CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL CLAIM COSTS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL CLAIM COSTS	NOTE 11 — CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL CLAIM COSTS We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. We are also subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for personal injuries or wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges. In certain of these actions the claimants may seek punitive damages against us which may not be covered by insurance. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims or legal and regulatory proceedings could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. Government Investigations, Claims and Litigation Health care companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Under the Federal False Claims act (“FCA”) private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Certain of our individual facilities have received government inquiries from federal and state agencies and our facilities may receive such inquiries in future periods. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity. As initially disclosed in 2010, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has contacted the Company in connection with its nationwide review of whether, in certain cases, hospital charges to the federal government relating to implantable cardio-defibrillators (“ICDs”) met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. In connection with this nationwide review, the DOJ has indicated that it will be reviewing certain ICD billing and medical records at 95 HCA hospitals; the review covers the period from October 2003 to the present. In August 2012, HCA, along with non-HCA hospitals subject to the DOJ’s review, received from the DOJ a proposed framework for resolving the DOJ’s review of ICDs. The Company is cooperating in the review. The review could potentially give rise to claims against the Company under the federal FCA or other statutes, regulations or laws. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, this review or any resulting claims could have on the Company. In July 2012, the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami requested information on reviews assessing the medical necessity of interventional cardiology services provided at any Company facility (other than peer reviews). The Company is cooperating with the government’s request and is currently producing medical records associated with particular reviews at eight hospitals, located primarily in Florida. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the request or any resulting claims, including any potential claims under the federal FCA, other statutes, regulations or laws, could have on the Company. Securities Class Action Litigation On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case seeks to include, as a class, all persons who acquired the Company’s stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies in the Company’s disclosures in the Registration Statement. Subsequently, two additional class action complaints setting forth substantially similar claims were filed in the same federal court. All three cases were consolidated. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company’s disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the accounting for the Company’s 2006 recapitalization and 2010 reorganization; (2) the Company’s failure to maintain effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such transactions; and (3) the Company’s Medicare and Medicaid revenue growth rates. Health Midwest Litigation In October 2009, the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, a nonprofit health foundation, filed suit against HCA Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and alleged that HCA did not fund the level of capital expenditures and uncompensated care agreed to in connection with HCA’s purchase of hospitals from Health Midwest in 2003. The central issue in the case was whether HCA’s construction of new hospitals counted towards its $450 million five-year capital commitments. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that HCA did not make its required capital expenditures in a timely fashion. On January 24, 2013, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded at least $162 million. The Court also ordered a court-supervised accounting of HCA’s capital expenditures, as well as of expenditures on charity and uncompensated care during the ten years following the purchase. Should the accounting fail to satisfy the Court concerning HCA’s compliance with its capital and charity care commitments, the amount of the judgment award could substantially increase. The Court also indicated it would award plaintiff attorneys fees. HCA recorded $175 million of legal claim costs in the fourth quarter of 2012 related to this ruling; however, the Company plans to appeal the ruling.

NOTE 11 — CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL CLAIM COSTS

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. We are also subject to claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims for personal injuries or wrongful restriction of, or interference with, physicians’ staff privileges. In certain of these actions the claimants may seek punitive damages against us which may not be covered by insurance. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims or legal and regulatory proceedings could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

Government Investigations, Claims and Litigation

Health care companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Under the Federal False Claims act (“FCA”) private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Certain of our individual facilities have received government inquiries from federal and state agencies and our facilities may receive such inquiries in future periods. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.

As initially disclosed in 2010, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has contacted the Company in connection with its nationwide review of whether, in certain cases, hospital charges to the federal government relating to implantable cardio-defibrillators (“ICDs”) met the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. In connection with this nationwide review, the DOJ has indicated that it will be reviewing certain ICD billing and medical records at 95 HCA hospitals; the review covers the period from October 2003 to the present. In August 2012, HCA, along with non-HCA hospitals subject to the DOJ’s review, received from the DOJ a proposed framework for resolving the DOJ’s review of ICDs. The Company is cooperating in the review. The review could potentially give rise to claims against the Company under the federal FCA or other statutes, regulations or laws. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, this review or any resulting claims could have on the Company.

In July 2012, the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami requested information on reviews assessing the medical necessity of interventional cardiology services provided at any Company facility (other than peer reviews). The Company is cooperating with the government’s request and is currently producing medical records associated with particular reviews at eight hospitals, located primarily in Florida. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the request or any resulting claims, including any potential claims under the federal FCA, other statutes, regulations or laws, could have on the Company.

Securities Class Action Litigation

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case seeks to include, as a class, all persons who acquired the Company’s stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies in the Company’s disclosures in the Registration Statement. Subsequently, two additional class action complaints setting forth substantially similar claims were filed in the same federal court. All three cases were consolidated. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company’s disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the accounting for the Company’s 2006 recapitalization and 2010 reorganization; (2) the Company’s failure to maintain effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such transactions; and (3) the Company’s Medicare and Medicaid revenue growth rates.

Health Midwest Litigation

In October 2009, the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, a nonprofit health foundation, filed suit against HCA Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and alleged that HCA did not fund the level of capital expenditures and uncompensated care agreed to in connection with HCA’s purchase of hospitals from Health Midwest in 2003. The central issue in the case was whether HCA’s construction of new hospitals counted towards its $450 million five-year capital commitments. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that HCA did not make its required capital expenditures in a timely fashion. On January 24, 2013, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded at least $162 million. The Court also ordered a court-supervised accounting of HCA’s capital expenditures, as well as of expenditures on charity and uncompensated care during the ten years following the purchase. Should the accounting fail to satisfy the Court concerning HCA’s compliance with its capital and charity care commitments, the amount of the judgment award could substantially increase. The Court also indicated it would award plaintiff attorneys fees. HCA recorded $175 million of legal claim costs in the fourth quarter of 2012 related to this ruling; however, the Company plans to appeal the ruling.