Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	17. Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments and Guarantees Our software license agreements include a performance guarantee that our software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with our performance guarantee or other related warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. We historically have accepted sales returns under limited circumstances. We estimate expected sales returns and other forms of variable consideration considering our customary business practice and contract-specific facts and circumstances, and we consider such estimated potential returns as variable consideration when allocating the transaction price to the extent it is probable that there will not be a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized. Our standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which we shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to our software. As we have not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, we believe that our estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations. We also have contingent consideration liabilities related to our acquisitions. Refer to Note 7, “Business Combinations and Disposals” and Note 4, “Fair Value Measurements” of our notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Report for further information. Contingencies In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business and routine legal proceedings, we are currently subject to various non-ordinary course legal proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We accrue estimates for resolution of any legal proceeding and other contingencies when losses are probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). No less than quarterly, and as facts and circumstances change, we review the status of each significant matter underlying a legal proceeding or claim and assess our potential financial exposure. We accrue a liability for an estimated loss if the potential loss from any legal proceeding or claim is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether the amount of an exposure is reasonably estimable, and accruals are based only on the information available to our management at the time the judgment is made, which may prove to be incomplete, or inaccurate or unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions. The outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses defending any of these matters. If one or more of these legal proceedings were resolved against or settled by us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of our management’s expectations, our consolidated financial statements for that and subsequent reporting periods could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we could be forced to incur increased compliance costs or change the manner in which we operate our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. DOJ Investigation On July 13, 2023, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and two private parties (the “Relators”) to resolve the previously disclosed investigation by the DOJ regarding the Company’s software certification under the United States Department of Health and Human Services Electronic Health Record Incentive Program and the Company’s marketing practices. The investigation also involved a previously disclosed qui tam lawsuit (the “Civil Action”) filed by the Relators against the Company alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, on July 14, 2023, the Company paid a total of $31,268 to the United States to settle the claims and a total of $1,200 to the Relators for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. Upon receipt of such payments, the DOJ and the Relators dismissed the Civil Action and released the Company from the claims specified in the Settlement Agreement. Although we admitted no wrongdoing, the Civil Action and Settlement Agreement may have a material adverse effect on our reputation and consequently our business and operations. Security Incident and Related Litigation On April 28, 2023, the Company issued written notification to approximately 1 million individuals notifying them that NextGen Healthcare, Inc. had discovered that certain of their personal information (name, address, date of birth, and social security number) had been accessed without authorization during a recent data security incident impacting the NextGen Office system. Following notification of the data breach, NextGen Healthcare, Inc. was named as a defendant in sixteen putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, all of which assert various claims stemming from the data breach and NextGen Healthcare’s alleged failure to safeguard personal information. These lawsuits seek monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 17, 2023, the Court consolidated all sixteen of the lawsuits into one action in the Northern District of Georgia, styled as Miller v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., 1:23-cv-02043-TWT. The Court has appointed interim lead counsel for the consolidated matter, and the plaintiffs will be serving NextGen with a consolidated amended complaint on or about November 30, 2023. We believe we have meritorious defenses to this litigation and intend to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in these complaints and any amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the consolidated action. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential losses that may be associated with this litigation because of the early stage of the litigation. We also cannot assure you that we will not become subject to other lawsuits, inquiries, or claims relating to or arising from the matter. Although we maintain cyber-technology liability insurance, it is possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are unsuccessful in defending all of the litigation, will be in excess of our cyber-technology liability insurance coverage applicable to claims of this nature. Hussein Litigation On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. Hussein’s breach of fiduciary duty claims were dismissed on demurrer, and we filed an answer and cross-complaint against Hussein, alleging that he breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company. On September 16, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment with respect to Hussein’s remaining claims, dismissing all claims against us. The cross-complaint against Hussein went to trial, but the Court granted judgment in favor of Hussein on our cross-complaint. Final judgment over Hussein’s claims and our cross-claims was entered on January 9, 2018. Hussein appealed the order granting summary judgment over his claims, and we appealed the court’s decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. On October 8, 2019, the California State Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment on Hussein’s affirmative claims and affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the Company’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. As a result, the case returned to the trial court for resolution of Hussein’s claims against us. On July 29, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants on all counts. Hussein filed a Motion for New Trial, which the Court denied. Hussein has appealed the jury verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. Hussein, the Company, and the individual defendants have appealed the trial court’s denial of requests for recovery of costs arising from the litigation. The parties have completed briefing on the various appeals. The California State Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held a hearing on the various appeals on August 25, 2023. At this time, NextGen Healthcare is unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to these claims. Merger Litigation On September 29, 2023 and October 3, 2023, purported stockholders Denise Redfield and Yadira Torres sent demand letters to the Company. These demand letters allege that NextGen Healthcare’s September 26, 2023 Proxy Statement is materially false or misleading because it omitted certain information related to the Company’s merger with Thoma Bravo, LP, including but not limited to information about the Company’s financial projections and analyses performed by NextGen’s financial advisor, Morgan Stanley. On October 7, 2023, October 10, 2023, and October 12, 2023, purported stockholders Toni Dougherty, Ryan O’Dell, and Elaine Wang filed three actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Dougherty v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08845, O’Dell v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08895, and Wang v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08982). On October 13, 2023, purported stockholders Michael Floyd and John McDaniels filed actions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Floyd v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01150, and McDaniels v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01149). On October 12, 2023, October 13, 2023, and October 19, 2023, purported stockholders Michael Kent, Scott Young, and Rina Brodt sent demand letters to the Company. The complaints and demands allege that certain officers and directors of NextGen Healthcare violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be filed with the SEC on October 6, 2023 in connection with NextGen Healthcare’s proposed merger with Thoma Bravo, L.P. In particular, the stockholders request that NextGen Healthcare make additional disclosures regarding certain information related to the Merger, including but not limited to financial projections and analyses performed by NextGen Healthcare’s financial advisor, Morgan Stanley. The Company may be involved in additional litigation related to the Merger. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints and demands are without merit. However, the Company plans to issue supplemental disclosures to address the claims in the various complaints and demands. At this time, NextGen Healthcare is unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to these claims.

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

17. Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

Commitments and Guarantees

Our software license agreements include a performance guarantee that our software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with our performance guarantee or other related warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties.

We historically have accepted sales returns under limited circumstances. We estimate expected sales returns and other forms of variable consideration considering our customary business practice and contract-specific facts and circumstances, and we consider such estimated potential returns as variable consideration when allocating the transaction price to the extent it is probable that there will not be a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized.

Our standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which we shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to our software. As we have not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, we believe that our estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations.

We also have contingent consideration liabilities related to our acquisitions. Refer to Note 7, “Business Combinations and Disposals” and Note 4, “Fair Value Measurements” of our notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Report for further information.

Contingencies

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business and routine legal proceedings, we are currently subject to various non-ordinary course legal proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below.

We accrue estimates for resolution of any legal proceeding and other contingencies when losses are probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). No less than quarterly, and as facts and circumstances change, we review the status of each significant matter underlying a legal proceeding or claim and assess our potential financial exposure. We accrue a liability for an estimated loss if the potential loss from any legal proceeding or claim is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether the amount of an exposure is reasonably estimable, and accruals are based only on the information available to our management at the time the judgment is made, which may prove to be incomplete, or inaccurate or unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions.

The outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses defending any of these matters. If one or more of these legal proceedings were resolved against or settled by us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of our management’s expectations, our consolidated financial statements for that and subsequent reporting periods could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we could be forced to incur increased compliance costs or change the manner in which we operate our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

DOJ Investigation

On July 13, 2023, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and two private parties (the “Relators”) to resolve the previously disclosed investigation by the DOJ regarding the Company’s software certification under the United States Department of Health and Human Services Electronic Health Record Incentive Program and the Company’s marketing practices. The investigation also involved a previously disclosed qui tam lawsuit (the “Civil Action”) filed by the Relators against the Company alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, on July 14, 2023, the Company paid a total of $31,268 to the United States to settle the claims and a total of $1,200 to the Relators for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. Upon receipt of such payments, the DOJ and the Relators dismissed the Civil Action and released the Company from the claims specified in the Settlement Agreement.

Although we admitted no wrongdoing, the Civil Action and Settlement Agreement may have a material adverse effect on our reputation and consequently our business and operations.

Security Incident and Related Litigation

On April 28, 2023, the Company issued written notification to approximately 1 million individuals notifying them that NextGen Healthcare, Inc. had discovered that certain of their personal information (name, address, date of birth, and social security number)

had been accessed without authorization during a recent data security incident impacting the NextGen Office system. Following notification of the data breach, NextGen Healthcare, Inc. was named as a defendant in sixteen putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, all of which assert various claims stemming from the data breach and NextGen Healthcare’s alleged failure to safeguard personal information. These lawsuits seek monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 17, 2023, the Court consolidated all sixteen of the lawsuits into one action in the Northern District of Georgia, styled as Miller v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., 1:23-cv-02043-TWT. The Court has appointed interim lead counsel for the consolidated matter, and the plaintiffs will be serving NextGen with a consolidated amended complaint on or about November 30, 2023. We believe we have meritorious defenses to this litigation and intend to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in these complaints and any amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the consolidated action. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential losses that may be associated with this litigation because of the early stage of the litigation. We also cannot assure you that we will not become subject to other lawsuits, inquiries, or claims relating to or arising from the matter. Although we maintain cyber-technology liability insurance, it is possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are unsuccessful in defending all of the litigation, will be in excess of our cyber-technology liability insurance coverage applicable to claims of this nature.

Hussein Litigation

On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. Hussein’s breach of fiduciary duty claims were dismissed on demurrer, and we filed an answer and cross-complaint against Hussein, alleging that he breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company. On September 16, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment with respect to Hussein’s remaining claims, dismissing all claims against us. The cross-complaint against Hussein went to trial, but the Court granted judgment in favor of Hussein on our cross-complaint. Final judgment over Hussein’s claims and our cross-claims was entered on January 9, 2018. Hussein appealed the order granting summary judgment over his claims, and we appealed the court’s decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. On October 8, 2019, the California State Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment on Hussein’s affirmative claims and affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the Company’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. As a result, the case returned to the trial court for resolution of Hussein’s claims against us. On July 29, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants on all counts. Hussein filed a Motion for New Trial, which the Court denied. Hussein has appealed the jury verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. Hussein, the Company, and the individual defendants have appealed the trial court’s denial of requests for recovery of costs arising from the litigation. The parties have completed briefing on the various appeals. The California State Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held a hearing on the various appeals on August 25, 2023. At this time, NextGen Healthcare is unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to these claims.

Merger Litigation

On September 29, 2023 and October 3, 2023, purported stockholders Denise Redfield and Yadira Torres sent demand letters to the Company. These demand letters allege that NextGen Healthcare’s September 26, 2023 Proxy Statement is materially false or misleading because it omitted certain information related to the Company’s merger with Thoma Bravo, LP, including but not limited to information about the Company’s financial projections and analyses performed by NextGen’s financial advisor, Morgan Stanley.

On October 7, 2023, October 10, 2023, and October 12, 2023, purported stockholders Toni Dougherty, Ryan O’Dell, and Elaine Wang filed three actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Dougherty v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08845, O’Dell v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08895, and Wang v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08982). On October 13, 2023, purported stockholders Michael Floyd and John McDaniels filed actions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Floyd v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01150, and McDaniels v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01149). On October 12, 2023, October 13, 2023, and October 19, 2023, purported stockholders Michael Kent, Scott Young, and Rina Brodt sent demand letters to the Company. The complaints and demands allege that certain officers and directors of NextGen Healthcare violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be filed with the SEC on October 6, 2023 in connection with NextGen Healthcare’s proposed merger with Thoma Bravo, L.P. In particular, the stockholders request that NextGen Healthcare make additional disclosures regarding certain information related to the Merger, including but not limited to financial projections and analyses performed by NextGen Healthcare’s financial advisor, Morgan Stanley. The Company may be involved in additional litigation related to the Merger.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints and demands are without merit. However, the Company plans to issue supplemental disclosures to address the claims in the various complaints and demands. At this time, NextGen Healthcare is unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to these claims.