Legal	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	LEGAL Minnesota Attorney General and Similar Matters On January 19, 2012, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of federal and Minnesota state health privacy laws and regulations, Minnesota debt collection laws, and Minnesota consumer protection laws resulting from, among other things, the theft in Minnesota in July 2011 of an employee's laptop that contained protected health information. The complaint was amended by a First Amended Complaint filed by the Minnesota Attorney General on February 29, 2012 and a Second Amended Complaint filed on July 3, 2012 (as so amended, the “Lawsuit”). The Company moved to dismiss each of the complaints in their entirety with prejudice asserting that the complaints were without merit. In addition, on April 24, 2012, the Attorney General released to the public a compliance review alleging, or raising questions about, the Company's non-compliance with federal and Minnesota health privacy laws, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, federal and Minnesota debt collections laws, and Minnesota consumer protection laws. Some, but not all, of the alleged violations of law and supporting factual allegations were the same as those alleged in the Lawsuit. On July 30, 2012, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the Minnesota Attorney General entered into a Settlement Agreement, Release and Order (the "Settlement Agreement”) to settle the Lawsuit and resolve fully all disputes which in any way relate to, arise out of, emanate from, or otherwise involve the Lawsuit and all investigations by the Minnesota Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services relating to the Company. The Settlement Agreement included a $2.5 million settlement sum, the Company's voluntary agreement to wind down the Company's Minnesota business operations and not to conduct business in the state of Minnesota, or on behalf of a Minnesota client, for a two-year period following the wind down date (other than any continuation of prior licensing of the Company's technology), and contemplates potential restrictions on any future Minnesota operations should the Company choose to resume operations in Minnesota in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "Commissioner”) served an administrative subpoena on the Company seeking information and documents about the debt collection practices and the privacy of personal and health data within the Company's possession or control. On February 3, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Cease and Desist Order with the Minnesota Commerce Commissioner. As a result of the Order, the Company voluntarily agreed to cease all debt collection activity in the State of Minnesota. The Commissioner's investigation was fully and finally resolved through the Settlement Agreement described above. On March 27, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Civil Investigative Demand to the Company (the "Demand") to determine whether the Company may have violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as it relates to deceptive or unfair acts or practices related to consumer privacy and/or data security, the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pursuant to the Demand, the Federal Trade Commission seeks documents and responses that primarily concern the collection, use, security, and privacy of personal and health data within the Company's possession or control, statements to consumers about such data, the use of various forms of scoring, and policies and practices regarding collections. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigation. Primarily based on allegations made in the Minnesota Attorney General's compliance review described above: (1) on April 27, 2012, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota sent a letter to the Company requesting written responses to a series of questions about the Company's business practices for the Fairview Hospital System in Minnesota and (2) on May 2, 2012, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette, and Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member G. K. Butterfield sent a letter to the Company requesting written responses to a series of questions about the Company's business practices and potential violation of certain federal privacy and debt collection laws. The Company has responded to both the Senate and House inquiries. Beginning in late April 2012, the Company has been named as a defendant in several putative securities class actions that have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The primary allegations are that the Company's public statements, including filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, were false and/or misleading about the Company's violations of certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws. In addition, the Company and its directors have been named in several putative shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The primary allegations are that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the alleged violations of certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in all of these cases and intends to vigorously defend itself and directors against these claims. On June 12, 2012, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued an administrative complaint seeking to impose reciprocal “sister state discipline” against the Company's Illinois debt collection license based on the February 3, 2012 Consent Judgment with Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against the claim. In addition, the Company has received regulatory inquiries from two other states with respect to its operations and patient contacts in those states. The Company has provided the requested information and is fully cooperating with those inquiries. In connection with the Settlement Agreement and other matters described above, the Company has incurred, through June 30, 2012, charges of approximately $12.0 million, including the settlement sum, defense costs, and other expenses. A substantial portion of the above charges that directly relate to the Lawsuit are covered under the Company's existing insurance policy. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company expensed approximately $2.6 million of the above charges, consisting of the insurance deductible and other costs not covered by the policy. As of June 30, 2012, the Company's insurance receivable was approximately $7.9 million and is included in other current assets in the consolidated balance sheet. The final outcome and impact of these matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where it is determined that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While it is reasonably possible that these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows during any particular quarterly or annual period, it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of losses which the Company may incur in connection with these matters. Other Litigation From time to time, the Company has been, and may again become, involved in other legal or regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of the Company's business. Other than as described above, the Company is not presently a party to any material litigation or regulatory proceeding and is not aware of any pending or threatened litigation or regulatory proceeding against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

LEGAL

Minnesota Attorney General and Similar Matters

On January 19, 2012, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of federal and Minnesota state health privacy laws and regulations, Minnesota debt collection laws, and Minnesota consumer protection laws resulting from, among other things, the theft in Minnesota in July 2011 of an employee's laptop that contained protected health information. The complaint was amended by a First Amended Complaint filed by the Minnesota Attorney General on February 29, 2012 and a Second Amended Complaint filed on July 3, 2012 (as so amended, the “Lawsuit”). The Company moved to dismiss each of the complaints in their entirety with prejudice asserting that the complaints were without merit. In addition, on April 24, 2012, the Attorney General released to the public a compliance review alleging, or raising questions about, the Company's non-compliance with federal and Minnesota health privacy laws, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, federal and Minnesota debt collections laws, and Minnesota consumer protection laws. Some, but not all, of the alleged violations of law and supporting factual allegations were the same as those alleged in the Lawsuit. On July 30, 2012, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the Minnesota Attorney General entered into a Settlement Agreement, Release and Order (the "Settlement Agreement”) to settle the Lawsuit and resolve fully all disputes which in any way relate to, arise out of, emanate from, or otherwise involve the Lawsuit and all investigations by the Minnesota Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services relating to the Company. The Settlement Agreement included a $2.5 million settlement sum, the Company's voluntary agreement to wind down the Company's Minnesota business operations and not to conduct business in the state of Minnesota, or on behalf of a Minnesota client, for a two-year period following the wind down date (other than any continuation of prior licensing of the Company's technology), and contemplates potential restrictions on any future Minnesota operations should the Company choose to resume operations in Minnesota in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

On January 25, 2012, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "Commissioner”) served an administrative subpoena on the Company seeking information and documents about the debt collection practices and the privacy of personal and health data within the Company's possession or control. On February 3, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Cease and Desist Order with the Minnesota Commerce Commissioner. As a result of the Order, the Company voluntarily agreed to cease all debt collection activity in the State of Minnesota. The Commissioner's investigation was fully and finally resolved through the Settlement Agreement described above.

On March 27, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Civil Investigative Demand to the Company (the "Demand") to determine whether the Company may have violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as it relates to deceptive or unfair acts or practices related to consumer privacy and/or data security, the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pursuant to the Demand, the Federal Trade Commission seeks documents and responses that primarily concern the collection, use, security, and privacy of personal and health data within the Company's possession or control, statements to consumers about such data, the use of various forms of scoring, and policies and practices regarding collections. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigation.

Primarily based on allegations made in the Minnesota Attorney General's compliance review described above: (1) on April 27, 2012, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota sent a letter to the Company requesting written responses to a series of questions about the Company's business practices for the Fairview Hospital System in Minnesota and (2) on May 2, 2012, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette, and Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member G. K. Butterfield sent a letter to the Company requesting written responses to a series of questions about the Company's business practices and potential violation of certain federal privacy and debt collection laws. The Company has responded to both the Senate and House inquiries.

Beginning in late April 2012, the Company has been named as a defendant in several putative securities class actions that have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The primary allegations are that the Company's public statements, including filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, were false and/or misleading about the Company's violations of certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws. In addition, the Company and its directors have been named in several putative shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The primary allegations are that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the alleged violations of certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in all of these cases and intends to vigorously defend itself and directors against these claims.

On June 12, 2012, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued an administrative complaint seeking to impose reciprocal “sister state discipline” against the Company's Illinois debt collection license based on the February 3, 2012 Consent Judgment with Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against the claim. In addition, the Company has received regulatory inquiries from two other states with respect to its operations and patient contacts in those states. The Company has provided the requested information and is fully cooperating with those inquiries.

In connection with the Settlement Agreement and other matters described above, the Company has incurred, through June 30, 2012, charges of approximately $12.0 million, including the settlement sum, defense costs, and other expenses. A substantial portion of the above charges that directly relate to the Lawsuit are covered under the Company's existing insurance policy. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company expensed approximately $2.6 million of the above charges, consisting of the insurance deductible and other costs not covered by the policy. As of June 30, 2012, the Company's insurance receivable was approximately $7.9 million and is included in other current assets in the consolidated balance sheet.

The final outcome and impact of these matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where it is determined that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While it is reasonably possible that these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows during any particular quarterly or annual period, it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of losses which the Company may incur in connection with these matters.

Other Litigation

From time to time, the Company has been, and may again become, involved in other legal or regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of the Company's business. Other than as described above, the Company is not presently a party to any material litigation or regulatory proceeding and is not aware of any pending or threatened litigation or regulatory proceeding against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows.