Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	15. 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. 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. 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 against Hussein’s affirmative claims and affirmed the trial court’s judgement after a bench trial against the Company on its breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. We petitioned the California Court of Appeal to rehear the matter with respect to Hussein’s affirmative claims. The Court modified its opinion but denied the Company’s rehearing petition on November 7, 2019. We filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California on November 18, 2019, which was denied on January 15, 2020. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for resolution. A schedule for proceedings before the trial court has not yet been established. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Shareholder Derivative Litigation 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 caption “Hussein Litigation” and a related, now-settled, federal securities class action, as well as the Company’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. Briefing was completed in May 2019 and a hearing on the appeal was held on December 12, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal in its entirety. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim until plaintiff exhausts her appellate remedies. Other Regulatory Matters Commencing in April 2017, we have received requests for documents and information from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont and other government agencies in connection with an investigation concerning the certification we obtained for our software under the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program. The requests for information relate to, among other things: (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 our software and information, and (c) payments provided for the referral of EHR business. We continue to cooperate in this investigation. 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, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

15. 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.

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. 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 against Hussein’s affirmative claims and affirmed the trial court’s judgement after a bench trial against the Company on its breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. We petitioned the California Court of Appeal to rehear the matter with respect to Hussein’s affirmative claims. The Court modified its opinion but denied the Company’s rehearing petition on November 7, 2019. We filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California on November 18, 2019, which was denied on January 15, 2020. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for resolution. A schedule for proceedings before the trial court has not yet been established. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

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 caption “Hussein Litigation” and a related, now-settled, federal securities class action, as well as the Company’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. Briefing was completed in May 2019 and a hearing on the appeal was held on December 12, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal in its entirety. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim until plaintiff exhausts her appellate remedies.

Other Regulatory Matters

Commencing in April 2017, we have received requests for documents and information from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont and other government agencies in connection with an investigation concerning the certification we obtained for our software under the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program. The requests for information relate to, among other things: (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 our software and information, and (c) payments provided for the referral of EHR business. We continue to cooperate in this investigation. 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.