Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2015, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $1.4 million as required by its existing insurance policies and facility leases. These letters of credit are supported by investments in held-to-maturity securities. See Note 3, Investments in Marketable Securities, for additional detail regarding investments in marketable securities. Contingency In connection with the acquisition of RedPath on October 31, 2014, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Interpace Diagnostics, LLC (Interpace) entered into a Contingent Consideration Agreement with RedPath Equityholder Representative, LLC (the Equityholder Representative). Pursuant to the Contingent Consideration Agreement, the Company agreed to issue to the equityholders of RedPath 500,000 shares (the Shares) of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 (Common Stock), upon acceptance for publication of a specified article related to PathFinderTG® for the management of Barrett’s esophagus. The pending issuance of Common Stock was recorded as Additional paid-in capital in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. On April 13, 2015, this milestone was reached upon acceptance for publication of new data supporting the use of BarreGen™ for predicting risk of progression from Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal cancer. On June 16, 2015 the 500,000 shares were issued from Treasury stock decreasing the balance in treasury stock by approximately $6.1 million with a corresponding decrease in Additional paid-in capital of $6.1 million. Litigation Due to the nature of the businesses in which the Company is engaged, such as product detailing and in commercialization of diagnostic tests, it is subject to certain risks. Such risks include, among others, risk of liability for personal injury or death to persons using products the Company promotes or commercializes. There can be no assurance that substantial claims or liabilities will not arise in the future due to the nature of the Company’s business activities and recent increases in litigation related to healthcare products. The Company seeks to reduce its potential liability under its service agreements through measures such as contractual indemnification provisions with customers (the scope of which may vary from customer to customer, and the performance of which is not secured) and insurance. The Company could, however, also be held liable for errors and omissions of its employees in connection with the services it performs that are outside the scope of any indemnity or insurance policy. The Company could be materially adversely affected if it were required to pay damages or incur defense costs in connection with a claim that is outside the scope of an indemnification agreement; if the indemnity, although applicable, is not performed in accordance with its terms; or if the Company’s liability exceeds the amount of applicable insurance or indemnity. The Company routinely assesses its litigation and threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability, and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where the Company assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, in the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to its financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. As of June 30, 2015 the Company's accrual for litigation and threatened litigation was not material to the consolidated financial statements. In connection with the October 31, 2014 acquisition of RedPath the Company assumed a liability for a January 2013 settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) entered into by the former owners of RedPath with the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the DOJ for the calendar years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 up to a maximum of $3.0 million. Payments are due March 31st following the calendar year that the revenue milestones are achieved under the Settlement Agreement. The Company has been indemnified by the former owners of RedPath for $2.5 million of the obligation and has recorded an indemnification asset of that amount within other non-current assets. During the six-month period ended June 30, 2015, the Company paid $0.3 million and has $2.8 million recorded as its best estimate of the amount that remains to be paid under the settlement agreement based on its estimate of future revenues, of which $0.5 million is included in other accrued expenses and $2.3 million is included in other long-term liabilities. Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. On April 8, 2015, Prolias Technologies, Inc. ("Prolias") filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against the Company with the Superior Court of New Jersey (Morris County) in a matter entitled Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. (Docket No. MRS-L-899-15) (the "Prolias Litigation"). In the Complaint, Prolias alleges that it and the Company entered into an August 19, 2013 Collaboration Agreement and a First Amendment thereto (collectively the "Agreement"), whereby Prolias and the Company agreed to work in good faith to commercialize a diagnostic test known as "Thymira." Thymira is a minimally invasive diagnostic test that is being developed to detect thyroid cancer. Prolias alleges in the Complaint that the Company wrongfully terminated the Agreement, breached obligations owed to it under the Agreement and committed torts by (i) failing to effectively and timely validate Thymira, (ii) purchasing a competitor of Prolias and working to commercialize the competitive product at the expense of Thymira, and (iii) interfering with a license agreement that Prolias had with Cornell University related to a license for Thymira. Prolias asserts claims against the Company for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit. On June 3, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in response to the Complaint. In the Answer, the Company denied liability for the claims being asserted in the Complaint. In the Counterclaim, the Company asserted claims against Prolias for breaches of the Agreement and for a declaratory judgment. The Company seeks damages from Prolias in excess of $500,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees and costs, together with a declaration compelling Prolias to execute and deliver to the Company a promissory note in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) to evidence Prolias’ obligation to repay the Company for amounts that were advanced. Prolias’ Reply to the Counterclaim is due on August 20, 2015. The parties have served discovery requests related to the claims and defenses asserted in the Prolias Litigation, but responses to discovery will not be provided until September 2015. The Company denies that it is liable to Prolias for any of the claims asserted in the Complaint and it intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims and pursue all claims asserted in the Counterclaim.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Letters of Credit

As of June 30, 2015, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $1.4 million as required by its existing insurance policies and facility leases. These letters of credit are supported by investments in held-to-maturity securities. See Note 3, Investments in Marketable Securities, for additional detail regarding investments in marketable securities.

Contingency

In connection with the acquisition of RedPath on October 31, 2014, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Interpace Diagnostics, LLC (Interpace) entered into a Contingent Consideration Agreement with RedPath Equityholder Representative, LLC (the Equityholder Representative). Pursuant to the Contingent Consideration Agreement, the Company agreed to issue to the equityholders of RedPath 500,000 shares (the Shares) of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 (Common Stock), upon acceptance for publication of a specified article related to PathFinderTG® for the management of Barrett’s esophagus. The pending issuance of Common Stock was recorded as Additional paid-in capital in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. On April 13, 2015, this milestone was reached upon acceptance for publication of new data supporting the use of BarreGen™ for predicting risk of progression from Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal cancer. On June 16, 2015 the 500,000 shares were issued from Treasury stock decreasing the balance in treasury stock by approximately $6.1 million with a corresponding decrease in Additional paid-in capital of $6.1 million.

Litigation

Due to the nature of the businesses in which the Company is engaged, such as product detailing and in commercialization of diagnostic tests, it is subject to certain risks. Such risks include, among others, risk of liability for personal injury or death to persons using products the Company promotes or commercializes. There can be no assurance that substantial claims or liabilities will not arise in the future due to the nature of the Company’s business activities and recent increases in litigation related to healthcare products. The Company seeks to reduce its potential liability under its service agreements through measures such as contractual indemnification provisions with customers (the scope of which may vary from customer to customer, and the performance of which is not secured) and insurance. The Company could, however, also be held liable for errors and omissions of its employees in connection with the services it performs that are outside the scope of any indemnity or insurance policy. The Company could be materially adversely affected if it were required to pay damages or incur defense costs in connection with a claim that is outside the scope of an indemnification agreement; if the indemnity, although applicable, is not performed in accordance with its terms; or if the Company’s liability exceeds the amount of applicable insurance or indemnity.

The Company routinely assesses its litigation and threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability, and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where the Company assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, in the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to its financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. As of June 30, 2015 the Company's accrual for litigation and threatened litigation was not material to the consolidated financial statements.

In connection with the October 31, 2014 acquisition of RedPath the Company assumed a liability for a January 2013 settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) entered into by the former owners of RedPath with the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the DOJ for the calendar years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 up to a maximum of $3.0 million.

Payments are due March 31st following the calendar year that the revenue milestones are achieved under the Settlement Agreement. The Company has been indemnified by the former owners of RedPath for $2.5 million of the obligation and has recorded an indemnification asset of that amount within other non-current assets. During the six-month period ended June 30, 2015, the Company paid $0.3 million and has $2.8 million recorded as its best estimate of the amount that remains to be paid under the settlement agreement based on its estimate of future revenues, of which $0.5 million is included in other accrued expenses and $2.3 million is included in other long-term liabilities.

Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc.

On April 8, 2015, Prolias Technologies, Inc. ("Prolias") filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against the Company with the Superior Court of New Jersey (Morris County) in a matter entitled Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. (Docket No. MRS-L-899-15) (the "Prolias Litigation"). In the Complaint, Prolias alleges that it and the Company entered into an August 19, 2013 Collaboration Agreement and a First Amendment thereto (collectively the "Agreement"), whereby Prolias and the Company agreed to work in good faith to commercialize a diagnostic test known as "Thymira." Thymira is a minimally invasive diagnostic test that is being developed to detect thyroid cancer.

Prolias alleges in the Complaint that the Company wrongfully terminated the Agreement, breached obligations owed to it under the Agreement and committed torts by (i) failing to effectively and timely validate Thymira, (ii) purchasing a competitor of Prolias and working to commercialize the competitive product at the expense of Thymira, and (iii) interfering with a license agreement that Prolias had with Cornell University related to a license for Thymira. Prolias asserts claims against the Company for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

On June 3, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in response to the Complaint. In the Answer, the Company denied liability for the claims being asserted in the Complaint. In the Counterclaim, the Company asserted claims against Prolias for breaches of the Agreement and for a declaratory judgment. The Company seeks damages from Prolias in excess of $500,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees and costs, together with a declaration compelling Prolias to execute and deliver to the Company a promissory note in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) to evidence Prolias’ obligation to repay the Company for amounts that were advanced.

Prolias’ Reply to the Counterclaim is due on August 20, 2015. The parties have served discovery requests related to the claims and defenses asserted in the Prolias Litigation, but responses to discovery will not be provided until September 2015.

The Company denies that it is liable to Prolias for any of the claims asserted in the Complaint and it intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims and pursue all claims asserted in the Counterclaim.