The Ensign Group (EGB) Risk Analysis

Twenty-three of our independent subsidiaries are currently subject to regulatory agreements with HUD that give the Commissioner of HUD broad authority to require us to be replaced as the operator of those facilities in the event that the Commissioner determines there are operational deficiencies at such facilities under HUD regulations. Compliance with HUD's requirements can often be difficult because these requirements are not always consistent with the requirements of other federal and state agencies. Appealing a failed inspection can be costly and time-consuming and, if we do not successfully remediate the failed inspection, we could be precluded from obtaining HUD financing in the future or we may encounter limitations or prohibitions on our operation of HUD-insured facilities.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Changes to the tax laws or interpretations thereof, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect Standard Bearer's investors or Standard Bearer. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws, including any tax reform called for by the current presidential administration, might affect Standard Bearer or its investors. New legislation, Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect its ability to qualify to be taxed as a REIT or the U.S. federal income tax consequences to Standard Bearer or its investors of such qualification. Changes to the U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof, could adversely affect an investment in our stock. Additionally, REITs that are related to our operation or those operations of our independent subsidiaries will likely be subject to the disclosure requirements of CMS's ownership transparency final rule (and analogous state rules), and may subject these REITs to additional public scrutiny. No prediction can be made regarding whether new legislation or regulation (including new tax measures) will be enacted by legislative bodies or governmental agencies, nor can we predict what consequences would result from this legislation or regulation. Accordingly, in the future, the currently anticipated tax treatment of an investment may be modified by legislative, judicial or administrative changes, possibly with retroactive effect.

The California OHCA CMIR process may delay, and potentially ultimately prevent, the closing of certain proposed transactions. If a CMIR results in a negative finding and generates a referral to the California Attorney General, that could result in the parties not being able to conclude the proposed transaction and possibly require the subject facilities to appoint new managers. Any delay or prevention of completing transactions could have adverse effect on the operations of our independent subsidiaries. The risk of an adverse regulatory outcome, competitive harm, or potential legal action will persist until the CMIR is successfully concluded. The CMIR process also seeks the disclosure of confidential information regarding our independent subsidiaries' reimbursement rates and financial performance. This information is subject to contractual confidentiality obligations and otherwise proprietary to our business and is likewise a source of competitive advantage in the marketplace. If this information is disclosed to, or otherwise obtained by OHCA, we anticipate that it will be publicly available and could provide competitors with otherwise unavailable data on the financial operations and reimbursement relationships of our independent subsidiaries. We have filed a Petition in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, seeking a declaration that the CMIR regulations violate the United States Constitution and/or the California Constitution, and is void and unenforceable as applied to us. We have requested that OHCA be ordered to withdraw the subpoena and close the inquiry, so the underlying transaction can be completed.

We must comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws, which prohibit us from discriminating against individuals if it would cause such individuals to face barriers in gaining residency in any of our independent subsidiaries. Additionally, the Fair Housing Act and other similar state laws require that we do not advertise our services in a way that may be discriminatory. We may be required, among other things, to change our marketing techniques to comply with these requirements. In addition, our independent subsidiaries are required to operate in compliance with applicable fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations and food licensing or certification requirements as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies from time to time. Like other healthcare facilities, our independent SNFs are subject to periodic surveys or inspections by governmental authorities to assess and assure compliance with regulatory requirements. Surveys occur on a regular (often annual or biannual) schedule, and special surveys may result from a specific complaint filed by a patient, a family member or one of our competitors. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements. In some cases, we may be unable to comply with new regulations prior to their effective date exposing us to potential fines or regulatory action.

The operations of our independent subsidiaries must be licensed under applicable state law and, depending upon the type of operation, certified or approved as providers under the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs. In the process of acquiring or transferring operating assets, our operations must receive change of ownership approvals from state licensing agencies, Medicare and Medicaid as well as third-party payors. Rules regarding the disclosure of SNF facility ownership when such disclosure is required in the future may increase the scrutiny placed on companies that operate, directly or indirectly, multiple SNFs, and may subject our licensing and approval process to additional scrutiny or delays. If there are any delays in receiving regulatory approvals from the applicable federal, state or local government agencies, or the inability to receive such approvals, such delays or denials could result in delayed or lost reimbursement related to periods of service prior to the receipt of such approvals, which could negatively impact our cash position.

Our independent subsidiaries are subject to a variety of federal and state employment-related laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act that governs such matters as minimum wages, overtime and other working conditions and similar state laws such as the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the ADA and similar state laws that provide civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the context of employment, public accommodations and other areas, the National Labor Relations Act, regulations of the EEOC, regulations of the Office for Civil Rights, regulations of state attorneys general, family leave mandates and a variety of similar laws enacted by the federal and state governments that govern these and other employment law matters. Changes to federal and state regulations and laws are discussed in more detail in Item 2., under Government Regulation. The Biden-Harris Administration requested that HHS and CMS study and issue proposed rules regarding care-based careers, including improving access to training, increasing the attractiveness of compensation in care-based positions, and improving the retention and career progression of care workers. The current Presidential Administration, as well as new leadership of HHS or CMS, may discontinue these studies, discontinue ongoing rulemaking activity, and may pursue significantly different policy-setting and rulemaking priorities that do not include any of the Biden-Harris Administration's priorities. Simultaneously, certain actions taken under the Biden-Harris Administration, such as increased enforcement authority by HHS and CMS, may be retained and utilized by the current Presidential Administration and its new leaders of HHS and CMS. The current Presidential Administration has not clearly supported these priorities, but has not renounced support of them or communicated an affirmative reversal of course from these positions. Other previously introduced legislation, such as the HCBS Access Act, reflects a legislative priority of providing funding for care-based careers that may affect our pool of desired workers. The OBBB's allowance for states to seek waivers allowing Medicaid to cover HCBS may also affect our business, and may signal a legislative and administrative preference for care outside of nursing facilities and other institutions, which may be obtained at a lower rate of reimbursement. Due to a change of political party control of both houses of Congress, though, other HCBS-related legislation may have a lower likelihood of passing, even if reintroduced in a subsequent congress. Rising operating costs due to labor shortages, greater compensation and incentives required to attract and retain qualified personnel and higher-than-usual inflation on items including energy, utilities, food and other goods used in our facilities and the costs for transporting these items could increase our operating cost and decrease our profits. The compliance costs associated with these laws and evolving regulations could be substantial. By way of example, all of our independent subsidiaries are required to comply with the ADA, which has separate compliance requirements for "public accommodations" and "commercial properties," but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of government fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Further legislation may impose additional burdens or restrictions with respect to access by disabled persons. In addition, federal proposals to introduce a system of mandated health insurance and flexible work time and other similar initiatives could, if implemented, adversely affect our operations. We also may be subject to employee-related claims such as wrongful discharge, discrimination or violation of equal employment law.

A bill in the State of California was signed into law which increases the cap of non-economic damages awarded to plaintiffs who are successful in medical malpractice litigation. The cap increases from $0.25 million to $0.35 million beginning on January 1, 2023, then increases over the following 10 years until the cap reaches a maximum of $0.75 million, with further adjustments for inflation. In wrongful death cases, the cap increases from $0.25 million to $0.5 million on January 1, 2023, with incremental increases over the following 10 years until the cap reaches a maximum of $1.0 million, with adjustments for inflation. Due to California's influence on other states, other jurisdictions where we operate have enacted similar laws (namely Iowa and Nevada) and may enact similar laws in the future. Similar to the potential incentive of increased damages caps, recent Supreme Court decisions may increase public interest in potential claims against SNFs and senior living facilities, particularly pertaining to specific civil rights claims against governmental actors rather than general liability claims against privately owned SNFs such as those operated by our independent subsidiaries. While there may be additional claims and litigation that arise from the Supreme Court's decision that have an adverse impact on our cash flow, it is not expected that the decision will have a significant impact on our business. To provide another example, California's adoption of the Skilled Nursing Facility Ownership and Management Reform Act of 2022, discussed in Item 2., under Government Regulation, imposes new requirements for obtaining licenses to operate SNFs. These new requirements may delay or limit the ability to obtain new SNF licenses within that state, whether through acquisition of existing facilities or opening a new facility. This new law's obligations may increase the costs of obtaining licensure, make applications more time-consuming and complex, and may result in civil penalties and other sanctions against our independent subsidiaries in the event they are not compliant with these new licensure application requirements. As a result, this new law may delay or impede growth within California. As with the bill that increases the cap of non-economic damages for medical malpractice litigation, California's influence on other states may result in this legislation becoming a model for other states and having similar, potentially adverse effects within those jurisdictions as well. Other new and proposed legislation may impose the same regulatory requirements and limitations inherent in both the proposed legislation in other states and the federally proposed rule requiring disclosure of such information in applications and change-of-ownership disclosures, which may adversely affect our business, operations, and profitability.

Some states require healthcare providers, including SNFs, to obtain prior approval, known as a certificate of need, for: (1) the purchase, construction or expansion of healthcare facilities; (2) capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount; or (3) changes in services or bed capacity. Other states that do not require certificates of need have effectively barred the expansion of existing facilities and the establishment of new ones by placing partial or complete moratoria on the number of new Medicaid beds those states will certify in certain areas or throughout the entire state. Still other states have established such stringent development standards and approval procedures for constructing new healthcare facilities that the construction of new facilities, or the expansion or renovation of existing facilities, may become cost-prohibitive or extremely time-consuming. In addition, some states require the approval of the state Attorney General for acquisition of a facility being operated by a non-profit organization. For example, in California a non-profit seller must provide written notice to the Attorney General detailing the proposed transaction. The Attorney General must then review the transaction and provide written consent (or conditional consent) before it can proceed to closing. The Attorney General's review often includes at least one public meeting to gather community input on the transaction's effects. An independent healthcare impact statement may be prepared to assess potential effects on the availability, accessibility, and affordability of healthcare services, including charity care levels, emergency services, and community benefits. The Attorney General has discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the transaction. Our ability to acquire or construct new facilities or expand or provide new services at existing facilities would be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain the necessary approvals, if there are changes in the standards applicable to those approvals, or if we experience delays and increased expenses associated with obtaining those approvals. We may not be able to obtain licensure, certificate of need approval, Medicaid certification, state Attorney General approval or other necessary approvals for future expansion projects. Conversely, the elimination or reduction of state regulations that limit the construction, expansion or renovation of new or existing facilities could result in increased competition to us or result in overbuilding of facilities in some of our markets. If overbuilding in the skilled nursing industry in the markets in which we operate were to occur, it could reduce the occupancy rates of existing facilities and, in some cases, might reduce the private rates that we charge for our services.

As discussed in greater detail in Item 2., under Government Regulation, Civil and Criminal Fraud and Abuse Laws and Enforcement, the OIG regularly conducts investigations regarding certain payment or compliance issues within the healthcare industry. The OIG continued to identify SNF compliance as an issue of concern in its 2025 semi-annual reports to Congress. The OIG's November 2025 report to Congress indicated that quality of resident care in nursing facilities was an enforcement concern for that office, and also identified SNFs that had failed to properly repay HHS provider relief funds they had received during the COVID-19 PHE. In March of 2025, OIG found that, over a 3-year period, Medicare Part D improperly paid approximately $465 million for drugs that should have been reimbursed under Medicare Part A through its SNF benefits. This issue was also added to the OIG's work plan, with a focus on SNFs' compliance with Medicare Part A billing requirements for drugs that the OIG found were improperly paid by Medicare Part D. In June 2024, the OIG continued to focus on SNFs, adding the SFF Program to its Work Plan. Among other things, the OIG recommended attention to the rate of reimbursement for professional services rendered within facilities. The OIG's reports to Congress have also recommended a reduction in the use of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes and urged CMS to evaluate the appropriateness of psychotropic drug use among residents, including the use of data to identify nursing homes with higher rates of use for potential further scrutiny and action. Based on this information, SNFs in particular are potential targets for more robust scrutiny and examination by regulators. To respond to the local community needs and the shifting of higher acuity patients from the acute care setting to the SNF setting, over time our overall patient mix has consistently shifted to higher acuity and higher-resource utilization patients in most facilities we operate. We also use specialized care-delivery software that assists our caregivers in more accurately capturing and recording activities of daily living services, among other things. These efforts may place us under greater scrutiny with the OIG, CMS, our fiscal intermediaries, recovery audit contractors and others.

As discussed in greater detail in Item 2., under Government Regulation, in 2022 CMS updated the SFF program with the intent to reduce the amount of time a SNF spends as an SFF and increase the number of nursing homes that progress through the SFF program. The OIG has been studying the SFF program, including its 2022 updates, to understand the program's outcomes, identify factors that aided SFFs that successfully graduated the SFF program with sustained quality improvements, and make further changes based on the data obtained in this study. In June of 2024, the OIG added the SFF program to its Work Plan for continued attention. CMS clarified certain details of the SFF program updates in 2023 and how they are to be implemented by each state survey agency (SA). As part of the revisions to the SFF program, a priority in revising the SFF program was to address "yo-yo" noncompliance of SNFs that would graduate from the SFF program only to later see their compliance and quality measures regress after graduation, potentially requiring readmission to the SFF program. Among the measures implemented to avoid this issue of "yo-yo" noncompliance was a three-year look-back period for facilities that graduate from the SFF program to ensure that the quality and compliance improvements achieved through the SFF program were sustained. On January 28, 2026, CMS updated its guidance for the SFF program to place greater emphasis on the prevalence of resident falls when selecting facilities for inclusion in the program. As a result, CMS will prioritize falls-related data, rather than staffing metrics, when evaluating comparable facilities recommended by state survey agencies for participation in the SFF program. The January 2026 guidance also enhances program oversight by making inspections less predictable, including requiring life safety code and emergency preparedness surveys to be conducted at least annually, with other surveys occurring more frequently as determined by CMS or the applicable state surveying agency. The SFF program's lookback period and focus on maintaining a high level of improvement over time are consistent with the OIG's findings regarding the need for greater oversight to sustain improved outcomes at facilities that graduate from the SFF program. Facilities that graduate from the SFF program but continue to demonstrate poor compliance as evidenced by any SA's survey, such as for actual harm, substandard quality of care, or immediate jeopardy deficiencies, may be subject to enhanced enforcement by CMS, up to and including termination from the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs. This three-year look-back for sustained improvements by facilities that graduate the SFF program poses risk for our independent subsidiaries, specifically those that may be subject to the SFF program or that have been subject to the SFF program in the past. As of June 30, 2026, and through the filing date of this report, we have two facilities that graduated from the SFF program within the past three years. First, for SNFs that are selected by CMS for participation in the SFF program, or which currently are in the SFF program, graduation from the program is not guaranteed and the SNF may not be able to continue its operations. Even one survey with a significant compliance deficiency, such as actual harm or an immediate jeopardy deficiency, may result in CMS-acting solely within its discretion-terminating the SNF's Medicare or Medicaid participation, likely triggering the termination of other payor contracts and rendering the facility economically unviable. Second, for SNFs that have graduated from the SFF program, they are subject to a three-year period of enhanced scrutiny where adverse findings by a SA and a single survey's finding of poor compliance may result in CMS discretionally terminating that facility's Medicare and/or Medicaid participation, which would likely cause other payors to terminate their agreements with the facility as well. As a result, the resources needed for graduation from the SFF program may be for nothing if, in the three years following graduation from the SFF program, a SNF receives a poor survey result and CMS imposes fines and penalties up to the termination of the facility's Medicare and Medicaid participation. As discussed above, Medicare and Medicaid represent significant sources of payment for our independent subsidiaries. Any of our facilities' loss of a Medicare or Medicaid contract would significantly harm the financial performance of that facility. Additionally, if CMS perceived there to be common upstream ownership of multiple facilities that were participants in or graduates of the SFF program, CMS may seek to take enforcement actions against those other facilities due to their common ownership based on another facility's deficiencies after graduating the SFF program, with CMS imposing penalties up to and potentially including termination of those SNFs' participation in the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs.

We, along with other companies in the healthcare industry, are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things: - licensure and certification;- disclosure of ownership and affiliated parties;- adequacy and quality of healthcare services;- qualifications of healthcare and support personnel;- state-specified mandates for specific nurse staffing levels;- quality and maintenance of medical services equipment and facilities;- confidentiality, maintenance and security issues associated with medical records and claims processing;- relationships with physicians and other referral sources and recipients;- constraints on protective contractual provisions with patients and third-party payors;- operating policies and procedures;- addition of facilities and services; and - billing for services. The laws and regulations governing our operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how we conduct our business, the services we offer, and our interactions with patients and other healthcare providers. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent change. CMS's ownership transparency rule, which was fully implemented by November of 2024, and similar state disclosure requirements such as California's, discussed in Item 2., under Government Regulation, may provide an additional basis for further investigation, administrative action and ultimately fines, penalties, or sanctions if finalized, and may dissuade parties from working with us or our independent subsidiaries due to the reporting and disclosure obligations of being an Additional Disclosable Party under that final rule. We believe that such regulations may adversely affect our business, operation and profitability. The quantity and scope of these regulations may increase in the future, and we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or impact on us of any healthcare reform legislation. If we fail to comply with these applicable laws and regulations, or their interpretations as determined by courts or enforced by regulators, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties and other detrimental consequences, including denial of reimbursement, imposition of fines, temporary suspension of admission of new patients, suspension or decertification from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, restrictions on our ability to acquire new facilities or expand or operate existing facilities, the loss of our licenses to operate and the loss of our ability to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs. Additionally, in the future, different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations could subject our current or past practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services, capital expenditure programs and operating expenses. As discussed in greater detail in Item 2., under Government Regulation, we are subject to federal and state laws intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse. Possible sanctions for violation of any of these laws and regulations include loss of eligibility to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs and civil and criminal penalties. If we fail to comply, even inadvertently, with any of these requirements, we could be required to alter our operations, refund payments to the government, enter into a corporate integrity agreement, deferred prosecution or similar agreements with state or federal government agencies, and become subject to significant civil and criminal penalties. These anti-fraud and abuse laws and regulations are complex, and we do not always have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of these laws and regulations. While we do not believe we are in violation of these prohibitions, it may be asserted that we are violating the provisions of such laws and regulations. We are unable to predict the future course of federal, state and local regulation or legislation, including as it pertains to Medicare, Medicaid, or fraud and abuse laws, and how they are enforced. Changes in the regulatory framework, our failure to obtain or renew required regulatory approvals, credentials, qualifications, or licenses or to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, or the imposition of other enforcement sanctions, fines or penalties could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, should we lose licenses or certifications for a number of our facilities or other businesses as a result of regulatory action or legal proceedings, we could be deemed to be in default under some of our agreements, including agreements governing outstanding indebtedness.

As discussed in greater detail in Item 2., under Government Regulation, the ACA has resulted in significant changes to our operations and reimbursement models for services we provide. CMS continues to issue rules to implement the ACA, including rules regarding the implementation of the anti-discrimination provisions and disclosure of SNF ownership, organization, management and the identity of the real property owners from which the SNF leases or subleases its operating space. With the passage of the IRA in 2022, Congress expanded and supplemented the ACA, including through the continuation of federally funded insurance premium subsidies. This modification of the ACA by the IRA indicates that Congress may continue to change and expand the ACA in the future. Since the commencement of the current Presidential Administration in January of 2025, there have been executive actions and proposed legislation, including the enactment of the OBBB, which undoes or limits the effect of portions of the ACA, including its Medicaid expansion provisions. The OBBB's provisions may also affect the availability of Medicaid for potential beneficiaries due to work requirements, limit eligibility for our independent subsidiaries' services due to caps on home equity that may be disregarded for eligibility purposes and limit the reimbursement available for our services under Medicaid. These legislative changes, and the effects of the current Presidential Administration's executive orders, are not yet fully realized in terms of their effects on our business. For example, on June 1, 2026, CMS issued an interim final rule setting forth the framework for states to follow in ensuring certain adults participating in Medicaid satisfy a requirement to spend at least 80 hours per month in prescribed forms of community engagement, which include education, employment, work programs, or community service, as a condition of eligibility for benefits under that state plan. Under this interim final rule, each State must generally implement this requirement by January 1, 2027. The efficacy of the ACA is the subject of much debate among members of Congress and the public and it has been the subject of extensive litigation before numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court, with varying outcomes - some expanding and others limiting the ACA. If the ACA is repealed or any elements of the ACA that are beneficial to our business are materially amended or changed, as is the case under the OBBB as enacted, such as provisions regarding the health insurance industry, reimbursement and insurance coverage by payers, our business, operating results and financial condition could be harmed. Thus, the future impact of the ACA on our business is difficult to predict and its continued uncertain future may negatively impact our business. We may not be able to predict whether and when any such changes will occur, and proposals discussed by the current Presidential Administration, including a repeal or material amendment of the ACA, could harm our business, operating results and financial condition. The ACA continues to be a salient political topic and proposed changes to it may become the subject of campaign promises, litigation, administrative action, or legislation under the current Presidential Administration, and the Senate, where the Republican party now holds a majority of seats. In addition, even if the ACA is not amended or repealed, the President and the executive branch of the federal government, as well as CMS and HHS, have a significant impact on the implementation of the provisions of the ACA. It is expected that the current Presidential Administration will make changes affecting the implementation and enforcement of the ACA, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition. We have seen such changes with the current Presidential Administration's impacts to the Biden-Harris Administration's regulatory activity promulgating rules regarding anti-discrimination under Section 1557 of the ACA and rulemaking requiring SNFs to disclose their ownership and the ownership of service providers under Section 6101 of the ACA. It is not possible to know whether, when, or how any or all these regulations or their implementation will be changed, the manner in which any change may be effected, and the ultimate effects of such changes on our business. If we are slow or unable to adapt to any such changes, our business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. In 2023, CMS issued a final rule requiring SNFs to disclose certain information regarding their ownership and managerial relationships which was fully implemented in November of 2024. In furtherance of this rule, CMS requires all SNFs to revalidate certain information using CMS's newly promulgated SNF Attachment by January 1, 2026. However, CMS issued sub-regulatory guidance suspending the deadline for submitting this information indefinitely and did not set a new deadline for the submission; through the filing date of this report, this deadline remains suspended with no indication when it may be reimposed in the future. CMS may set a new deadline for the submission of this information in the future, with an unknown period of notice ahead of compliance. Nevertheless, these disclosure requirements, if put into effect in the future, are more invasive and comprehensive than the ownership information already disclosed through Medicare's Nursing Home Compare website. Refer to Item 2., under Government Regulation, for additional information. The breadth of disclosure required by this new rule may be adverse to our business interests and detrimental to our operations, revenue, and profitability and may have a chilling effect on investment due to the depth of the new reporting and transparency requirements. Similarly, California passed a comparable law requiring the disclosure of certain ownership and financial information for SNFs in 2021. On March 6, 2024, California's regulations implementing this law took effect, which may invite further scrutiny and potential legal action, whether by the state agencies or private parties, within California based on the information disclosed as required by this law and its enabling regulations. We cannot predict what effect future reforms to the U.S. healthcare system will have on our business, including the demand for our services or the amount of reimbursement available for those services. However, it is possible these new laws may lower reimbursement or increase the cost of doing business and adversely affect our business.