Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	14. 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 have historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If we are able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If we are unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met. 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. 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. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. 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. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against Hussein, alleging that he breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki have dismissed their claims against Hussein, leaving QSI as the sole plaintiff in the cross-complaint. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Hussein’s claims, which the Court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all of Hussein’s claims against us. On September 23, 2015, Hussein filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the Court denied. Hussein filed a renewed application for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order on August 3, 2017. The Court again denied Hussein’s application. On October 28, 2015, May 9, 2016, and August 5, 2016, Hussein filed a motion for summary judgment, motion for summary adjudication, and motion for judgment on the pleadings, respectively, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint. The Court denied each motion. Trial on our cross-complaint began June 12, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the Court issued a statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Final judgment over Hussein’s claims and our cross-claims was entered on January 9, 2018. Hussein has noticed his appeal of the order granting summary judgment over his claims, and we noticed a cross-appeal on the court’s statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Briefing on the cross-appeals was completed in fall 2018 and hearings on the cross-appeals will be held in spring 2019. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Federal Securities Class Action On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPR, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the District Court's order on our motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2017, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on September 29, 2017. On January 26, 2018, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a response to the petition, which they filed on March 22, 2018. On May 10, 2018, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the action for $19,000, and on May 11, 2018, the parties requested that the Supreme Court stay any decision regarding whether to hear the Company’s petition for a writ of certiorari, pending the parties’ ongoing settlement negotiations. On July 16, 2018, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement resolving this matter and submitted it to the Court for approval. On July 30, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and granted final approval on November 19, 2018. The matter is now concluded. Under the terms of this agreement, the settlement was partially funded by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers, and defendants continued to deny any liability or wrongdoing. The settlement does not resolve the Hussein Litigation or the Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a purported shareholder of ours. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by our directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The matter was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the appeal described above under the caption, “Federal Securities Class Action.” This stay now has been lifted and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 2, 2018. On July 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The time within which Foss could appeal the dismissal has expired so this matter is now concluded. On September 28, 2017, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kusumam Koshy, derivatively on behalf of Quality Systems Inc. vs. Craig Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig, Paul A. Holt, and Quality Systems, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-01694, by Kusumam Koshy, a purported shareholder of ours. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of control, as well as unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors arising out of the allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action,” QSI’s adoption of revised indemnification agreements, and the resignation of certain officers of the Company. The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and enhanced corporate governance reforms and internal control procedures. On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the derivative complaint. On July 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On August 24, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We believe that the plaintiff’s appeal is without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Other Regulatory Matters In April 2017, we received a request for documents and information from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”). The CID relates to an investigation concerning the certification we obtained for our software under the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. We have provided documents and information in response to that CID. On December 11, 2017, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice in connection with the same matter seeking among other things records relating to (a) data used to determine objectives and measures under the Meaningful Use (MU) and the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) programs, (b) EHR software code used in certifying the 2014 EHR software and information, and (c) payments provided for the referral of EHR business. We continue to respond to this CID and subpoena and intend to cooperate fully with the government, including responding to any future requests. Requests and investigations of this nature may lead to future requests for information and ultimately the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us, as well as other material liabilities. In addition, our responses to these and any future requests require time and effort, which can result in additional cost to us. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter. Given the highly-regulated nature of our industry, we may, from time to time, be subject to subpoenas, requests for information, or investigations from various government agencies. It is our practice to respond to such matters in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner.

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

14. 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 have historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If we are able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If we are unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met.

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.

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. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. 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. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against Hussein, alleging that he breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki have dismissed their claims against Hussein, leaving QSI as the sole plaintiff in the cross-complaint. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Hussein’s claims, which the Court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all of Hussein’s claims against us. On September 23, 2015, Hussein filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the Court denied. Hussein filed a renewed application for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order on August 3, 2017. The Court again denied Hussein’s application. On October 28, 2015, May 9, 2016, and August 5, 2016, Hussein filed a motion for summary judgment, motion for summary adjudication, and motion for judgment on the pleadings, respectively, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint. The Court denied each motion. Trial on our cross-complaint began June 12, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the Court issued a statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Final judgment over Hussein’s claims and our cross-claims was entered on January 9, 2018. Hussein has noticed his appeal of the order granting summary judgment over his claims, and we noticed a cross-appeal on the court’s statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Briefing on the cross-appeals was completed in fall 2018 and hearings on the cross-appeals will be held in spring 2019. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Federal Securities Class Action

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPR, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the District Court's order on our motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2017, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on September 29, 2017. On January 26, 2018, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a response to the petition, which they filed on March 22, 2018.

On May 10, 2018, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the action for $19,000, and on May 11, 2018, the parties requested that the Supreme Court stay any decision regarding whether to hear the Company’s petition for a writ of certiorari, pending the parties’ ongoing settlement negotiations. On July 16, 2018, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement resolving this matter and submitted it to the Court for approval. On July 30, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and granted final approval on November 19, 2018. The matter is now concluded. Under the terms of this agreement, the settlement was partially funded by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers, and defendants continued to deny any liability or wrongdoing.

The settlement does not resolve the Hussein Litigation or the Shareholder Derivative Litigation.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a purported shareholder of ours. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by our directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The matter was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the appeal described above under the caption, “Federal Securities Class Action.” This stay now has been lifted and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 2, 2018. On July 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The time within which Foss could appeal the dismissal has expired so this matter is now concluded. On September 28, 2017, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kusumam Koshy, derivatively on behalf of Quality Systems Inc. vs. Craig Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig, Paul A. Holt, and Quality Systems, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-01694, by Kusumam Koshy, a purported shareholder of ours. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of control, as well as unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors arising out of the allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action,” QSI’s adoption of revised indemnification agreements, and the resignation of certain officers of the Company. The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and enhanced corporate governance reforms and internal control procedures. On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the derivative complaint. On July 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On August 24, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We believe that the plaintiff’s appeal is without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Other Regulatory Matters

In April 2017, we received a request for documents and information from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”). The CID relates to an investigation concerning the certification we obtained for our software under the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. We have provided documents and information in response to that CID. On December 11, 2017, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice in connection with the same matter seeking among other things records relating to (a) data used to determine objectives and measures under the Meaningful Use (MU) and the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) programs, (b) EHR software code used in certifying the 2014 EHR software and information, and (c) payments provided for the referral of EHR business. We continue to respond to this CID and subpoena and intend to cooperate fully with the government, including responding to any future requests. Requests and investigations of this nature may lead to future requests for information and ultimately the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us, as well as other material liabilities. In addition, our responses to these and any future requests require time and effort, which can result in additional cost to us. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter. Given the highly-regulated nature of our industry, we may, from time to time, be subject to subpoenas, requests for information, or investigations from various government agencies. It is our practice to respond to such matters in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner.