Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
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. After the court sustained our demurrer to the initial complaint, Hussein filed an amended complaint 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. 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 judgement on the Company’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. As a result, the case has returned to the trial court for resolution of Hussein’s claims against us. Trial commenced on July 6, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants on all counts. Hussein has filed a Motion for New Trial, which the Court has not yet addressed. Separately, Hussein has issued an arbitration demand seeking indemnification for the fees he incurred defending against our cross-complaint. Following briefing and a hearing at the liability phase of the arbitration, the arbitrator held that Hussein is entitled to indemnification for “expenses” (as that term is defined in Hussein’s indemnification agreement with NextGen) incurred in defense of NextGen’s cross-complaint against him. The arbitrator reserved all other claims related to costs and damages for a second phase of the arbitration. On June 10, 2021, the arbitrator heard arguments on the quantum of indemnifiable expenses. On September 2, 2021, the arbitrator awarded Hussein indemnification for fees and costs incurred defending the cross-complaint. After trebling the fees incurred pursuant to Hussein’s supplemental agreement with his attorneys, and adding in interest and costs, the arbitrator calculated that the Company owes Mr. Hussein $11,370 in indemnification, which we subsequently paid on September 30, 2021. 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) our EHR product and its performance, (c) the software code used in certifying our EHR software and information, and (d) 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

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

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. After the court sustained our demurrer to the initial complaint, Hussein filed an amended complaint 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. 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 judgement on the Company’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against Hussein. As a result, the case has returned to the trial court for resolution of Hussein’s claims against us. Trial commenced on July 6, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company and the individual defendants on all counts. Hussein has filed a Motion for New Trial, which the Court has not yet addressed.

Separately, Hussein has issued an arbitration demand seeking indemnification for the fees he incurred defending against our cross-complaint. Following briefing and a hearing at the liability phase of the arbitration, the arbitrator held that Hussein is entitled to indemnification for “expenses” (as that term is defined in Hussein’s indemnification agreement with NextGen) incurred in defense of NextGen’s cross-complaint against him. The arbitrator reserved all other claims related to costs and damages for a second phase of the arbitration. On June 10, 2021, the arbitrator heard arguments on the quantum of indemnifiable expenses. On September 2, 2021, the arbitrator awarded Hussein indemnification for fees and costs incurred defending the cross-complaint. After trebling the fees incurred pursuant to Hussein’s supplemental agreement with his attorneys, and adding in interest and costs, the arbitrator calculated that the Company owes Mr. Hussein $11,370 in indemnification, which we subsequently paid on September 30, 2021.

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) our EHR product and its performance, (c) the software code used in certifying our EHR software and information, and (d) 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.