COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory Matters Laws and regulations governing federal Medicare and state Medicaid programs are complex and subject to interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation as well as significant regulatory action including fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. In February and May 2016, CMS decertified the Jeffersonville and Oceanside Facilities respectively, meaning the facilities can no longer accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. On December 20, 2016, the Jeffersonville Facility was recertified by CMS and received a new Medicare/Medicaid provider contract. For further information (see Note 7 - Leases and Note 19 - Subsequent Events). The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all applicable laws and regulations. Legal Matters The Company is party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings and are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims that the services the Company provides during the time it operated skilled nursing facilities resulted in injury or death to the residents of the Company's facilities and claims related to employment, staffing requirements and commercial matters. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters, there is no assurance that the outcomes of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. The Company previously operated, and the Company's tenants now operate, in an industry that is extremely regulated. As such, in the ordinary course of business, the Company's tenants are continuously subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny, supervision and control. Such regulatory scrutiny often includes inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, site visits and surveys, some of which are non-routine. In addition, we believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Adverse determinations in legal proceedings or governmental investigations against or involving the Company, for the Company's prior operations, or the Company's tenants, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Clanton Matter. On June 24, 2013, South Star Services, Inc., Troy Clanton and Rose Rabon (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma against: (i) AdCare, certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries and AdCare’s former Chief Executive Officer; (ii) Christopher Brogdon (a director of the Company, owner of greater than 5% of the outstanding shares of the common stock and former Chief Acquisition Officer of the Company) and his wife; and (iii) five entities controlled by Mr. and Mrs. Brogdon, which entities own five skilled-nursing facilities located in Oklahoma that were previously managed by an AdCare subsidiary. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs and the defendants participated in a voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, Plaintiffs and defendants continued to negotiate over the following weeks and executed a settlement agreement on March 30, 2015 (the "Clanton Settlement Agreement") to settle all claims for a lump sum payment of $2.0 million. In April 2015, under the Clanton Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $0.6 million to the Plaintiffs with the balance paid by two of the Company's insurance carriers. The Company and the other defendants in the matter deny all of the Plaintiff's claims and any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the matter to avoid the continued expense and unpredictability of litigation. Ohio Attorney General Action. On October 27, 2016, the Ohio Attorney General (the “OAG”) filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio a complaint against The Pavilion Care Center, LLC, Hearth & Home of Greenfield, LLC (each a subsidiary of the Company), and certain other parties (including parties for which the Company provides or provided management services). The lawsuit alleges that defendants submitted improper Medicaid claims for independent laboratory services for glucose blood tests and capillary blood draws and further alleges that defendants (i) engaged in deception, (ii) willfully received Medicaid payments to which they were not entitled or in a greater amount than that to which they were entitled, and (iii) obtained payments under the Medicaid program to which they were not entitled pursuant to their provider agreements and applicable Medicaid rules and regulations. The OAG is seeking, among other things, triple the amount of damages proven at trial (plus interest) and not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 for each deceptive claim or falsification. As previously disclosed, the Company received a letter from the OAG in February 2014 offering to settle its claims against the defendants for improper Medicaid claims related to glucose blood tests and capillary blood draws for a payment of approximately $1.0 million. The Company responded to such letter in July 2014 denying the allegations and heard nothing more from the OAG until the above referenced lawsuit was filed. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on January 27, 2017 in which it denied the allegations. Although there is no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter or its impact on the Company’s business or its financial condition, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the claim. Professional and General Liability Claims. The Company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit captioned Amy Cleveland et. al. v. APHR&R Nursing, LLC et. al. filed on March 4, 2015 with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th Circuit (the “Amy Cleveland Class Action”). On December 16, 2015, the Company's insurance carrier reached a settlement with each of the individual plaintiffs on behalf of the Company and all other defendants pursuant to which separate payments are to be made by the Company's carrier to the plaintiffs. The individual settlements are contingent on approval by the probate courts having jurisdiction over the deceased plaintiffs' respective estates, if applicable. As of June 30, 2016, all of the individual settlement agreements had been approved and the settlement consideration paid to the plaintiffs. As of April 17, 2017, the Company was a defendant in a total of 44 professional and general liability actions commenced on behalf of former patients, of which 28 cases were filed in the State of Arkansas by the same plaintiff attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the Amy Cleveland Class Action. These actions generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for former patients of the Company who were allegedly injured or died while patients of facilities operated by the Company due to professional negligence or understaffing. Three of the pending actions are covered by insurance, except that any award of punitive damages would be excluded from such coverage. The actions are in various stages of discovery, and the Company intends to vigorously litigate the claims. The Company has self-insured against professional and general liability actions since it discontinued its healthcare operations in connection with its transition to a healthcare holding and leasing company. The Company established a self-insurance reserve for these professional and general liability claims, included within “Accrued expenses and other” in the Company’s audited consolidated balance sheets of $6.9 million and $0.2 million at December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2015, respectively. The Company evaluates quarterly the adequacy of its self-insurance reserve based on a number of factors, including: (i) the number of actions pending and the relief sought; (ii) analyses provided by defense counsel, medical experts or other information which comes to light during discovery; (iii) the legal fees and other expenses anticipated to be incurred in defending the actions; (v) the status and likely success of any settlement discussions; and (vi) the venues in which the actions have been filed or will be adjudicated. In evaluating the adequacy of the self-insurance reserve in connection with the preparation of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company also considered: (i) the increase in the number of pending actions since December 31, 2015; (ii) the outcome of initial mediation sessions and the status of settlement negotiations; and (iii) defense counsel’s evaluation of estimated legal costs and other expenses if the pending actions were to be litigated to final judgment. Based on the foregoing, the Company has increased the self-insurance reserve at December 31, 2016 to $6.9 million. The Company currently believes that most of its cases, and particularly many of the most recently filed cases, are defensible and intends to defend these claims through final judgment. The self-insurance reserve includes the Company's estimated legal costs of litigating the pending actions accordingly.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Regulatory Matters

Laws and regulations governing federal Medicare and state Medicaid programs are complex and subject to interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation as well as significant regulatory action including fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. In February and May 2016, CMS decertified the Jeffersonville and Oceanside Facilities respectively, meaning the facilities can no longer accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. On December 20, 2016, the Jeffersonville Facility was recertified by CMS and received a new Medicare/Medicaid provider contract. For further information (see Note 7 - Leases and Note 19 - Subsequent Events).

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all applicable laws and regulations.

Legal Matters

The Company is party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings and are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims that the services the Company provides during the time it operated skilled nursing facilities resulted in injury or death to the residents of the Company's facilities and claims related to employment, staffing requirements and commercial matters. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters, there is no assurance that the outcomes of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Company previously operated, and the Company's tenants now operate, in an industry that is extremely regulated. As such, in the ordinary course of business, the Company's tenants are continuously subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny, supervision and control. Such regulatory scrutiny often includes inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, site visits and surveys, some of which are non-routine. In addition, we believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Adverse determinations in legal proceedings or governmental investigations against or involving the Company, for the Company's prior operations, or the Company's tenants, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.

Clanton Matter. On June 24, 2013, South Star Services, Inc., Troy Clanton and Rose Rabon (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma against: (i) AdCare, certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries and AdCare’s former Chief Executive Officer; (ii) Christopher Brogdon (a director of the Company, owner of greater than 5% of the outstanding shares of the common stock and former Chief Acquisition Officer of the Company) and his wife; and (iii) five entities controlled by Mr. and Mrs. Brogdon, which entities own five skilled-nursing facilities located in Oklahoma that were previously managed by an AdCare subsidiary. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs and the defendants participated in a voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, Plaintiffs and defendants continued to negotiate over the following weeks and executed a settlement agreement on March 30, 2015 (the "Clanton Settlement Agreement") to settle all claims for a lump sum payment of $2.0 million. In April 2015, under the Clanton Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $0.6 million to the Plaintiffs with the balance paid by two of the Company's insurance carriers. The Company and the other defendants in the matter deny all of the Plaintiff's claims and any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the matter to avoid the continued expense and unpredictability of litigation.

Ohio Attorney General Action. On October 27, 2016, the Ohio Attorney General (the “OAG”) filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio a complaint against The Pavilion Care Center, LLC, Hearth & Home of Greenfield, LLC (each a subsidiary of the Company), and certain other parties (including parties for which the Company provides or provided management services). The lawsuit alleges that defendants submitted improper Medicaid claims for independent laboratory services for glucose blood tests and capillary blood draws and further alleges that defendants (i) engaged in deception, (ii) willfully received Medicaid payments to which they were not entitled or in a greater amount than that to which they were entitled, and (iii) obtained payments under the Medicaid program to which they were not entitled pursuant to their provider agreements and applicable Medicaid rules and regulations. The OAG is seeking, among other things, triple the amount of damages proven at trial (plus interest) and not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 for each deceptive claim or falsification. As previously disclosed, the Company received a letter from the OAG in February 2014 offering to settle its claims against the defendants for improper Medicaid claims related to glucose blood tests and capillary blood draws for a payment of approximately $1.0 million. The Company responded to such letter in July 2014 denying the allegations and heard nothing more from the OAG until the above referenced lawsuit was filed. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on January 27, 2017 in which it denied the allegations. Although there is no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter or its impact on the Company’s business or its financial condition, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the claim.

Professional and General Liability Claims. The Company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit captioned Amy Cleveland et. al. v. APHR&R Nursing, LLC et. al. filed on March 4, 2015 with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th Circuit (the “Amy Cleveland Class Action”). On December 16, 2015, the Company's insurance carrier reached a settlement with each of the individual plaintiffs on behalf of the Company and all other defendants pursuant to which separate payments are to be made by the Company's carrier to the plaintiffs. The individual settlements are contingent on approval by the probate courts having jurisdiction over the deceased plaintiffs' respective estates, if applicable. As of June 30, 2016, all of the individual settlement agreements had been approved and the settlement consideration paid to the plaintiffs.

As of April 17, 2017, the Company was a defendant in a total of 44 professional and general liability actions commenced on behalf of former patients, of which 28 cases were filed in the State of Arkansas by the same plaintiff attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the Amy Cleveland Class Action. These actions generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for former patients of the Company who were allegedly injured or died while patients of facilities operated by the Company due to professional negligence or understaffing. Three of the pending actions are covered by insurance, except that any award of punitive damages would be excluded from such coverage. The actions are in various stages of discovery, and the Company intends to vigorously litigate the claims.

The Company has self-insured against professional and general liability actions since it discontinued its healthcare operations in connection with its transition to a healthcare holding and leasing company. The Company established a self-insurance reserve for these professional and general liability claims, included within “Accrued expenses and other” in the Company’s audited consolidated balance sheets of $6.9 million and $0.2 million at December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2015, respectively.

The Company evaluates quarterly the adequacy of its self-insurance reserve based on a number of factors, including: (i) the number of actions pending and the relief sought; (ii) analyses provided by defense counsel, medical experts or other information which comes to light during discovery; (iii) the legal fees and other expenses anticipated to be incurred in defending the actions; (v) the status and likely success of any settlement discussions; and (vi) the venues in which the actions have been filed or will be adjudicated.

In evaluating the adequacy of the self-insurance reserve in connection with the preparation of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company also considered: (i) the increase in the number of pending actions since December 31, 2015; (ii) the outcome of initial mediation sessions and the status of settlement negotiations; and (iii) defense counsel’s evaluation of estimated legal costs and other expenses if the pending actions were to be litigated to final judgment.

Based on the foregoing, the Company has increased the self-insurance reserve at December 31, 2016 to $6.9 million. The Company currently believes that most of its cases, and particularly many of the most recently filed cases, are defensible and intends to defend these claims through final judgment. The self-insurance reserve includes the Company's estimated legal costs of litigating the pending actions accordingly.