Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	12 Months Ended
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	Sep. 30, 2018
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Basis of Presentation	Basis of Presentation The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Becton, Dickinson and Company (the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Within the financial statements and tables presented, certain columns and rows may not add due to the use of rounded numbers for disclosure purposes. Percentages and earnings per share amounts presented are calculated from the underlying amounts. Our fiscal year ends on September 30.
Principles of Consolidation	Principles of Consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the Company’s accounts and those of its majority-owned subsidiaries after the elimination of intercompany transactions. The Company has no material interests in variable interest entities.
Cash Equivalents	Cash Equivalents Cash equivalents consist of all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less at time of purchase.
Restricted Cash	Restricted Cash Restricted cash consists of cash restricted from withdrawal and usage and largely represents funds that are restricted for certain product liability matters assumed in the acquisition of C.R. Bard, Inc. ("Bard") which is further discussed in Note 9.
Short-Term Investments	Short-Term Investments Short-term investments consist of time deposits with maturities greater than three months and less than one year when purchased.
Trade and Financing Receivables	Trade Receivables The Company grants credit to customers in the normal course of business and the resulting trade receivables are stated at their net realizable value. The allowance for doubtful accounts represents the Company’s estimate of probable credit losses relating to trade receivables and is determined based on historical experience and other specific account data. Amounts are written off against the allowances for doubtful accounts when the Company determines that a customer account is uncollectible.
Inventories	Inventories Inventories are stated at the lower of first-in, first-out cost or market.
Property, Plant and Equipment	Property, Plant and Equipment Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization are principally provided on the straight-line basis over estimated useful lives, which range from 20 to 45 years for buildings, four to 13 years for machinery and equipment and one to 20 years for leasehold improvements.
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets	Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets The Company’s unamortized intangible assets include goodwill and in-process research and development assets which arise from acquisitions. The Company currently reviews all indefinite-lived assets, including goodwill, for impairment generally using quantitative models. Goodwill is reviewed at least annually for impairment at the reporting unit level, which is defined as an operating segment or one level below an operating segment, referred to as a component. The Company’s reporting units generally represent one level below reporting segments. Potential impairment of goodwill is generally identified by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit, estimated using an income approach, with its carrying value. The annual impairment review performed on July 1, 2018 indicated that all identified reporting units’ fair values exceeded their respective carrying values. The review for impairment of in-process research and development assets is performed by comparing the fair value of the technology or project assets, estimated using an income approach, with their carrying value. In-process research and development assets are considered indefinite-lived assets and are reviewed at least annually for impairment until projects are completed or abandoned. Amortized intangible assets include developed technology assets which arise from acquisitions. These assets represent acquired intellectual property that is already technologically feasible upon the acquisition date or acquired in-process research and development assets that are completed subsequent to acquisition. Developed technology assets are generally amortized over periods ranging from 15 to 20 years, using the straight-line method. Customer relationship assets are generally amortized over periods ranging from 10 to 15 years, using the straight-line method. Other intangibles with finite useful lives, which include patents, are amortized over periods principally ranging from one to 40 years, using the straight-line method. Finite-lived intangible assets, including developed technology assets, are periodically reviewed when impairment indicators are present to assess recoverability from future operations using undiscounted cash flows. The carrying values of these finite-lived assets are compared to the undiscounted cash flows they are expected to generate and an impairment loss is recognized in operating results to the extent any finite-lived intangible asset’s carrying value exceeds its calculated fair value.
Foreign Currency Translation	Foreign Currency Translation Generally, foreign subsidiaries’ functional currency is the local currency of operations and the net assets of foreign operations are translated into U.S. dollars using current exchange rates. The U.S. dollar results that arise from such translation, as well as exchange gains and losses on intercompany balances of a long-term investment nature, are included in the foreign currency translation adjustments in Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).
Revenue Recognition	Revenue Recognition Revenue from product sales is typically recognized when all of the following criteria have been met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; product price is fixed or determinable; collection of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured. Certain sales arrangements contain multiple deliverables, including equipment and service deliverables, which requires the Company to determine the separate units of account. If the deliverable meets the criteria of a separate unit of accounting, the arrangement consideration is allocated to each element based upon its relative selling price. In determining the best evidence of selling price of a unit of account the Company utilizes vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”), which is the price the Company charges when the deliverable is sold separately. When VSOE is not available, management uses relevant third-party evidence (“TPE”) of selling price, if available. When neither VSOE nor TPE of selling price exists, management uses its best estimate of selling price. Revenue allocated to certain equipment deliverables is recognized upon customer acceptance, which occurs after the transfer of title and risk of loss to the customer and the completion of installation or training services. When related services are considered inconsequential, delivery is deemed to occur upon the transfer of title and risk of loss, at which time revenue and the costs associated with services are recognized. For equipment lease revenue, transactions are evaluated and classified as either operating leases or sales-type leases. Generally, the Company's lease arrangements with customers are accounted for as operating leases and therefore, revenue is recognized at the contracted rate over the rental period, as defined within the customer agreement. For products sold and leased with embedded software, if software is considered not essential to the non-software elements of a product but is considered more than incidental to a product as a whole, the product’s software elements must be separated from its non-software elements under the requirements relating to multiple-element arrangements and accounted for under software industry-specific revenue recognition requirements. However, if it is determined that the embedded software is more than incidental to the product as a whole but the non-software elements and software elements work together to deliver the essential functionality of the products as a whole, then the accounting for such product does not fall within the scope of software industry-specific accounting requirements. The Company’s domestic businesses sell products primarily to distributors that resell the products to end-user customers. Rebates are provided to distributors that sell to end-user customers at prices determined under a contract between the Company and the end-user customer. Provisions for rebates, as well as sales discounts and returns, are based upon estimates and are accounted for as a reduction of revenues when revenue is recognized.
Shipping and Handling Costs	Shipping and Handling Costs Shipping and handling costs are included in Selling and administrative expense.
Derivative Financial Instruments	Derivative Financial Instruments All derivatives are recorded in the balance sheet at fair value and changes in fair value are recognized currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met. Any deferred gains or losses associated with derivative instruments are recognized in income in the period in which the underlying hedged transaction is recognized.
Income Taxes	Income Taxes The Company has historically asserted indefinite reinvestment of the earnings of certain non-U.S. subsidiaries outside the United States. New U.S. tax legislation, which is further discussed in Note 16, eliminated certain material tax effects on the repatriation of cash to the United States. Future repatriation of cash and other property held by the Company's foreign subsidiaries will generally not be subject to U.S. federal income tax. As a result, after reevaluation of the permanent reinvestment assertion, the Company is no longer permanently reinvested with respect to its historic unremitted foreign earnings as of September 30, 2018. The Company conducts business and files tax returns in numerous countries and currently has tax audits in progress in a number of tax jurisdictions. In evaluating the exposure associated with various tax filing positions, the Company records accruals for uncertain tax positions, based on the technical support for the positions, past audit experience with similar situations, and the potential interest and penalties related to the matters. The Company maintains valuation allowances where it is more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. Changes in valuation allowances are included in the tax provision in the period of change. In determining whether a valuation allowance is warranted, management evaluates factors such as prior earnings history, expected future earnings, carryback and carryforward periods and tax strategies that could potentially enhance the likelihood of the realization of a deferred tax asset.
Earnings per Share	Earnings per Share Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing income available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share reflect the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock. In computing diluted earnings per share, only potential common shares that are dilutive (i.e., those that reduce earnings per share or increase loss per share) are included in the calculation.
Use of Estimates	Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates or assumptions affect reported assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses as reflected in the consolidated financial statements. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
New Accounting Principle Adopted and New Accounting Principles Not Yet Adopted	New Accounting Principle Adopted In the second quarter of its fiscal year 2018, the Company prospectively adopted an accounting standard update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") relating to the stranded income tax effects on items within Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) resulting from the enactment of new U.S. tax legislation, which legislation is further discussed in Note 16. Additional disclosures regarding this accounting standard adoption are provided in Note 3. On October 1, 2016, the Company prospectively adopted amended requirements issued by the FASB relating to the timing of recognition and classification of share-based compensation award-related income tax effects. Upon adoption of the requirements in 2017, the Company has recorded tax benefits relating to share-based compensation awards within Income tax (benefit) provision on its consolidated statement of income. These tax benefits had been previously recorded within Capital in excess of par value on the Company's consolidated balance sheet. Also upon adoption of the amended guidance in 2017, the Company has classified excess tax benefits on its consolidated statement of cash flows within Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities, rather than Net Cash Provided by (Used for) Financing Activities. New Accounting Principles Not Yet Adopted In March 2017, the FASB issued an accounting standard update which requires all components of net periodic pension and postretirement benefit costs to be disaggregated from the service cost component and to be presented on the income statement outside a subtotal of income from operations, if one is presented. The Company's adoption of the new requirements on October 1, 2018 is not expected to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. In February 2016, the FASB issued a new lease accounting standard which requires lessees to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet. The new standard also requires expanded disclosures regarding leasing arrangements. The Company will adopt the standard on October 1, 2019 and has commenced its initial assessment of the impact on its consolidated financial statements. In May 2014, the FASB issued a new revenue recognition standard. Under this standard, revenue is recognized upon the transfer of goods or services to customers and the amount of revenue recognized reflects the consideration to which a reporting entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The Company adopted the standard on October 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective method. The Company assessed the impact that this new revenue recognition standard will have on its consolidated financial statements based upon a review of contracts that were not completed as of October 1, 2018. The Company is currently finalizing the changes to its processes, systems and controls which are necessary to support recognition and disclosure under the new revenue recognition standard. The Company does not expect its adoption of the new standard to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Contingencies	Contingencies Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able, in all cases, to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). With respect to putative class action lawsuits in the United States and certain of the Canadian lawsuits described below relating to product liability matters, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. With respect to the investigative subpoena issued by the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Department of Health and Human Services and the civil investigative demand served by the Department of Justice, as discussed below, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows. Product Liability Matters As is further discussed in Note 9, the Company completed its acquisition of Bard on December 29, 2017 and the following matters include Bard-related legal proceedings and claims that the Company assumed on the acquisition date (“Bard-related Product Liability Matters”). The Company believes that certain settlements and judgments, as well as some legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers, or, in some circumstances, indemnification obligations to the Company from other parties, which if disputed, the Company intends to vigorously contest. Amounts recovered under the Company’s product liability insurance policies or indemnification arrangements may be less than the stated coverage limits or less than otherwise expected and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers or other parties will pay claims or that coverage or indemnity will be otherwise available. Hernia Product Claims As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately 3,154 product liability claims involving Bard’s line of hernia repair devices (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. Trials are scheduled throughout 2019 in various state and/or federal courts. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation (“MDL”) was ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Women’s Health Product Claims As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately 1,322 product liability claims involving Bard’s line of pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in a federal MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 1,037 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against Bard but lack sufficient information to determine whether a Bard pelvic mesh device is actually at issue. The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both Bard and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of Bard. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify Bard with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. As described below, in July 2015 the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the “Women’s Health Product Claims.” The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. As of September 30, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,021 of the Women’s Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women’s Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number of Women’s Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of all remaining unsettled cases (the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women’s Health Product Claims. Trials are anticipated in 2018 and throughout 2019 in state courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process of challenging that verdict. The Company expects additional trials of Women’s Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by Bard under supply agreements with Medtronic, and Bard has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. In June 2017, Bard amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. Bard also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between Bard and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Filter Product Claims As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately 4,515 product liability claims involving Bard’s line of inferior vena cava filters (collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). The majority of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in the MDL and state courts. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. In most product liability litigations (like those described above), plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters. In January 2017, the Company reached an agreement to resolve litigation filed in the Southern District of New York by its insurance carriers in connection with Women’s Health Product Claims and Filter Product Claims. The agreement requires the insurance carriers to reimburse the Company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage. Other Legal Matters In June 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“RTI”) filed a complaint against the Company under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-250, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) alleging that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe patents licensed exclusively to RTI. Included in its complaint, RTI also alleged that the Company engaged in false advertising with respect to certain of the Company’s safety-engineered products in violation of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude RTI from various product markets and to maintain its market share through, among other things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and federal antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. In January 2008, the Court severed the patent and non-patent claims into separate cases. BD paid a $5 million award following an adverse infringement verdict at the district court and the Company's unsuccessful appeal. On September 19, 2013, a jury returned a verdict against BD with respect to RTI’s Lanham Act claim and claim for attempted monopolization based on deception in the safety syringe market. The jury awarded RTI $113.5 million for its attempted monopolization claim (which would be trebled under the antitrust statute). Upon issuance of a Court of Appeals decision reversing the attempted monopolization claim, the Company recorded a $337 million reversal of reserves associated with the initial judgment, in Other operating (income) expense, net, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Lanham Act liability, and remanded the case to the district court to consider whether and if so how much profit should be disgorged by BD on that claim. The Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the injunction ordered by the district court. On January 31, 2017, RTI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 20, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and the district court thereafter heard RTI’s request for disgorgement. On August 17, 2017, the district court entered judgment in favor of BD and ruled that RTI is not entitled to any award of money damages. RTI has appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on October 3, 2018. Since early 2013, Bard has received subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General seeking information related to the sales and marketing of certain of the Company’s products that are the subject of the Hernia Product Claims and the Women’s Health Product Claims. The Company is cooperating with these requests. Although the Company has had, and continues to have, discussions with the State Attorneys General with respect to overall potential resolution of this matter, there can be no assurance that a resolution will be reached or what the terms of any such resolution may be. In November 2015, the Department of Defense Inspector General issued an investigative subpoena to Bard. The Department of Health and Human Services is also participating in this investigation. The subpoena seeks documents related to the Company’s sales and marketing of certain filter products, drug coated balloon catheters, and peripheral arterial disease detection products. In July 2017, a separate civil investigative demand was served by the Department of Justice seeking documents and information relating to an investigation into possible violations of the False Claims Act in connection with the sales and marketing of FloChec^® and QuantaFlo^TM devices. The Company is cooperating with these requests. Since it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. The Company is a potentially responsible party to a number of federal administrative proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are underway or commencing. For several sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all or part of cleanup costs. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the Company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the Company’s business and/or results of operations. The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters. Litigation Reserves Accruals for the Bard product liability claims which are specifically discussed above, as well as the related legal defense costs, amounted to approximately $2.0 billion at September 30, 2018. Such amounts include provisional estimates which have been recorded with respect to the acquired liabilities. These amounts may be adjusted upon the availability of new or additional information regarding facts or circumstances which existed at the acquisition date. As of September 30, 2018, the Company has $94 million in Bard-related qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of Restricted cash. The Company's expected recoveries related to Bard-related product liability claims and related legal defense costs were approximately $343 million at September 30, 2018. A substantial amount of these expected recoveries at September 30, 2018 relate to the Company’s agreements with Medtronic related to certain Women’s Health Product Claims. The terms of the Company’s agreements with Medtronic are substantially consistent with the assumptions underlying, and the manner in which, the Company has recorded expected recoveries related to the indemnification obligation. The expected recoveries at September 30, 2018 related to the indemnification obligation are not in dispute with respect to claims that Medtronic settles pursuant to the agreements. As described above, the agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any, and the Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments	Long-term debt is recorded at amortized cost. The fair value of long-term debt is measured based upon quoted prices in active markets for similar instruments, which are considered Level 2 inputs in the fair value hierarchy.
Concentration of Credit Risk	Concentration of Credit Risk The Company maintains cash deposits in excess of government-provided insurance limits. Such cash deposits are exposed to loss in the event of nonperformance by financial institutions. Substantially all of the Company’s trade receivables are due from public and private entities involved in the healthcare industry. Due to the large size and diversity of the Company’s customer base, concentrations of credit risk with respect to trade receivables are limited. The Company does not normally require collateral. The Company is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by financial institutions with which it conducts business. However, this loss is limited to the amounts, if any, by which the obligations of the counterparty to the financial instrument contract exceed the obligations of the Company. The Company also minimizes exposure to credit risk by dealing with a diversified group of major financial institutions. The Company continually evaluates its accounts receivables for potential collection risks particularly those resulting from sales to government-owned or government-supported healthcare facilities in certain countries as payment may be dependent upon the financial stability and creditworthiness of those countries’ national economies. The Company continually evaluates all governmental receivables for potential collection risks associated with the availability of government funding and reimbursement practices. The Company believes the current reserves related to all governmental receivables are adequate and that this concentration of credit risk will not have a material adverse impact on its financial position or liquidity.