Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	10. Commitments and Contingencies Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis : In July 2012, Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis (the “Plaintiffs”), filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against HMS Holdings Corp., claiming an undetermined amount of damages alleging that various actions by HMS unlawfully deprived the Plaintiffs of the acquisition earn-out portion of the purchase price for Allied Management Group Special Investigation Unit (“AMG”) under the applicable Stock Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) and that HMS had breached certain contractual provisions under the SPA. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with two causes of action for breach of contract and one cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. HMS asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiffs for breach of contract based on contractual indemnification costs, including attorneys’ fees arising out of the Company’s defense of AMG in Kern Health Systems v. AMG, Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis (the “California Action”) , which are recoverable under the SPA . Mediation took place in September 2014 but the matter was not resolved. In June 2016, Kern Health Systems and AMG entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all claims in the California Action . In January 2016, HMS moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of contract and for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract causes of action against HMS (HMS did not move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim). The motions were argued on June 22, 2016. A decision on the motions has not yet been issued by the Court and a trial date has not been set. HMS continues to believe that the Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. Shareholder Proceedings : On March 3, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al . The complaint names the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and arises out of the Company’s disclosure on March 2, 2017 that the filing of its 2016 Form 10 -K would be delayed in order to permit the Company to complete the Company’s previously disclosed review of its Estimated liability for appeals and related internal control over financial reporting, and that the Company’s auditor had informed the Company that it had identified what it believed was a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting related to the CMS reserves. The complaint alleges that the Company’s Form 10 -K for the period ended December 31, 2015 and its quarterly reports on Form 10 -Q for the period January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 were false and misleading for failing to disclose the matters set forth above. On May 19, 2017, the New Jersey District Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The action is at its early stages, and the Company has not yet responded to the complaint. From time to time, HMS may be subject to investigations, legal proceedings and other disputes arising in the ordinary course of the Company’s business, including but not limited to regulatory audits, billing and contractual disputes, employment-related matters and post-closing disputes related to acquisitions. Due to the Company’s contractual relationships, including those with federal and state government entities, HMS’s operations, billing and business practices are subject to scrutiny and audit by those entities and other multiple agencies and levels of government, as well as to frequent transitions and changes in the personnel responsible for oversight of the Company’s contractual performance. HMS may have contractual disputes with its customers arising from differing interpretations of contractual provisions that define the Company’s rights, obligations, scope of work or terms of payment, and with associated claims of liability for inaccurate or improper billing for reimbursement of contract fees, or for sanctions or damages for alleged performance deficiencies. Resolution of such disputes may involve litigation or may require that HMS accept some amount of loss or liability in order to avoid customer abrasion, negative marketplace perceptions and other disadvantageous results that could affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. HMS records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, HMS does not establish an accrued liability .

10.

Commitments and Contingencies

Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis

: In

July 2012,

Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis (the “Plaintiffs”), filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against HMS Holdings Corp., claiming an undetermined amount of damages alleging that various actions by HMS unlawfully deprived the Plaintiffs of the acquisition earn-out portion of the purchase price for Allied Management Group Special Investigation Unit (“AMG”) under the applicable Stock Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) and that HMS had breached certain contractual provisions under the SPA. The Plaintiffs filed a

second

amended complaint with

two

causes of action for breach of contract and

one

cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. HMS asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiffs for breach of contract based on contractual indemnification costs, including attorneys’ fees arising out of the Company’s defense of AMG in

Kern Health Systems v. AMG, Dennis Demetre and Lori Lewis

(the “California Action”)

which are recoverable under the SPA

Mediation took place in

September 2014

but the matter was

not

resolved. In

June 2016,

Kern Health Systems and AMG entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all claims in the California Action

January 2016,

HMS moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of contract and for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract causes of action against HMS (HMS did

not

move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim). The motions were argued on

June 22, 2016.

A decision on the motions has

not

yet been issued by the Court and a trial date has

not

been set. HMS continues to believe that the Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them.

Shareholder Proceedings

March 3, 2017,

a putative securities class action was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled

Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al

. The complaint names the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and arises out of the Company’s disclosure on

March 2, 2017

that the filing of its

2016

Form

-K would be delayed in order to permit the Company to complete the Company’s previously disclosed review of its Estimated liability for appeals and related internal control over financial reporting, and that the Company’s auditor had informed the Company that it had identified what it believed was a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting related to the CMS reserves. The complaint alleges that the Company’s Form

-K for the period ended

December 31, 2015

and its quarterly reports on Form

-Q for the period

January 1, 2016

September 30, 2016

were false and misleading for failing to disclose the matters set forth above. On

May 19, 2017,

the New Jersey District Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The action is at its early stages, and the Company has

not

yet responded to the complaint.

From time to time, HMS

may

be subject to investigations, legal proceedings and other disputes arising in the ordinary course of the Company’s business, including but

not

limited to regulatory audits, billing and contractual disputes, employment-related matters and post-closing disputes related to acquisitions. Due to the Company’s contractual relationships, including those with federal and state government entities, HMS’s operations, billing and business practices are subject to scrutiny and audit by those entities and other multiple agencies and levels of government, as well as to frequent transitions and changes in the personnel responsible for oversight of the Company’s contractual performance. HMS

may

have contractual disputes with its customers arising from differing interpretations of contractual provisions that define the Company’s rights, obligations, scope of work or terms of payment, and with associated claims of liability for inaccurate or improper billing for reimbursement of contract fees, or for sanctions or damages for alleged performance deficiencies. Resolution of such disputes

may

involve litigation or

may

require that HMS accept some amount of loss or liability in order to avoid customer abrasion, negative marketplace perceptions and other disadvantageous results that could affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

HMS records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is

not

both probable and estimable, HMS does

not

establish an accrued liability