Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	NOTE 9 — 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. We are subject to claims for additional taxes and related interest and penalties. 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. Further, 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, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, government inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. 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 financial position, results of operations and liquidity. As initially disclosed in 2010, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) 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 & Medicaid Services criteria. In connection with this nationwide review, the DOJ indicated that it would be reviewing certain ICD billing and medical records at 95 HCA hospitals. On July 27, 2015, HCA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement requires payments from HCA totaling approximately $15.8 million (which amount was accrued in a prior period), and the government releases claims at a number of HCA hospitals relating to ICD implants for the period October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2015. HCA makes no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement. The settlement resolves the government’s review of this matter. 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 cooperated with the government’s request and produced medical records associated with particular reviews at eight hospitals, located primarily in Florida. On February 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida unsealed a qui tam action which had been filed under seal on February 16, 2012 and alleges particular FCA violations relating to two specific facilities that were among the subjects of the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation. On January 30, 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed with the District Court a formal notice that the Department of Justice had declined to intervene in that action. An additional qui tam action relating to these topics was unsealed and voluntarily dismissed by the relator. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami is continuing its evaluation of the medical necessity of certain interventional cardiology services at the other hospitals for which the Company produced records. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the qui tam action, or any claims that might result from the U.S. Attorney’s continued review, including any potential claims under the federal FCA, other statutes, regulations or laws, could have on the Company. On April 2, 2014, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“Authority”) issued a final report on its investigation of the private health care market in London. It concluded, among other things, that many private hospitals face little competition in central London, and that there are high barriers to entry. As part of its remedies package, the Authority ordered HCA to sell either: (a) its London Bridge and Princess Grace hospitals; or (b) its Wellington Hospital, including the Hospital Platinum Medical Centre. It also imposed other remedial conditions on HCA and other private health care providers, including: regulation of incentives to referring physicians; increased access to information about fees and performance; and restrictions on future arrangements between private providers and National Health Service private patient units. HCA disagrees with the Authority’s assessment of the competitive conditions for hospitals in London, as well as its proposed divestiture remedy, and appealed the decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal overturned certain of the Authority’s findings and sent the matter back to the Authority for further proceedings, which are ongoing. A decision is anticipated in early 2016. Securities Class Action Litigation On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company’s stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted 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 asserted 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, Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively. All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. 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 Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. 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. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Trial is currently set for January 2016. In addition to the above described shareholder class actions, on December 8, 2011, a federal shareholder derivative action, Sutton v. Bracken, et al., putatively initiated in the name of the Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against certain officers and present and former directors of the Company seeking monetary relief. The action alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the named officers and directors in connection with the accounting and earnings claims set forth in the shareholder class actions described above. Setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants, an additional federal derivative action, Schroeder v. Bracken, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 16, 2011, and a state derivative action, Bagot v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court on December 20, 2011. The federal derivative actions were consolidated in the Middle District of Tennessee and stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions. The state derivative action had also been stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions, but that stay has expired. The plaintiff in the state derivative action subsequently filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013 that added additional allegations made in the shareholder class actions. On September 24, 2013, an additional state derivative action, Steinberg v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court. This action against our board of directors has been consolidated with the earlier filed state derivative action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated complaint on December 4, 2013. The Company filed a motion to again stay the state derivative action pending developments in the class action, but the court has not yet acted on that motion. 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 plaintiff 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. The court also indicated it would award plaintiff attorneys fees, which the parties have stipulated are approximately $12 million for the trial phase. HCA recorded $175 million of legal claim costs in the fourth quarter of 2012 related to this ruling, and consistent with the judge’s order, has been accruing interest on that sum at 9% per annum. On April 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to an additional $78 million shortfall relating to the capital expenditures issue. HCA recorded $78 million of legal claims costs in the first quarter of 2014 as a result of the stipulation, and is accruing interest on that amount at 9% per annum. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the parties have preserved their respective rights to contest the judge’s underlying ruling, whether through motions in the trial court or on appeal. On February 9, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the part of their dispute relating to charity and uncompensated care for $15 million. The foundation is required to use that amount, net of attorneys fees, for charitable activities in the Kansas City area. The parties also agreed on an additional amount for attorneys fees for the plaintiff for the accounting phase of the case. Parties have filed post-trial motions, and rulings on the motions as well as any final judgment are anticipated for sometime in late 2015. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the final judgment could have on the Company. If the court denies HCA’s post-trial motion and enters judgment on the capital expenditures issues, HCA plans to pursue an appeal.

NOTE 9 — 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. We are subject to claims for additional taxes and related interest and penalties. 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. Further, 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, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, government inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. 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 financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

As initially disclosed in 2010, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) 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 & Medicaid Services criteria. In connection with this nationwide review, the DOJ indicated that it would be reviewing certain ICD billing and medical records at 95 HCA hospitals. On July 27, 2015, HCA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement requires payments from HCA totaling approximately $15.8 million (which amount was accrued in a prior period), and the government releases claims at a number of HCA hospitals relating to ICD implants for the period October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2015. HCA makes no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement. The settlement resolves the government’s review of this matter.

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 cooperated with the government’s request and produced medical records associated with particular reviews at eight hospitals, located primarily in Florida. On February 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida unsealed a qui tam action which had been filed under seal on February 16, 2012 and alleges particular FCA violations relating to two specific facilities that were among the subjects of the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation. On January 30, 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed with the District Court a formal notice that the Department of Justice had declined to intervene in that action. An additional qui tam action relating to these topics was unsealed and voluntarily dismissed by the relator. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami is continuing its evaluation of the medical necessity of certain interventional cardiology services at the other hospitals for which the Company produced records. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the qui tam action, or any claims that might result from the U.S. Attorney’s continued review, including any potential claims under the federal FCA, other statutes, regulations or laws, could have on the Company.

On April 2, 2014, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“Authority”) issued a final report on its investigation of the private health care market in London. It concluded, among other things, that many private hospitals face little competition in central London, and that there are high barriers to entry. As part of its remedies package, the Authority ordered HCA to sell either: (a) its London Bridge and Princess Grace hospitals; or (b) its Wellington Hospital, including the Hospital Platinum Medical Centre. It also imposed other remedial conditions on HCA and other private health care providers, including: regulation of incentives to referring physicians; increased access to information about fees and performance; and restrictions on future arrangements between private providers and National Health Service private patient units. HCA disagrees with the Authority’s assessment of the competitive conditions for hospitals in London, as well as its proposed divestiture remedy, and appealed the decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal overturned certain of the Authority’s findings and sent the matter back to the Authority for further proceedings, which are ongoing. A decision is anticipated in early 2016.

Securities Class Action Litigation

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company’s stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted 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 asserted 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, Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively. All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. 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 Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. 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. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Trial is currently set for January 2016.

In addition to the above described shareholder class actions, on December 8, 2011, a federal shareholder derivative action, Sutton v. Bracken, et al., putatively initiated in the name of the Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against certain officers and present and former directors of the Company seeking monetary relief. The action alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the named officers and directors in connection with the accounting and earnings claims set forth in the shareholder class actions described above. Setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants, an additional federal derivative action, Schroeder v. Bracken, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 16, 2011, and a state derivative action, Bagot v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court on December 20, 2011. The federal derivative actions were consolidated in the Middle District of Tennessee and stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions. The state derivative action had also been stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions, but that stay has expired. The plaintiff in the state derivative action subsequently filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013 that added additional allegations made in the shareholder class actions. On September 24, 2013, an additional state derivative action, Steinberg v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court. This action against our board of directors has been consolidated with the earlier filed state derivative action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated complaint on December 4, 2013. The Company filed a motion to again stay the state derivative action pending developments in the class action, but the court has not yet acted on that motion.

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 plaintiff 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. The court also indicated it would award plaintiff attorneys fees, which the parties have stipulated are approximately $12 million for the trial phase. HCA recorded $175 million of legal claim costs in the fourth quarter of 2012 related to this ruling, and consistent with the judge’s order, has been accruing interest on that sum at 9% per annum. On April 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to an additional $78 million shortfall relating to the capital expenditures issue. HCA recorded $78 million of legal claims costs in the first quarter of 2014 as a result of the stipulation, and is accruing interest on that amount at 9% per annum. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the parties have preserved their respective rights to contest the judge’s underlying ruling, whether through motions in the trial court or on appeal. On February 9, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the part of their dispute relating to charity and uncompensated care for $15 million. The foundation is required to use that amount, net of attorneys fees, for charitable activities in the Kansas City area. The parties also agreed on an additional amount for attorneys fees for the plaintiff for the accounting phase of the case. Parties have filed post-trial motions, and rulings on the motions as well as any final judgment are anticipated for sometime in late 2015. At this time, we cannot predict what effect, if any, the final judgment could have on the Company. If the court denies HCA’s post-trial motion and enters judgment on the capital expenditures issues, HCA plans to pursue an appeal.