 10.7 percent, to $1.26 billion primarily due to the expiration of the agreement to produce Caterpillar-branded telehandlers, reduced sales volume in Europe and higher sales discounts, offset in part by sales volume associated with the AUSA acquisition. Access segment operating income in the second quarter of 2025 decreased 26.3 percent to $181.6 million, or 14.5 percent of sales, compared to $246.5 million, or 17.5 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. The decrease was primarily due to lower sales volume and higher sales discounts, offset in part by improved sales mix. Adjusted 1 operating income in the second quarter of 2025 was $185.7 million, or 14.8 percent of sales, compared to $248.8 million, or 17.7 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. Vocational - Vocational segment sales for the second quarter of 2025 increased $126.6 million, or 15.0 percent, to $969.7 million due to higher sales volume and improved pricing. Vocational segment operating income in the second quarter of 2025 increased 38.3 percent to $147.3 million, or 15.2 percent of sales, compared to $106.5 million, or 12.6 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. The increase was primarily due to improved price/cost dynamics and higher sales volume, partially offset by higher production costs, warranty expense, litigation expense and engineering costs. Adjusted 1 operating income in the second quarter of 2025 was $157.9 million, or 16.3 percent of sales, compared to $118.5 million, or 14.1 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. Transport - Transport segment sales for the second quarter of 2025 decreased $92.8 million, or 16.2 percent, to $479.1 million, as the wind-down of the domestic Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program was partially offset by the ramp-up of Next Generation Delivery Vehicle production for the United States Postal Service and higher international tactical wheeled vehicle sales volume. Transport segment operating income in the second quarter of 2025 increased 49.6 percent to $17.8 million, or 3.7 percent of sales, compared to $11.9 million, or 2.1 percent of sales, in the second quarter of 2024. The increase was primarily the result of improved pricing under the more recent Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles contracts, lower new product development costs, lower unfavorable cumulative catch-up adjustments and improved sales mix, partially offset by lower sales volume. Corporate and other - Net operating costs for corporate and other in the second quarter of 2025 decreased $49.0 million to $55.0 million primarily due to lower intangible asset impairments. Interest Expense Net of Interest Income - Interest expense net of interest income in the second quarter of 2025 decreased $2.2 million to $28.1 million. Miscellaneous, net - Miscellaneous income, net in the second quarter of 2025 was $7.3 million compared to miscellaneous expense, net of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to an unrealized gain on an investment. Provision for Income Taxes - The Company recorded income tax expense in the second quarter of 2025 of $65.2 million, or 24.1 percent of pre-tax income, compared to $53.5 million, or 23.4 percent of pre-tax income, in the second quarter of 2024. Losses of unconsolidated affiliates - Losses of unconsolidated affiliates were $0.9 million in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $7.0 million in the second quarter of 2024 due to lower impairments of investments in unconsolidated affiliates. Repurchases of common stock - The Company repurchased 414,755 shares of common stock in the second quarter of 2025 for $40.0 million. Share repurchases completed during the previous twelve months benefited earnings per share in the second quarter of 2025 by $0.06 compared to the second quarter of 2024. Dividend Announcement The Company's Board of Directors today declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.51 per share of Common Stock. The dividend will be payable on September 2, 2025 to shareholders of record as of August 19, 2025. Six-month Results The Company reported net sales for the first six months of 2025 of $5.04 billion and net income of $317.0 million, or $4.88 per diluted share. This compares with net sales of $5.39 billion and net income of $348.0 million, or $5.27 per diluted share, for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The decrease in net income for the first six months of 2025 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2024 was primarily due to lower sales volume, higher production costs and higher warranty expense, offset in part by improved pricing, lower intangible asset impairments and improved performance of the Company's investments. Adjusted 1 net income for the first six months of 2025 was $345.4 million, or $5.32 per diluted share, compared to $410.9 million, or $6.23 per diluted share, for the six months ended June 30, 2024. 2025 Expectations The Company expects its 2025 diluted earnings per share to be approximately $10.25 and its adjusted 1 earnings per share to be approximately $11.00. The Company continues to expect net sales of approximately $10.6 billion. The international trade environment remains dynamic and difficult to predict. The Company's revised estimates reflect a more limited impact of tariffs compared to last quarter due to pauses and revisions to tariff rates and the Company's performance in the second quarter. The adjusted earnings per share guidance is consistent with the Company's original January outlook as anticipated tariff impacts are expected to be offset by company-wide cost reduction actions. The Company's estimates include direct impacts of tariffs based on rates as of July 30 and do not reflect potential future indirect impacts, including weaker macroeconomic conditions, which are difficult to predict at this time. Conference Call The Company will host a conference call at 8:30 a.m. EDT this morning to discuss its second quarter results and 2025 expectations. Slides for the call will be available on the Company's website beginning at 7:00 a.m. EDT this morning. The call will be simultaneously webcast. To access the webcast, go to at least 15 minutes prior to the event and follow instructions for listening to the webcast. An audio replay of the call and related question and answer session will be available for 12 months at this website. Forward-Looking Statements This news release contains statements that the Company believes to be 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company's future financial position, business strategy, growth and drivers, capital allocation, resiliency, targets (including financial targets for 2028), projected sales, costs, margins, earnings, capital expenditures, debt levels and cash flows, and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. When used in this news release, words such as 'may,' 'will,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'estimate,' 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'should,' 'project,' 'confident' or 'plan' or the negative thereof or variations thereon or similar terminology are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors, some of which are beyond the Company's control, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include the cyclical nature of the Company's access equipment, fire apparatus, refuse and recycling collection and air transportation equipment markets, which are particularly impacted by the strength of U.S. and European economies and construction seasons; the Company's estimates of access equipment demand which, among other factors, is influenced by historical customer buying patterns and rental company fleet replacement strategies; the impact of orders and costs on the U.S. Postal Service contract; risks that a trade war and related tariffs could reduce the demand for or competitiveness of the Company's products or cause inefficiencies in the Company's supply chain; the Company's ability to increase prices to raise margins or to offset higher input costs; the Company's ability to accurately predict future input costs associated with U.S. Department of Defense contracts; the Company's ability to attract and retain production labor in a timely manner; the Company's ability to realize the anticipated benefits associated with the AeroTech acquisition; the strength of the U.S. dollar and its impact on Company exports, translation of foreign sales and the cost of purchased materials; the impact of severe weather, war, natural disasters or pandemics that may affect the Company, its suppliers or its customers; the Company's ability to predict the level and timing of orders for indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with the U.S. federal government; budget uncertainty for the U.S. federal government, including risks of future budget cuts, the impact of continuing resolution funding mechanisms and the potential for shutdowns; the impact of any U.S. Department of Defense solicitation for competition for future contracts to produce military vehicles; risks related to the collectability of receivables, particularly for those businesses with exposure to construction markets; the cost of any warranty campaigns related to the Company's products; risks associated with international operations and sales, including compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; the Company's ability to comply with complex laws and regulations applicable to U.S. government contractors; cybersecurity risks and costs of defending against, mitigating and responding to data security threats and breaches impacting the Company; the Company's ability to successfully identify, complete and integrate other acquisitions and to realize the anticipated benefits associated with the same; and risks related to the Company's ability to successfully execute on its strategic road map and meet its long-term financial goals. Additional information concerning these and other factors is contained in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Form 8-K filed today. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this news release. The Company assumes no obligation, and disclaims any obligation, to update information contained in this news release. Investors should be aware that the Company may not update such information until the Company's next quarterly earnings conference call, if at all. In particular: The statements in this news release that relate to the Company's financial targets for 2028 use language that might imply a level of certainty about the likelihood that the Company will attain these targets, it is possible that the Company will not attain them in the timeframe noted or at all. By their nature, the risk and uncertainty associated with these targets are greater than that associated with near-term guidance and should not be construed as guidance. Therefore, investors should construe these statements regarding the Company's financial targets for 2028 only as targets rather than promises of future performance or absolute statements. About Oshkosh Corporation At Oshkosh (NYSE: OSK), we make innovative, purpose-built equipment to help everyday heroes advance communities around the world. Headquartered in Wisconsin, Oshkosh Corporation employs over 18,000 team members worldwide, all united behind a common purpose: to make a difference in people's lives. Oshkosh products can be found in more than 150 countries under the brands of JLG®, Pierce®, MAXIMETAL, Oshkosh® S-Series™, McNeilus®, IMT®, Jerr-Dan®, Frontline™ Communications, Oshkosh® Airport Products, Oshkosh AeroTech™, Oshkosh® Defense and Pratt Miller. For more information, visit Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net sales $ 2,732.1 $ 2,846.9 $ 5,044.9 $ 5,390.7 Cost of sales 2,207.6 2,300.8 4,120.5 4,374.6 Gross income 524.5 546.1 924.4 1,016.1 Operating expenses: Selling, general and administrative 213.3 220.0 424.3 416.8 Amortization of purchased intangibles 13.8 13.6 27.3 27.1 Intangible asset impairments 5.7 51.6 5.7 51.6 Total operating expenses 232.8 285.2 457.3 495.5 Operating income 291.7 260.9 467.1 520.6 Other income (expense): Interest expense (30.1 ) (32.0 ) (57.1 ) (54.4 ) Interest income 2.0 1.7 4.0 3.3 Miscellaneous, net 7.3 (1.5 ) 7.8 (3.5 ) Income before income taxes and losses of unconsolidated affiliates 270.9 229.1 421.8 466.0 Provision for income taxes 65.2 53.5 102.0 108.2 Income before losses of unconsolidated affiliates 205.7 175.6 319.8 357.8 Losses of unconsolidated affiliates (0.9 ) (7.0 ) (2.8 ) (9.8 ) Net income $ 204.8 $ 168.6 $ 317.0 $ 348.0 Earnings per share: Basic $ 3.17 $ 2.57 $ 4.90 $ 5.30 Diluted 3.16 2.56 4.88 5.27 Basic weighted-average shares outstanding 64,532,356 65,531,669 64,663,506 65,630,571 Expand OSHKOSH CORPORATION CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In millions; unaudited) June 30, December 31, 2025 2024 Assets Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 191.7 $ 204.9 Receivables, net 1,511.9 1,254.7 Unbilled receivables, net 654.9 636.5 Inventories 2,495.7 2,265.7 Income taxes receivable 49.7 51.2 Other current assets 110.1 114.5 Total current assets 5,014.0 4,527.5 Property, plant and equipment: Property, plant and equipment 2,478.4 2,394.6 Accumulated depreciation (1,242.8 ) (1,178.1 ) Property, plant and equipment, net 1,235.6 1,216.5 Goodwill 1,449.2 1,410.1 Purchased intangible assets, net 757.9 777.6 Deferred income taxes 285.6 259.0 Deferred contract costs 841.0 842.6 Other non-current assets 432.8 389.8 Total assets $ 10,016.1 $ 9,423.1 Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity Current liabilities: Revolving credit facilities $ 398.7 $ 362.3 Accounts payable 975.7 1,143.4 Customer advances 597.9 648.8 Payroll-related obligations 202.6 246.2 Income taxes payable 118.7 140.1 Other current liabilities 433.8 446.5 Total current liabilities 2,727.4 2,987.3 Long-term debt 1,099.6 599.5 Non-current customer advances 1,163.5 1,154.4 Deferred income taxes 26.7 26.9 Other non-current liabilities 544.5 502.9 Commitments and contingencies Shareholders' equity 4,454.4 4,152.1 Total liabilities and shareholders' equity $ 10,016.1 $ 9,423.1 Expand OSHKOSH CORPORATION CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In millions; unaudited) Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 Operating activities: Net income $ 317.0 $ 348.0 Depreciation and amortization 109.5 94.5 Intangible asset impairments 5.7 51.6 Stock-based incentive compensation 19.1 20.4 Deferred income taxes (28.2 ) (3.7 ) Other non-cash adjustments (0.4 ) 13.9 Changes in operating assets and liabilities (728.4 ) (1,091.5 ) Net cash used in operating activities (305.7 ) (566.8 ) Investing activities: Additions to property, plant and equipment (80.9 ) (139.6 ) Acquisition of businesses, net of cash acquired (0.9 ) (7.8 ) Other investing activities (17.3 ) (1.9 ) Net cash used in investing activities (99.1 ) (149.3 ) Financing activities: Proceeds from issuance of debt 2,838.0 2,670.5 Repayments of debt (2,302.2 ) (1,809.0 ) Dividends paid (65.7 ) (60.2 ) Repurchases of Common Stock (68.7 ) (54.6 ) Other financing activities (22.0 ) (13.9 ) Net cash provided by financing activities 379.4 732.8 Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 12.2 (0.7 ) Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (13.2 ) 16.0 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 204.9 125.4 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 191.7 $ 141.4 Expand OSHKOSH CORPORATION SEGMENT INFORMATION (In millions; unaudited) Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net Sales Access Aerial work platforms $ 638.0 $ 675.6 $ 1,088.8 $ 1,266.6 Telehandlers 325.1 428.6 569.6 802.0 Other 292.9 302.7 554.7 575.8 Total Access 1,256.0 1,406.9 2,213.1 2,644.4 Vocational Municipal fire apparatus 398.0 331.4 727.8 636.9 Airport products 246.1 215.5 471.4 413.6 Refuse and recycling vehicles 197.0 176.9 402.5 324.2 Other 128.6 119.3 234.8 240.8 Total Vocational 969.7 843.1 1,836.5 1,615.5 Transport Defense (a) 372.0 535.6 784.7 1,044.7 Delivery vehicles 107.1 36.3 157.4 36.3 Total Transport 479.1 571.9 942.1 1,081.0 Corporate and other (a) 27.3 25.0 53.2 49.8 Consolidated $ 2,732.1 $ 2,846.9 $ 5,044.9 $ 5,390.7 Expand Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Operating Income (Loss) Access $ 181.6 $ 246.5 $ 284.7 $ 454.6 Vocational 147.3 106.5 265.1 186.6 Transport (a) 17.8 11.9 18.4 25.2 Corporate and other (a) (55.0 ) (104.0 ) (101.1 ) (145.8 ) Consolidated $ 291.7 $ 260.9 $ 467.1 $ 520.6 Expand June 30, 2025 2024 Period-end backlog: Access $ 1,189.0 $ 3,264.4 Vocational 6,268.8 5,678.2 Transport (a) 6,709.0 6,384.5 Corporate and other (a) 58.9 42.1 Consolidated $ 14,225.7 $ 15,369.2 Expand (a) In July 2024, the Company moved the reporting responsibility for Pratt Miller from its Transport segment to the Chief Technology and Strategic Sourcing Officer to better utilize Pratt Miller's expertise across the entire Oshkosh Corporation enterprise. Pratt Miller results are now reported within "Corporate and other" and historical information has been recast to reflect the change. Expand Non-GAAP Financial Measures The Company reports its financial results in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (GAAP). The Company is presenting various operating results both on a GAAP basis and on a basis excluding items that affect comparability of results. When the Company excludes certain items as described below, they are considered non-GAAP financial measures. The Company believes excluding the impact of these items is useful to investors in comparing the Company's performance to prior period results. However, while adjusted operating income, adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share exclude amortization of purchased intangibles and intangible asset impairments, revenue and earnings of acquired companies are reflected in adjusted operating income, adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share and intangible assets contribute to the generation of revenue and earnings. Non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed in addition to, and not as an alternative for, the Company's results prepared in accordance with GAAP. The table below presents a reconciliation of the Company's presented non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures (in millions, except per share amounts): Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 Provision for income taxes (GAAP) $ 65.2 $ 53.5 $ 102.0 $ 108.2 Income tax effects of adjustments 5.4 16.1 9.2 20.0 Adjusted provision for income taxes (non-GAAP) $ 70.6 $ 69.6 $ 111.2 $ 128.2 Net income (GAAP) $ 204.8 $ 168.6 $ 317.0 $ 348.0 Amortization of purchased intangibles 15.5 15.7 31.9 31.3 Intangible asset impairments 5.7 51.6 5.7 51.6 Income tax effects of adjustments (5.4 ) (16.1 ) (9.2 ) (20.0 ) Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) $ 220.6 $ 219.8 $ 345.4 $ 410.9 Earnings per share-diluted (GAAP) $ 3.16 $ 2.56 $ 4.88 $ 5.27 Amortization of purchased intangibles 0.24 0.24 0.49 0.48 Intangible asset impairments 0.09 0.78 0.09 0.78 Income tax effects of adjustments (0.08 ) (0.24 ) (0.14 ) (0.30 ) Adjusted earnings per share-diluted (non-GAAP) $ 3.41 $ 3.34 $ 5.32 $ 6.23 Expand 2025 Expectations Earnings per share-diluted (GAAP) $ 10.25 Amortization of purchased intangibles, net of tax 0.68 Intangible asset impairments, net of tax 0.07 Adjusted earnings per share-diluted (non-GAAP) $ 11.00 Expand
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Facing sky-high medical bills? Your hospital may have overcharged you
After Blake Pfeifer, a veteran plumber in Colorado Springs, Colorado, underwent emergency stomach surgery at a nearby nonprofit hospital in 2022, he struggled to understand the bills flooding in for his weeklong stay. The initial charge for the procedure at the University of Colorado Health Memorial Hospital Central was $104,000, his records show. Because Pfeifer had no insurance and would be paying out of pocket, he was quoted a discounted price of $58,124. He said he called the hospital to get clarity on the bills but got nowhere. He began paying some of them and was pursued by a collection agency on others. Then he sought the help of a patient advocacy group. 'I've always paid my bills,' Pfeifer, 63, said. 'I wanted a little better explanation.' The group he worked with, Patient Rights found that some of his charges were far higher than the amounts UCHealth reported under a federal price transparency rule that went into effect in 2021. And that wasn't the only notable finding: Only 25% of Pfeifer's charges showed up on the hospital's required price list and therefore could not be compared at all. Pfeifer's experience is not uncommon, according to patient advocates, public interest lawyers and Medicare data. The burden of medical debt, a problem faced by 100 million Americans, has pushed many to delay medical care and even file for bankruptcy, research shows. Making these obligations even more ruinous, patient advocates say, is that many may be based on inaccurate health care bills. These discrepancies occur even as hospitals must list prices for care on their websites. The price transparency rule, initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, requires facilities to 'establish, update, and make public a list of all standard charges for all items and services.' Implemented under the first Trump administration, it aims to help consumers shop for care and compare prices before they go to the hospital. Now, four years after the rule went into effect, hospital billing seems 'intentionally complex,' said Cynthia Fisher, founder of Patient Rights 'Hospitals and insurance companies alike have even hired many middle-player firms to be able to maximize their margins and profits at every single patient encounter,' she added. 'Sometimes what we're finding is the charges like Blake's that are billed are far beyond even the highest rate that they have within their hospital pricing file.' It adds up to an increasingly costly health care experience for Americans. A West Health-Gallup survey published April 2 found that 35% of respondents said they could not access high-quality, affordable health care — a new high since 2021. UCHealth is a nonprofit hospital system with 14 hospitals in Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. In its financial filings, UCHealth says its discount program for self-pay patients like Pfeifer 'reduces uninsured patients' liabilities to a level more equivalent of insured patients.' Some of Pfeifer's records conflict with this description. Pfeifer received 10 common blood tests, known as a metabolic panel, and was billed $104 for each. By comparison, UCHealth's public price data shows it charged insured patients between $6.52 and $52.89 for each test in 2022. In another case, Pfeifer was charged $99 for a blood culture to measure bacteria, the records show, while UCHealth's pricing data listed a range of charges for insured patients of between $8 and $61. For a phosphate level blood test, Pfeifer was billed $30, while insured patients at UCHealth were charged between $3.72 and $22.02. Under Colorado law, violations of hospital price transparency requirements are a deceptive trade practice. Dan Weaver, a UCHealth spokesman, said in a statement that the health system 'does everything possible to share prices and estimates with our patients, encourage insurance coverage, assist patients in applying for Medicaid and other programs that may offer coverage.' Regarding Pfeifer's case, Weaver said he could not comment because the hospital had received notice from a lawyer representing Pfeifer that he may file a claim against it. He said the hospital disputes what is in the lawyer's notice, but he declined to specify what exactly it disputes. Weaver pointed to the state of Colorado's 2024 report stating that UCHealth hospitals 'are fully compliant with transparency requirements.' For 2022, when Pfeifer received care at UCHealth, the document showed the hospital providing his care received a 'fair' transparency rating by the state, above 'poor' but below 'good.' Weaver added that CMS, which determines hospital compliance with transparency requirements, 'has not cited UCHealth or our hospitals for noncompliance.' Enforcement actions are exceedingly rare. CMS' website lists monetary penalties against only 27 hospitals in the four years since the requirements began. (There are 6,000 hospitals nationwide, according to the American Hospital Association.) A December 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found that nearly 40% of the 100 hospitals it studied were not complying with the price transparency requirements. Colorado law allows patients to sue a hospital bringing a debt collection proceeding against them when they believe the facilities have violated price transparency requirements. Steve Woodrow, a Democratic member of the Colorado House of Representatives and a lawyer at the firm Edelson in Denver, represents Pfeifer. 'What happened to Mr. Pfeifer unfortunately repeats itself and plays out across the country thousands of times every year,' Woodrow told NBC News in an interview. 'We now have a situation where people are afraid to get medical care because of the financial ramifications.' Last November, the Justice Department alleged that UCHealth had overbilled Medicare and TRICARE, the health insurer for U.S. service members and their families. Between November 2017 and March 31, 2021, the government alleged, providers at UCHealth hospitals submitted inflated Medicare and TRICARE claims for 'frequent monitoring of vital signs' among patients in the emergency department. UCHealth agreed to pay $23 million to settle the allegations without an admission of liability. Weaver, the UCHealth spokesperson, said the hospital system settled to prevent a lengthy and costly legal dispute. 'UCHealth firmly denies these allegations,' he added, 'and maintains that its billing practices align with the guidelines set forth by the American College of Emergency Physicians.' While UCHealth is a nonprofit, it has generated rising revenues and earnings recently. Net patient revenues at UCHealth, its securities filings show, totaled $8 billion in fiscal 2024, 17% higher than the previous year. Operating income was $523 million, an increase of 58% over 2023. UCHealth's charges for care are higher than most other nonprofits', Medicare data shows. In fiscal 2022, the most recent figures available, UCHealth charged patients 6.6 times the hospital system's costs for care. That is far higher than the 4 times, on average, that U.S. nonprofit health systems charged for care that year, according to Ge Bai, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Weaver, of UCHealth, said the hospital system's charges are competitive with others. 'Last year alone, UCHealth provided $1.3 billion in total community benefits including about $570 million in uncompensated care,' his statement said. It's problem enough for patients who are overcharged or billed incorrectly for health care. But when hospitals sue to receive payment for those bills, such lawsuits often result in default judgments, legal experts say, issued to patients who don't appear in court or respond. Default judgments can have dire consequences, including wage garnishments. UCHealth has sued thousands of patients using third parties or debt collection middlemen in recent years, a practice that is examined in new research by academics at the George Washington University Law School, Stanford University's Center for Clinical Research and Fisher's group. The study, 'Hospitals Suing Patients: The Rise of Stealth Intermediaries,' found UCHealth and one debt collection firm brought 12,722 lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2023. Legal records analyzed by the authors suggested 'many of the collection efforts were based on unsubstantiated and inaccurate billing records.' The use of legal middlemen is a national trend and allows hospitals to hide their involvement, avoiding the bad publicity these lawsuits can bring, the research contends. Last year, Colorado lawmakers enacted legislation barring hospitals from suing patients under debt collectors' names, after an investigation into the practice by 9News, an NBC affiliate, and The Colorado Sun. Barak Richman is the Alexander Hamilton professor of business law at George Washington Law School and a co-author of the study. 'What this research shows is people are being pulled into court where a power imbalance takes advantage of them,' he said. 'There needs to be a lot of deliberative thought into what to do about courts as it relates to medical debt.' In a statement about the study, UCHealth's Weaver said those suits make up a 'tiny fraction of our patient care — in fact, more than 99.93% of all patient accounts are resolved without a lawsuit.' He added: 'This study, based on older data, does not reflect the changes put in place in recent years to minimize billing errors, ensure patients are aware of our financial assistance options, and are well informed of their medical bills.' Damon Carson, a small-business owner in Longmont, Colorado, was sued by a collection company after he received an outpatient endoscopy at a UCHealth hospital in his town. The suit came while he was disputing the hospital's charges as excessive. A self-pay patient along with his wife, Traci, Carson tried to be a savvy shopper before he went in for the procedure in 2021. He asked for price estimates from several providers, and the nearby UCHealth facility provided one totaling $1,448, according to a court document. Carson paid upfront. 'I had the procedure and everything was fine,' Carson told NBC News. 'Then the bills started rolling in.' Additional charges of $4,742 drove the total cost for the procedure to around $6,200, a court document shows. Carson said that when he questioned the bills, noting the far lower original estimate, the hospital told him the add-on costs reflected the removal of growths found inside him during surgery. A UCHealth spokesman said the original estimate for Carson's care was accurate and that he was told there might be additional charges and signed an acknowledgement of that, which the hospital provided to NBC News. (Carson says he recalls no discussion of the potential for additional charges.) When Carson refused to pay, he was sued by Collection Center Inc., a debt collection firm that has often filed lawsuits against patients on behalf of the hospital, the academic study shows. In 2023, Carson and the collection firm conducted a mediation, according to court documents. Carson wound up paying only one-third of the additional charges to settle the case. 'I was surprised they caved that fast,' Carson told NBC News. 'Traci and I could easily have paid the $4,000 and our lives gone on. But this was a principle thing.' Fisher, the patient advocate, said the outcome of Carson's case is revealing. 'No one should ever pay that first bill,' she said. 'The onus of proof needs to be on the hospital and the insurance company to prove that they have not overcharged us.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
30-05-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Facing sky-high medical bills? Your hospital may have overcharged you
After Blake Pfeifer, a veteran plumber in Colorado Springs, Colorado, underwent emergency stomach surgery at a nearby nonprofit hospital in 2022, he struggled to understand the bills flooding in for his weeklong stay. The initial charge for the procedure at the University of Colorado Health Memorial Hospital Central was $104,000, his records show. Because Pfeifer had no insurance and would be paying out of pocket, he was quoted a discounted price of $58,124. He said he called the hospital to get clarity on the bills but got nowhere. He began paying some of them and was pursued by a collection agency on others. Then he sought the help of a patient advocacy group. 'I've always paid my bills,' Pfeifer, 63, said. 'I wanted a little better explanation.' The group he worked with, Patient Rights found that some of his charges were far higher than the amounts UCHealth reported under a federal price transparency rule that went into effect in 2021. And that wasn't the only notable finding: Only 25% of Pfeifer's charges showed up on the hospital's required price list and therefore could not be compared at all. Pfeifer's experience is not uncommon, according to patient advocates, public interest lawyers and Medicare data. The burden of medical debt, a problem faced by 100 million Americans, has pushed many to delay medical care and even file for bankruptcy, research shows. Making these obligations even more ruinous, patient advocates say, is that many may be based on inaccurate health care bills. These discrepancies occur even as hospitals must list prices for care on their websites. The price transparency rule, initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, requires facilities to 'establish, update, and make public a list of all standard charges for all items and services.' Implemented under the first Trump administration, it aims to help consumers shop for care and compare prices before they go to the hospital. Now, four years after the rule went into effect, hospital billing seems 'intentionally complex,' said Cynthia Fisher, founder of Patient Rights 'Hospitals and insurance companies alike have even hired many middle-player firms to be able to maximize their margins and profits at every single patient encounter,' she added. 'Sometimes what we're finding is the charges like Blake's that are billed are far beyond even the highest rate that they have within their hospital pricing file.' It adds up to an increasingly costly health care experience for Americans. A West Health-Gallup survey published April 2 found that 35% of respondents said they could not access high-quality, affordable health care — a new high since 2021. $99 for an $8 blood test UCHealth is a nonprofit hospital system with 14 hospitals in Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. In its financial filings, UCHealth says its discount program for self-pay patients like Pfeifer 'reduces uninsured patients' liabilities to a level more equivalent of insured patients.' Some of Pfeifer's records conflict with this description. Pfeifer received 10 common blood tests, known as a metabolic panel, and was billed $104 for each. By comparison, UCHealth's public price data shows it charged insured patients between $6.52 and $52.89 for each test in 2022. In another case, Pfeifer was charged $99 for a blood culture to measure bacteria, the records show, while UCHealth's pricing data listed a range of charges for insured patients of between $8 and $61. For a phosphate level blood test, Pfeifer was billed $30, while insured patients at UCHealth were charged between $3.72 and $22.02. Under Colorado law, violations of hospital price transparency requirements are a deceptive trade practice. Dan Weaver, a UCHealth spokesman, said in a statement that the health system 'does everything possible to share prices and estimates with our patients, encourage insurance coverage, assist patients in applying for Medicaid and other programs that may offer coverage.' Regarding Pfeifer's case, Weaver said he could not comment because the hospital had received notice from a lawyer representing Pfeifer that he may file a claim against it. He said the hospital disputes what is in the lawyer's notice, but he declined to specify what exactly it disputes. Weaver pointed to the state of Colorado 's 2024 report stating that UCHealth hospitals 'are fully compliant with transparency requirements.' For 2022, when Pfeifer received care at UCHealth, the document showed the hospital providing his care received a 'fair' transparency rating by the state, above 'poor' but below 'good.' Weaver added that CMS, which determines hospital compliance with transparency requirements, 'has not cited UCHealth or our hospitals for noncompliance.' Enforcement actions are exceedingly rare. CMS' website lists monetary penalties against only 27 hospitals in the four years since the requirements began. (There are 6,000 hospitals nationwide, according to the American Hospital Association.) A December 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found that nearly 40% of the 100 hospitals it studied were not complying with the price transparency requirements. Colorado law allows patients to sue a hospital bringing a debt collection proceeding against them when they believe the facilities have violated price transparency requirements. Steve Woodrow, a Democratic member of the Colorado House of Representatives and a lawyer at the firm Edelson in Denver, represents Pfeifer. 'What happened to Mr. Pfeifer unfortunately repeats itself and plays out across the country thousands of times every year,' Woodrow told NBC News in an interview. 'We now have a situation where people are afraid to get medical care because of the financial ramifications.' 'A power imbalance' Last November, the Justice Department alleged that UCHealth had overbilled Medicare and TRICARE, the health insurer for U.S. service members and their families. Between November 2017 and March 31, 2021, the government alleged, providers at UCHealth hospitals submitted inflated Medicare and TRICARE claims for 'frequent monitoring of vital signs' among patients in the emergency department. UCHealth agreed to pay $23 million to settle the allegations without an admission of liability. Weaver, the UCHealth spokesperson, said the hospital system settled to prevent a lengthy and costly legal dispute. 'UCHealth firmly denies these allegations,' he added, 'and maintains that its billing practices align with the guidelines set forth by the American College of Emergency Physicians.' While UCHealth is a nonprofit, it has generated rising revenues and earnings recently. Net patient revenues at UCHealth, its securities filings show, totaled $8 billion in fiscal 2024, 17% higher than the previous year. Operating income was $523 million, an increase of 58% over 2023. UCHealth's charges for care are higher than most other nonprofits', Medicare data shows. In fiscal 2022, the most recent figures available, UCHealth charged patients 6.6 times the hospital system's costs for care. That is far higher than the 4 times, on average, that U.S. nonprofit health systems charged for care that year, according to Ge Bai, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Weaver, of UCHealth, said the hospital system's charges are competitive with others. 'Last year alone, UCHealth provided $1.3 billion in total community benefits including about $570 million in uncompensated care,' his statement said. It's problem enough for patients who are overcharged or billed incorrectly for health care. But when hospitals sue to receive payment for those bills, such lawsuits often result in default judgments, legal experts say, issued to patients who don't appear in court or respond. Default judgments can have dire consequences, including wage garnishments. UCHealth has sued thousands of patients using third parties or debt collection middlemen in recent years, a practice that is examined in new research by academics at the George Washington University Law School, Stanford University's Center for Clinical Research and Fisher's group. The study, ' Hospitals Suing Patients: The Rise of Stealth Intermediaries,' found UCHealth and one debt collection firm brought 12,722 lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2023. Legal records analyzed by the authors suggested 'many of the collection efforts were based on unsubstantiated and inaccurate billing records.' The use of legal middlemen is a national trend and allows hospitals to hide their involvement, avoiding the bad publicity these lawsuits can bring, the research contends. Last year, Colorado lawmakers enacted legislation barring hospitals from suing patients under debt collectors' names, after an investigation into the practice by 9News, an NBC affiliate, and The Colorado Sun. Barak Richman is the Alexander Hamilton professor of business law at George Washington Law School and a co-author of the study. 'What this research shows is people are being pulled into court where a power imbalance takes advantage of them,' he said. 'There needs to be a lot of deliberative thought into what to do about courts as it relates to medical debt.' In a statement about the study, UCHealth's Weaver said those suits make up a 'tiny fraction of our patient care — in fact, more than 99.93% of all patient accounts are resolved without a lawsuit.' He added: 'This study, based on older data, does not reflect the changes put in place in recent years to minimize billing errors, ensure patients are aware of our financial assistance options, and are well informed of their medical bills.' 'A principle thing' Damon Carson, a small-business owner in Longmont, Colorado, was sued by a collection company after he received an outpatient endoscopy at a UCHealth hospital in his town. The suit came while he was disputing the hospital's charges as excessive. A self-pay patient along with his wife, Traci, Carson tried to be a savvy shopper before he went in for the procedure in 2021. He asked for price estimates from several providers, and the nearby UCHealth facility provided one totaling $1,448, according to a court document. Carson paid upfront. 'I had the procedure and everything was fine,' Carson told NBC News. 'Then the bills started rolling in.' Additional charges of $4,742 drove the total cost for the procedure to around $6,200, a court document shows. Carson said that when he questioned the bills, noting the far lower original estimate, the hospital told him the add-on costs reflected the removal of growths found inside him during surgery. A UCHealth spokesman said the original estimate for Carson's care was accurate and that he was told there might be additional charges and signed an acknowledgement of that, which the hospital provided to NBC News. (Carson says he recalls no discussion of the potential for additional charges.) When Carson refused to pay, he was sued by Collection Center Inc., a debt collection firm that has often filed lawsuits against patients on behalf of the hospital, the academic study shows. In 2023, Carson and the collection firm conducted a mediation, according to court documents. Carson wound up paying only one-third of the additional charges to settle the case. 'I was surprised they caved that fast,' Carson told NBC News. 'Traci and I could easily have paid the $4,000 and our lives gone on. But this was a principle thing.' Fisher, the patient advocate, said the outcome of Carson's case is revealing. 'No one should ever pay that first bill,' she said. 'The onus of proof needs to be on the hospital and the insurance company to prove that they have not overcharged us.'
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
OSK Q1 Earnings Call: Tariff Headwinds and Segment Performance Shape Outlook
Specialty vehicles contractor Oshkosh (NYSE:OSK) missed Wall Street's revenue expectations in Q1 CY2025, with sales falling 9.1% year on year to $2.31 billion. Its non-GAAP profit of $1.92 per share was 5.9% below analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy OSK? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $2.31 billion vs analyst estimates of $2.42 billion (9.1% year-on-year decline, 4.5% miss) Adjusted EPS: $1.92 vs analyst expectations of $2.04 (5.9% miss) Adjusted EBITDA: $245.4 million vs analyst estimates of $249.9 million (10.6% margin, 1.8% miss) Operating Margin: 7.6%, down from 10.2% in the same quarter last year Free Cash Flow was -$435.2 million compared to -$455.9 million in the same quarter last year Backlog: $14.55 billion at quarter end, down 11% year on year Market Capitalization: $6.45 billion Oshkosh's first quarter results were influenced by softness in the Access segment and ongoing strength in Vocational, while management highlighted that emerging tariff impacts have become a primary focus. CEO John Pfeifer pointed to resilient operational execution within Vocational and early ramp-up progress for the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle (NGDV) in Defense, while acknowledging Access faced volume headwinds. The company attributed the quarter's margin pressure to higher operating expenses and increased new product development spending, partially offset by improved pricing in Vocational. Looking ahead, management is prioritizing mitigation of newly announced tariffs, which they estimate could have up to a $1 per share impact for the year, mostly in the back half. Pfeifer emphasized, 'We are proactively working to mitigate potential impacts from tariffs,' and CFO Matt Field clarified that most of the burden will fall on the Access segment, with cost actions and supply chain adjustments planned to offset about half of the hit. Management maintained confidence in achieving full-year profit targets, excluding tariff impacts, and expects a stronger second half as Defense ramps NGDV production and Vocational investments continue to pay off. Oshkosh's leadership focused on the interplay between segment-specific performance and external pressures, especially tariffs. Management described how operational changes, supply chain shifts, and product introductions contributed to the quarter's results. Vocational Segment Momentum: The Vocational segment achieved notable year-over-year growth, driven by higher refuse and recycling vehicle sales, robust pricing, and improved manufacturing productivity. Management cited recent investments in production and a new dealer network as key contributors. Access Segment Resilience Amid Headwinds: Despite lower sales in Access, management reported resilient margins due to cost controls and pricing power. The segment continues to benefit from mega projects and infrastructure spending, with a stable backlog and no significant order cancellations observed. Tariffs and Supply Chain Mitigation: Newly announced tariffs are expected to impact primarily the Access segment. Management is implementing targeted mitigation through supply chain adjustments and negotiations, referencing prior success in localizing production in response to European tariffs. Defense Segment Ramp-Up: The Defense segment is progressing toward full-rate NGDV production for the United States Postal Service, with sequential margin improvement expected across the year. Orders from the U.S. Army and international customers, such as the Netherlands, support the longer-term outlook. Product and Technology Innovation: Oshkosh continues to introduce new products, including electric vehicles and integrated telematics solutions, and highlighted customer demand for advanced technologies in both fire and airport equipment. These initiatives are positioned as key differentiators supporting future growth. Management's outlook for the rest of the year centers on tariff mitigation, continued operational efficiency, and execution of key programs, particularly in Defense and Vocational segments. Tariff Impact and Mitigation: The company anticipates that tariffs will create a headwind—especially in Access—but is taking steps to offset about half of the projected impact through cost reductions and supply chain changes. Management acknowledged that most effects will be felt in the second half. NGDV Production Ramp: Oshkosh expects Defense revenue and margins to improve as NGDV production reaches full rate by year-end, which management believes will drive stronger second-half results. Vocational Investments and Backlog: Continued investment in Vocational manufacturing and expansion of the dealer network are expected to support ongoing revenue and margin growth. Management sees a robust backlog and healthy demand, especially in refuse and recycling. Stephen Volkmann (Jefferies): Asked if Oshkosh could fully offset tariff costs with price increases given softer demand; CEO John Pfeifer replied the company aims to minimize customer impact, using pricing as a last resort. Mig Dobre (Baird): Sought specifics on tariff cost exposures by segment; CFO Matt Field confirmed Access is most impacted, with mitigation efforts focused on sourcing and negotiation. Jamie Cook (Truist): Asked about the allocation of tariff costs and margin implications for Access; Field reiterated the majority of direct impact falls on Access, but cost offsets are company-wide. Kyle Menges (Citi): Questioned the drivers behind lower telehandler sales and the potential impact of lost contracts; Pfeifer noted some CAT contract effects but emphasized growing market share and confidence in long-term outlook. Chad Dillard (Bernstein): Probed the timeline and mix of cost versus price actions to mitigate tariffs; management explained that most mitigation will occur in the second half through both cost controls and selective pricing. In the coming quarters, the StockStory team will monitor (1) Oshkosh's effectiveness in offsetting tariff headwinds through supply chain and cost actions, (2) the pace and profitability of NGDV production ramp in the Defense segment, and (3) the durability of Vocational backlog and margin expansion as investments come online. Execution of new product introductions and the ability to maintain customer demand in Access amid external pressures will also be important indicators. Oshkosh currently trades at a forward P/E ratio of 9.3×. At this valuation, is it a buy or sell post earnings? Find out in our free research report. Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sent major indices to all-time highs, but stocks have retraced as investors debate the health of the economy and the potential impact of tariffs. While this leaves much uncertainty around 2025, a few companies are poised for long-term gains regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate, like our Top 5 Growth Stocks for this month. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 176% over the last five years. Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-small-cap company Comfort Systems (+782% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.
