Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases — The Company leases certain facilities and its administrative offices under non-cancelable operating leases, most of which have initial lease terms ranging from five to 20 years. The Company also leases certain of its equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms ranging from three to five years. Most of these leases contain renewal options, certain of which involve rent increases. Total rent expense, inclusive of straight-line rent adjustments, was $3,489 and $10,407 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $3,446 and $10,725 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Six of the Company’s facilities are operated under two separate three-facility master lease arrangements. Under these master leases, a breach at a single facility could subject one or more of the other facilities covered by the same master lease to the same default risk. Failure to comply with Medicare and Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of the Company’s leases, master lease agreements and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in the Company’s outstanding debt arrangements and other leases. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord. In addition, a number of the Company’s individual facility leases are held by the same or related landlords, and some of these leases include cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to others, potentially subjecting certain leases and facilities to the various remedies available to the landlords under separate but cross-defaulted leases. The Company is not aware of any defaults as of September 30, 2012. Regulatory Matters — Laws and regulations governing Medicare and 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. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all applicable laws and regulations. A significant portion of the Company’s revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare, for which reimbursement rates are subject to regulatory changes and government funding restrictions. Any significant future change to reimbursement rates or regulation on how services are provided could have a material effect on the Company’s operations. Cost-Containment Measures — Both government and private pay sources have instituted cost-containment measures designed to limit payments made to providers of healthcare services, and there can be no assurance that future measures designed to limit payments made to providers will not adversely affect the Company. Income Tax Examinations — During the first quarter of 2012, the State of California initiated an examination of the Company's income tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 income tax years. The examination is primarily focused on the Captive and the treatment of related insurance matters. California has not proposed any adjustments. The Company is not currently under examination by any other major income tax jurisdiction. The remainder of the Company's 2007 state tax years will lapse during the fourth quarter. The Company does not believe these lapses will significantly impact unrecognized tax benefits for any uncertain tax positions either. The Company does not believe the California examination or any other event will significantly impact the balance of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months. See Note 12, Income Taxes. Indemnities — From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which the Company agrees to indemnify past operators of facilities the Company acquires against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which the Company may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, (iv) agreements with certain lenders under which the Company may be required to indemnify such lenders against various claims and liabilities, and (v) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors and employees, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationships. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, a specific or maximum dollar amount is not explicitly stated therein. Generally, amounts under these contracts cannot be reasonably estimated until a specific claim is asserted. Consequently, because no claims have been asserted, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations on the Company’s balance sheets for any of the periods presented. Litigation — The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of the Company’s patients and residents and the services the Company provides. The Company and others in the industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The defense of these lawsuits may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. In addition to the potential lawsuits and claims described above, the Company is also subject to potential lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act and comparable state laws alleging submission of fraudulent claims for services to any healthcare program (such as Medicare) or payor. A violation may provide the basis for exclusion from federally-funded healthcare programs. Such exclusions could have a correlative negative impact on the Company’s financial performance. Some states, including California, Arizona and Texas, have enacted similar whistleblower and false claims laws and regulations. In addition, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created incentives for states to enact anti-fraud legislation modeled on the Federal False Claims Act. As such, the Company could face increased scrutiny, potential liability and legal expenses and costs based on claims under state false claims acts in markets in which it does business. In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is generally no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing. In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000 in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.” Other companies in the Company's industry have been the subject of lawsuits alleging negligence, abuses and other causes of action which have, in some cases, resulted in large demand awards and settlements. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of class-action suits filed against the Company and other companies in its industry, which also have the potential to result in large damage awards and settlements. For example, a class action suit was previously filed against the Company in the State of California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company’s California facilities. In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit, and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court. Healthcare litigation is common and is filed based upon a wide variety of claims and theories, and we are routinely subjected to varying types of claims. One particular type of suit arises from alleged violations of state-established minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities. Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with conditions of participation under certain state and federal healthcare programs; it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a citation, civil money penalty, or litigation. These "staffing" suits have become more prevalent in the wake of a previous substantial jury award against one of the Company's competitors, and the Company expects the plaintiff's bar to become increasingly aggressive in their pursuit of these staffing and similar claims. The Company is currently defending one such staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and has reached a tentative settlement with class counsel that is awaiting court approval. The total costs associated with the settlement, including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and related costs and expenses, are projected to be $5,000, of which, $2,596 of this amount was recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods. Assuming that the settlement is approved by the court, the settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. Other claims and suits, including class actions, continue to be filed against us and other companies in our industry. If there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business, including potential claims related to care and treatment provided at its facilities as well as employment related claims. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations. A significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Medicare Revenue Recoupments — The Company is subject to reviews relating to Medicare services, billings and potential overpayments. The Company had one operation subject to probe review during the nine months ended September 30, 2012. The Company anticipates that these probe reviews will increase in frequency in the future. Further, the Company currently has no facilities on prepayment review; however, others may be placed on prepayment review in the future. If a facility fails prepayment review, the facility could then be subject to undergo targeted review, which is a review that targets perceived claims deficiencies. The Company has no facilities that are currently undergoing targeted review. Other Matters — In March 2007, the Company learned that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California (DOJ) had commenced an investigation of certain of its facilities and had issued an authorized investigative demand to the Company's bank seeking information pertaining to a total of 18 of its facilities. The DOJ also subsequently served a subpoena on the Company's independent external auditors in 2007, and in 2008 served search warrants and subpoenas on its Service Center and six of its Southern California skilled nursing facilities, seeking specific patient files and other information. Subsequent subpoenas issued to the Company covered additional documentation from the six facilities as well as eight of the other facilities. Based upon the issuance of the subpoenas and execution of the search warrants, the Company concluded that the government had undertaken parallel criminal and civil investigations. The Company pledged full cooperation to, and has been cooperating fully with, the government. In September 2010 the Company's board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of independent directors to advance discussions with the DOJ regarding its investigation. The special committee retained independent counsel, and counsel has retained third party consultants, to facilitate its work. The Company and the special committee have continued cooperating with the DOJ, working to provide information necessary to aid the DOJ's investigation and move the matter toward resolution. In December 2011, independent counsel for the Company's special committee received confirmation that the DOJ has closed its criminal investigation, although as a matter of course the DOJ reserves the right to reopen such inquiries if new facts come to light. In January 2012, the DOJ indicated that the government would be seeking certain additional information in furtherance of the remaining civil investigation, and that it would formalize its request for that information in a new subpoena. In January 2012, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) served the new subpoena, seeking specific patient records and documents from 2007 to 2011 from the six Southern California skilled nursing facilities that have been the subject of previous requests. HHS also issued a subpoena to the Company's independent external auditors requesting an update to the information requested in the 2007 subpoena to them, and a subpoena to the Company's independent internal auditors requesting similar information. The Company has produced records called for in the January 2012 subpoena, and discussions between government representatives and counsel for the special committee are ongoing. The Company continues to cooperate with the government as part of an ongoing effort to move the matter to a resolution. In particular, while the Company seeks to address any questions the government may have after it completes its review of specific patient files requested, counsel for the special committee and counsel for the government are also attempting to develop a process to resolve, in advance of formal litigation, any civil claims the government may believe it has after concluding its investigation. In addition, the Company continues to make improvements to its compliance programs and systems. The Company cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigations or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any litigation. And although the Company believes there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, the Company has not recorded any related accruals. If any litigation were to proceed, and the Company is subjected to, alleged to be liable for, or agrees to a settlement of, claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, its business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected and its stock price could be adversely impacted. Among other things, any settlement or litigation could involve the payment of substantial sums to settle any alleged civil violations, and may also include the Company's assumption of specific procedural and financial obligations going forward under a corporate integrity agreement and/or other arrangement with the government. Concentrations Credit Risk — The Company has significant accounts receivable balances, the collectability of which is dependent on the availability of funds from certain governmental programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. These receivables represent the only significant concentration of credit risk for the Company. The Company does not believe there are significant credit risks associated with these governmental programs. The Company believes that an appropriate allowance has been recorded for the possibility of these receivables proving uncollectible, and continually monitors and adjusts these allowances as necessary. The Company’s receivables from Medicare and Medicaid payor programs accounted for approximately 59.5% and 58.9% of its total accounts receivable as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Revenue from reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 73.6% and 73.7% of the Company’s revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, and 75.0% and 75.3% for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Cash in Excess of FDIC Limits — The Company currently has bank deposits with financial institutions in the U.S. that exceed FDIC insurance limits. FDIC insurance provides protection for bank deposits up to $250. In addition, the Company has uninsured bank deposits with a financial institution outside the U.S. As of November 6, 2012, the Company had approximately $1,001 in uninsured cash deposits. All uninsured bank deposits are held at high quality credit institutions.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases — The Company leases certain facilities and its administrative offices under non-cancelable operating leases, most of which have initial lease terms ranging from five to 20 years. The Company also leases certain of its equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms ranging from three to five years. Most of these leases contain renewal options, certain of which involve rent increases. Total rent expense, inclusive of straight-line rent adjustments, was $3,489 and $10,407 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $3,446 and $10,725 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

Six of the Company’s facilities are operated under two separate three-facility master lease arrangements. Under these master leases, a breach at a single facility could subject one or more of the other facilities covered by the same master lease to the same default risk. Failure to comply with Medicare and Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of the Company’s leases, master lease agreements and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in the Company’s outstanding debt arrangements and other leases. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord.

In addition, a number of the Company’s individual facility leases are held by the same or related landlords, and some of these leases include cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to others, potentially subjecting certain leases and facilities to the various remedies available to the landlords under separate but cross-defaulted leases. The Company is not aware of any defaults as of September 30, 2012.

Regulatory Matters — Laws and regulations governing Medicare and 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. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all applicable laws and regulations.

A significant portion of the Company’s revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare, for which reimbursement rates are subject to regulatory changes and government funding restrictions. Any significant future change to reimbursement rates or regulation on how services are provided could have a material effect on the Company’s operations.

Cost-Containment Measures — Both government and private pay sources have instituted cost-containment measures designed to limit payments made to providers of healthcare services, and there can be no assurance that future measures designed to limit payments made to providers will not adversely affect the Company.

Income Tax Examinations — During the first quarter of 2012, the State of California initiated an examination of the Company's income tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 income tax years. The examination is primarily focused on the Captive and the treatment of related insurance matters. California has not proposed any adjustments. The Company is not currently under examination by any other major income tax jurisdiction. The remainder of the Company's 2007 state tax years will lapse during the fourth quarter. The Company does not believe these lapses will significantly impact unrecognized tax benefits for any uncertain tax positions either. The Company does not believe the California examination or any other event will significantly impact the balance of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months. See Note 12, Income Taxes.

Indemnities — From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which the Company agrees to indemnify past operators of facilities the Company acquires against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which the Company may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, (iv) agreements with certain lenders under which the Company may be required to indemnify such lenders against various claims and liabilities, and (v) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors and employees, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationships. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, a specific or maximum dollar amount is not explicitly stated therein. Generally, amounts under these contracts cannot be reasonably estimated until a specific claim is asserted. Consequently, because no claims have been asserted, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations on the Company’s balance sheets for any of the periods presented.

Litigation — The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of the Company’s patients and residents and the services the Company provides. The Company and others in the industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The defense of these lawsuits may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards.

In addition to the potential lawsuits and claims described above, the Company is also subject to potential lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act and comparable state laws alleging submission of fraudulent claims for services to any healthcare program (such as Medicare) or payor. A violation may provide the basis for exclusion from federally-funded healthcare programs. Such exclusions could have a correlative negative impact on the Company’s financial performance. Some states, including California, Arizona and Texas, have enacted similar whistleblower and false claims laws and regulations. In addition, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created incentives for states to enact anti-fraud legislation modeled on the Federal False Claims Act. As such, the Company could face increased scrutiny, potential liability and legal expenses and costs based on claims under state false claims acts in markets in which it does business.

In May 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 which made significant changes to the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), expanding the types of activities subject to prosecution and whistleblower liability. Following changes by FERA, health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that a FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, as long as it is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, there is generally no need for an employment relationship in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.

In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act establishes rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses. Included under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be required to pay a reward to individuals who provide original information to the SEC resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000 in civil or criminal proceedings. The award will range from 10 to 30 percent of the amount recouped and the amount of the award shall be at the discretion of the SEC. The purpose of this reward program is to “motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the Government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.”

Other companies in the Company's industry have been the subject of lawsuits alleging negligence, abuses and other causes of action which have, in some cases, resulted in large demand awards and settlements. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of class-action suits filed against the Company and other companies in its industry, which also have the potential to result in large damage awards and settlements. For example, a class action suit was previously filed against the Company in the State of California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company’s California facilities. In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit, and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court.

Healthcare litigation is common and is filed based upon a wide variety of claims and theories, and we are routinely subjected to varying types of claims. One particular type of suit arises from alleged violations of state-established minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities. Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things, jeopardize a facility's compliance with conditions of participation under certain state and federal healthcare programs; it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a citation, civil money penalty, or litigation. These "staffing" suits have become more prevalent in the wake of a previous substantial jury award against one of the Company's competitors, and the Company expects the plaintiff's bar to become increasingly aggressive in their pursuit of these staffing and similar claims. The Company is currently defending one such staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and has reached a tentative settlement with class counsel that is awaiting court approval. The total costs associated with the settlement, including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and related costs and expenses, are projected to be $5,000, of which, $2,596 of this amount was recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods. Assuming that the settlement is approved by the court, the settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Other claims and suits, including class actions, continue to be filed against us and other companies in our industry. If there were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, this could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business, including potential claims related to care and treatment provided at its facilities as well as employment related claims. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations. A significant increase in the number of these claims or an increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of these claims, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Medicare Revenue Recoupments — The Company is subject to reviews relating to Medicare services, billings and potential overpayments. The Company had one operation subject to probe review during the nine months ended September 30, 2012. The Company anticipates that these probe reviews will increase in frequency in the future. Further, the Company currently has no facilities on prepayment review; however, others may be placed on prepayment review in the future. If a facility fails prepayment review, the facility could then be subject to undergo targeted review, which is a review that targets perceived claims deficiencies. The Company has no facilities that are currently undergoing targeted review.

Other Matters — In March 2007, the Company learned that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California (DOJ) had commenced an investigation of certain of its facilities and had issued an authorized investigative demand to the Company's bank seeking information pertaining to a total of 18 of its facilities. The DOJ also subsequently served a subpoena on the Company's independent external auditors in 2007, and in 2008 served search warrants and subpoenas on its Service Center and six of its Southern California skilled nursing facilities, seeking specific patient files and other information. Subsequent subpoenas issued to the Company covered additional documentation from the six facilities as well as eight of the other facilities. Based upon the issuance of the subpoenas and execution of the search warrants, the Company concluded that the government had undertaken parallel criminal and civil investigations. The Company pledged full cooperation to, and has been cooperating fully with, the government.

In September 2010 the Company's board of directors appointed a special committee consisting solely of independent directors to advance discussions with the DOJ regarding its investigation. The special committee retained independent counsel, and counsel has retained third party consultants, to facilitate its work. The Company and the special committee have continued cooperating with the DOJ, working to provide information necessary to aid the DOJ's investigation and move the matter toward resolution.

In December 2011, independent counsel for the Company's special committee received confirmation that the DOJ has closed its criminal investigation, although as a matter of course the DOJ reserves the right to reopen such inquiries if new facts come to light.

In January 2012, the DOJ indicated that the government would be seeking certain additional information in furtherance of the remaining civil investigation, and that it would formalize its request for that information in a new subpoena. In January 2012, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) served the new subpoena, seeking specific patient records and documents from 2007 to 2011 from the six Southern California skilled nursing facilities that have been the subject of previous requests. HHS also issued a subpoena to the Company's independent external auditors requesting an update to the information requested in the 2007 subpoena to them, and a subpoena to the Company's independent internal auditors requesting similar information.

The Company has produced records called for in the January 2012 subpoena, and discussions between government representatives and counsel for the special committee are ongoing. The Company continues to cooperate with the government as part of an ongoing effort to move the matter to a resolution. In particular, while the Company seeks to address any questions the government may have after it completes its review of specific patient files requested, counsel for the special committee and counsel for the government are also attempting to develop a process to resolve, in advance of formal litigation, any civil claims the government may believe it has after concluding its investigation. In addition, the Company continues to make improvements to its compliance programs and systems.

The Company cannot predict or provide any assurance as to the possible outcome of the investigations or any possible related proceedings, or as to the possible outcome of any litigation. And although the Company believes there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from any such proceedings and, therefore, the Company has not recorded any related accruals. If any litigation were to proceed, and the Company is subjected to, alleged to be liable for, or agrees to a settlement of, claims or obligations under federal Medicare statutes, the federal False Claims Act, or similar state and federal statutes and related regulations, its business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected and its stock price could be adversely impacted. Among other things, any settlement or litigation could involve the payment of substantial sums to settle any alleged civil violations, and may also include the Company's assumption of specific procedural and financial obligations going forward under a corporate integrity agreement and/or other arrangement with the government.

Concentrations

Credit Risk — The Company has significant accounts receivable balances, the collectability of which is dependent on the availability of funds from certain governmental programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. These receivables represent the only significant concentration of credit risk for the Company. The Company does not believe there are significant credit risks associated with these governmental programs. The Company believes that an appropriate allowance has been recorded for the possibility of these receivables proving uncollectible, and continually monitors and adjusts these allowances as necessary. The Company’s receivables from Medicare and Medicaid payor programs accounted for approximately 59.5% and 58.9% of its total accounts receivable as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Revenue from reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 73.6% and 73.7% of the Company’s revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, and 75.0% and 75.3% for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

Cash in Excess of FDIC Limits — The Company currently has bank deposits with financial institutions in the U.S. that exceed FDIC insurance limits. FDIC insurance provides protection for bank deposits up to $250. In addition, the Company has uninsured bank deposits with a financial institution outside the U.S. As of November 6, 2012, the Company had approximately $1,001 in uninsured cash deposits. All uninsured bank deposits are held at high quality credit institutions.