Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments From October 31, 2016 through June 2017, HCP was the sole lender to QCP of an unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility”) which had a total commitment of $100 million at inception. The Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility was available to be drawn upon by QCP through October 31, 2017 with any drawn amounts due on October 31, 2018. Commitments under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility automatically and permanently decreased each calendar month by an amount equal to 50% of QCP's and its restricted subsidiaries’ retained cash flow for the prior calendar month. All borrowings under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility were subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including (i) QCP’s senior secured revolving credit facility being unavailable, (ii) the failure of HCRMC to pay rent and (iii) other customary conditions, including the absence of a default and the accuracy of representations and warranties. QCP could only draw on the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility prior to the one-year anniversary of the completion of the Spin-Off. Borrowings under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility would have born interest at a rate equal to LIBOR, subject to a 1.00% floor, plus an applicable margin of 6.25%. In addition to paying interest on outstanding principal under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility, QCP was required to pay a facility fee equal to 0.50% per annum of the unused capacity under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility to HCP, payable quarterly. Through June 30, 2017, no amounts were drawn on the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility and the total commitment has been reduced to zero at June 30, 2017. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred. Class Action On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Derivative Actions On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, respectively Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. As both derivative actions contained substantially the same allegations, they have been consolidated into a single action. The consolidated action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects, and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. As the Subodh/Stearns action is in the early stages, defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. On April 18, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation staying the action pending further developments, including in the related securities class action litigation. The Court also adjourned the status conference scheduled for April 27, 2017 to January 10, 2018. On April 10, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Weldon v. Martin et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-755, in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Weldon complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California derivative actions. In addition, the complaint asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of billing fraud at HCRMC. On April 18, 2017, the Court re-assigned and transferred this action to the judge presiding over the related federal securities class action. Defendants have not yet been served or responded to the complaint. On July 11, 2017, the court approved a stipulation by the parties to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action. On July 21, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Kelley v. HCR Manorcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01259, in federal court in the Central District of California, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Kelley complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California and Ohio derivative actions and, like the Ohio action, asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of billing fraud at HCRMC. Defendants have not yet been served or responded to the complaint. The Company is unable to estimate amount of loss or range of reasonable possible losses with respect to matters discussed above at June 30, 2017.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

From October 31, 2016 through June 2017, HCP was the sole lender to QCP of an unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility”) which had a total commitment of $100 million at inception. The Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility was available to be drawn upon by QCP through October 31, 2017 with any drawn amounts due on October 31, 2018. Commitments under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility automatically and permanently decreased each calendar month by an amount equal to 50% of QCP's and its restricted subsidiaries’ retained cash flow for the prior calendar month. All borrowings under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility were subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including (i) QCP’s senior secured revolving credit facility being unavailable, (ii) the failure of HCRMC to pay rent and (iii) other customary conditions, including the absence of a default and the accuracy of representations and warranties. QCP could only draw on the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility prior to the one-year anniversary of the completion of the Spin-Off. Borrowings under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility would have born interest at a rate equal to LIBOR, subject to a 1.00% floor, plus an applicable margin of 6.25%. In addition to paying interest on outstanding principal under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility, QCP was required to pay a facility fee equal to 0.50% per annum of the unused capacity under the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility to HCP, payable quarterly. Through June 30, 2017, no amounts were drawn on the Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility and the total commitment has been reduced to zero at June 30, 2017.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred.

Class Action

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

Derivative Actions

On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, respectively Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. As both derivative actions contained substantially the same allegations, they have been consolidated into a single action. The consolidated action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects, and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. As the Subodh/Stearns action is in the early stages, defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. On April 18, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation staying the action pending further developments, including in the related securities class action litigation. The Court also adjourned the status conference scheduled for April 27, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

On April 10, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Weldon v. Martin et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-755, in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Weldon complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California derivative actions. In addition, the complaint asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of billing fraud at HCRMC. On April 18, 2017, the Court re-assigned and transferred this action to the judge presiding over the related federal securities class action. Defendants have not yet been served or responded to the complaint. On July 11, 2017, the court approved a stipulation by the parties to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action.

On July 21, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Kelley v. HCR Manorcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01259, in federal court in the Central District of California, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Kelley complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California and Ohio derivative actions and, like the Ohio action, asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of billing fraud at HCRMC. Defendants have not yet been served or responded to the complaint.

The Company is unable to estimate amount of loss or range of reasonable possible losses with respect to matters discussed above at June 30, 2017.