OHI
#I can tell you that I don't know the specifics but it doesn't move the dial at all.
There were some properties that would be less, some more.
It's a mixed bag.
(multiple speakers)
It's mostly the purchase options pieces.
I think the non-purchase option properties, we are selectively trying to exit.
It's really a mixed bag.
Some of it's the entire operating relationship, they are small.
A couple of facilities that we're saying it's time for us to exit.
And then a handful of those held for sale are coming out of much bigger portfolios where it's selective properties.
As an example, we've got a handful in the Florida Medicaid waiver program that are not quality properties and we will likely exit.
Its out of a bigger portfolio so it's even harder to think about allocated rents of those properties and related coverages.
For the most part, those non-purchase option properties are going to have coverages that are below the 1.4.
Yes, it really doesn't move the dial because our senior housing coverages are strong.
Even though they are becoming a more meaningful percentage of if you pull them out, it's not going to move it 0.1, for sure
At some point we will look at dividing that up but it's just not material at this point and it doesn't move the dial.
I don't know why they're ---+ well, I guess if your business is IRFs and home health then you are going to focus on that.
I'm not sure why there is such a negative sentiment as it relates to SNFs because I look at the demographics, without beating that horse too badly, but if there's not a shift in how we deliver care, there is not even nearly going to be enough beds.
When you think about the number of beds in the IRF marketplace, it's not a dramatic number.
We have a dramatic number of patients being taking care of today in the SNF setting, with a lot more coming.
I think a lot of it ultimately becomes anecdotal.
If you are in the need of 24-hour nursing care, you're not going to go home.
We have to be very careful about anecdotally, here's a set of patients that can go from this setting to go home and IRF's better than SNF.
We can argue about that a lot.
I think it's been proven out that for many, many, many conditions IRFs versus SNFs, the amount of time, the lengths of say can be the same.
Yes, I think ---+ and just to be clear, we've talked about this in prior calls.
Our number one choice for allocation of capital is into the skilled nursing facility industry and to our current tenant base.
But we've had opportunities to expand into senior housing, whether it's here or in the UK, and we've taken advantage of it.
It still the same model, where we are focused on that operator relationship and our comfort level with the operator's capability to both run their existing business and identify new opportunities and to partner with them.
I think Maplewood here, and <UNK> mentioned we added a couple new relationships, and our relationship in the UK, the risk assessment isn't much different than you would have in the SNF world in terms of understanding the operating capabilities.
Then it just comes down to the risk in senior housing is principally competition and new building if you have the right product and the operating model.
Frankly, understanding that's not that difficult.
I think you've described it well.
The regional guys that are on the ground have relationships.
I would not discount their capability.
I wouldn't discount the fact that someone that's got 50 facilities doesn't have enough scale to get the benefit of an organization that's got 250 facilities.
I don't know that there's that much difference in the scale benefit, if you will.
Obviously, from a capital allocation prospective, we deal ---+ most of our relationships, we are the principal capital partner.
That's where we are able to source new opportunity.
We hadn't received any indication from our operator base of pressure from a coverage perspective, so we weren't surprised by that.
Interestingly, our Genesis portfolio continues, has and continues to perform pretty well as ---+ and obviously we are not a giant component of Genesis, but it's continued to do well.
Just a comment, I actually think that our portfolio is probably a better representation of the market, SNF market, then ManorCare plus Genesis.
You are dealing with two companies that focus on high acuity, post-acute disproportionately in the market.
In some regards, what we are seeing across the 80-plus operators that <UNK> pointed out, is probably a better proxy for what's going on.
We haven't seen ---+ if I recall correctly, they reported a 0.8% decline in revenue and a [2.8%] decline in census.
Maybe they were drivers.
They also reported some one-time transitional costs of $1.5 million.
Without knowing how they went from $37 million to $30 million of EBITDAR on, call it, $300-ish million of revenue, we don't know if it is expense driven.
The top line move down a little bit.
Occupancy moved down more.
I think we'd have to understand the component parts a lot better.
But we're not ---+ those drivers that were reported by Kindred, we have not yet seen in our portfolio.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining our call today.
<UNK> <UNK> will be available for any follow-up that you may have.
