COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is a party to various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings incidental to its business. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. With respect to all legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings, the Company considers the likelihood of a negative outcome. If the Company determines the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to any such matter is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the estimated loss for the expected outcome of the matter. If the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to material matters is reasonably possible and the Company is able to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. However, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in some instances based on the significant uncertainties involved in, and/or the preliminary nature of, certain legal, regulatory and governmental matters. On December 18, 2017, a commercial payor of the Company sent a letter that claimed an alleged breach of the Company’s obligation under its provider contracts. While legal proceedings have not been filed, the Company and the payor have agreed in principal to a non-binding settlement of $1.5 million, payable contingent on the close of our merger with Option Care. The amount of this settlement agreement is recorded on the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations under “Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,” as the alleged breach was related to a business line that no longer exists. On June 7, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Erik Schmidt v. R. Carter Pate, et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care mergers in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names R. Carter Pate, Daniel E. Greenleaf, David Golding, Michael Goldstein, Christopher Shackelton, Michael G. Bronfein and Steven Neuman (collectively, the “BioScrip Board”), as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information relating to the Option Care mergers. The complaint seeks a judgment finding defendants liable as well as costs and disbursements, including attorneys’, accountants’ and experts’ fees. On July 9, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction, and on July 15, 2019, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the plaintiff’s motion for expedited proceedings and thereafter scheduled a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction for July 26, 2019. BioScrip caused certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed mergers to be filed in a Current Report on Form 8-K on July 24, 2019. Later that same day, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. BioScrip, Inc., et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care mergers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board, as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip to file a preliminary proxy statement relating to the Option Care mergers that omits material information required to have been disclosed, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Option Care merger or, in the event that the Option Care merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages as well as costs incurred in bringing the action (including plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees). On June 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Lila Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care merger in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip to file a definitive proxy statement relating to the merger that omits material information required to have been disclosed in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the transaction, damages, and costs incurred in bringing the action (including plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees). Government Regulation Various federal and state laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry do or may impact the Company’s current and planned operations, including, without limitation, federal and state laws prohibiting kickbacks in government health programs, federal and state antitrust and drug distribution laws, and a wide variety of consumer protection, insurance and other state laws and regulations. While management believes the Company is in substantial compliance with all existing laws and regulations material to the operation of its business, such laws and regulations are often uncertain in their application to our business practices as they evolve and are subject to rapid change. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry, federal and state regulation and enforcement priorities in this area can be expected to increase, the impact of which cannot be predicted. From time to time, the Company responds to investigatory subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties. The Company cannot predict with certainty what the outcome of any of the foregoing might be. While the Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all laws, rules and regulations that affects its business and operations, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to scrutiny or challenge under one or more existing laws or that any such challenge would not be successful. Any such challenge, whether or not successful, could have a material effect upon the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. A violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, for example, may result in substantial criminal and civil penalties, as well as suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Moreover, the costs and expenses associated with defending these actions, even where successful, can be significant. Further, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to obtain or maintain any of the regulatory approvals that may be required to operate its business, and the failure to do so could have a material effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

The Company is a party to various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings incidental to its business. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

With respect to all legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings, the Company considers the likelihood of a negative outcome. If the Company determines the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to any such matter is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the estimated loss for the expected outcome of the matter. If the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to material matters is reasonably possible and the Company is able to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. However, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in some instances based on the significant uncertainties involved in, and/or the preliminary nature of, certain legal, regulatory and governmental matters.

On December 18, 2017, a commercial payor of the Company sent a letter that claimed an alleged breach of the Company’s obligation under its provider contracts. While legal proceedings have not been filed, the Company and the payor have agreed in principal to a non-binding settlement of $1.5 million, payable contingent on the close of our merger with Option Care. The amount of this settlement agreement is recorded on the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations under “Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes,” as the alleged breach was related to a business line that no longer exists.

On June 7, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Erik Schmidt v. R. Carter Pate, et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care mergers in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names R. Carter Pate, Daniel E. Greenleaf, David Golding, Michael Goldstein, Christopher Shackelton, Michael G. Bronfein and Steven Neuman (collectively, the “BioScrip Board”), as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information relating to the Option Care mergers. The complaint seeks a judgment finding defendants liable as well as costs and disbursements, including attorneys’, accountants’ and experts’ fees. On July 9, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction, and on July 15, 2019, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the plaintiff’s motion for expedited proceedings and thereafter scheduled a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction for July 26, 2019. BioScrip caused certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed mergers to be filed in a Current Report on Form 8-K on July 24, 2019. Later that same day, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for a preliminary injunction.

On June 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. BioScrip, Inc., et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care mergers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board, as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip to file a preliminary proxy statement relating to the Option Care mergers that omits material information required to have been disclosed, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Option Care merger or, in the event that the Option Care merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages as well as costs incurred in bringing the action (including plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees).

On June 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Lila Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., was filed in connection with the Option Care merger in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip to file a definitive proxy statement relating to the merger that omits material information required to have been disclosed in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the transaction, damages, and costs incurred in bringing the action (including plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees).

Government Regulation

Various federal and state laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry do or may impact the Company’s current and planned operations, including, without limitation, federal and state laws prohibiting kickbacks in government health programs, federal and state antitrust and drug distribution laws, and a wide variety of consumer protection, insurance and other state laws and regulations. While management believes the Company is in substantial compliance with all existing laws and regulations material to the operation of its business, such laws and regulations are often uncertain in their application to our business practices as they evolve and are subject to rapid change. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry, federal and state regulation and enforcement priorities in this area can be expected to increase, the impact of which cannot be predicted.

From time to time, the Company responds to investigatory subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties. The Company cannot predict with certainty what the outcome of any of the foregoing might be. While the Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all laws, rules and regulations that affects its business and operations, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to scrutiny or challenge under one or more existing laws or that any such challenge would not be successful. Any such challenge, whether or not successful, could have a material effect upon the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. A violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, for example, may result in substantial criminal and civil penalties, as well as suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Moreover, the costs and expenses associated with defending these actions, even where successful, can be significant. Further, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to obtain or maintain any of the regulatory approvals that may be required to operate its business, and the failure to do so could have a material effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.