Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
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, financial position or liquidity. 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 results of operations, financial position or liquidity. 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 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. In November 2015, following consideration of additional evidence, the Authority issued a provisional decision that again found there were adverse effects on competition in the private hospital market in central London. The November 2015 provisional decision modified some of the Authority’s earlier factual conclusions and acknowledged certain mitigating factors for some of the effects noted in the prior decision. The November 2015 provisional decision also offered additional potential remedies, which continued to include divestment of one or more of HCA’s London hospitals. Following a period of consultation on the potential additional remedies, the Authority concluded, in a provisional decision issued March 22, 2016, that none of the additional remedies, including divestiture, would be both effective and proportionate. A final decision is anticipated in May or June of 2016. Should HCA or any other party disagree with the Authority’s final decision, there would be an opportunity to appeal to the Competitive Appeal Tribunal. 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 asserted 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 alleged 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. Following the close of discovery, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment and to strike certain of the expert witnesses. In addition to the above described consolidated shareholder class action, 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 alleged 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 was 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 did not act on the motion. On November 3, 2015, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle the Schuh shareholder class action and the Sutton, Schroeder and Bagot derivative actions. The preliminary settlement agreement provided for a resolution of all of the pending claims in the shareholder class action and the derivative suits, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants, and was contingent upon, among other things, execution of final settlement documents, successful negotiation of certain non-monetary terms, approval by the Company’s Board of Directors, notification to the Schuh shareholder class, and preliminary and final approval of the settlements by the state and federal courts in Tennessee. The federal court gave preliminary approval to the shareholder class action settlement on January 13, 2016, provided for class notification, set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for April 11, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The state court in Bagot gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the derivative claims on January 28, 2016, set a hearing for final approval on April 12, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The federal derivative action will be dismissed by stipulation of the parties. The monetary terms of the settlement in the Schuh case include a payment by HCA of $215 million in return for a full release of all claims against all defendants, including the Company, its officers and directors, the underwriters and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The terms of the settlement of the derivative cases include receipt by the Company of $19 million from insurance policies covering the claims asserted in the derivative cases, certain corporate governance reforms and agreement by the Company to pay attorneys’ fees in the aggregate amount of $5.5 million in return for releases of all claims against all defendants. In the fourth quarter of 2015, HCA recorded legal claim costs, net of expected insurance recoveries, of $120 million for the expected settlements of the shareholder action, the derivative cases and related costs. 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 commitment. 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 accrued 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. The parties filed post-trial motions, on which the court ruled on October 21, 2015. The court denied defendants’ motion to have the court change its rulings on liability and damages related to the capital expenditures issue. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of additional pre-judgment interest, but did not specify whether the interest awarded was simple interest or would be compounded. The court subsequently concluded that interest was to be compounded, and on December 9, 2015, the court entered judgment in the case in the total sum of $434 million, with interest continuing to accrue at 9% per annum, compounded annually, from and after November 19, 2015, until the matter is resolved. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had accrued liabilities of $448 million and $438 million, respectively, for the damages, costs and interest related to this litigation. On January 15, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District. The Court of Appeals has set a schedule that would complete the parties’ briefing by November 2016. Briefing will likely be followed by oral argument, which has not yet been scheduled.

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, financial position or liquidity.

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 results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

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 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. In November 2015, following consideration of additional evidence, the Authority issued a provisional decision that again found there were adverse effects on competition in the private hospital market in central London. The November 2015 provisional decision modified some of the Authority’s earlier factual conclusions and acknowledged certain mitigating factors for some of the effects noted in the prior decision. The November 2015 provisional decision also offered additional potential remedies, which continued to include divestment of one or more of HCA’s London hospitals. Following a period of consultation on the potential additional remedies, the Authority concluded, in a provisional decision issued March 22, 2016, that none of the additional remedies, including divestiture, would be both effective and proportionate. A final decision is anticipated in May or June of 2016. Should HCA or any other party disagree with the Authority’s final decision, there would be an opportunity to appeal to the Competitive Appeal Tribunal.

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 asserted 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 alleged 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. Following the close of discovery, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment and to strike certain of the expert witnesses.

In addition to the above described consolidated shareholder class action, 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 alleged 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 was 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 did not act on the motion.

On November 3, 2015, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle the Schuh shareholder class action and the Sutton, Schroeder and Bagot derivative actions. The preliminary settlement agreement provided for a resolution of all of the pending claims in the shareholder class action and the derivative suits, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants, and was contingent upon, among other things, execution of final settlement documents, successful negotiation of certain non-monetary terms, approval by the Company’s Board of Directors, notification to the Schuh shareholder class, and preliminary and final approval of the settlements by the state and federal courts in Tennessee. The federal court gave preliminary approval to the shareholder class action settlement on January 13, 2016, provided for class notification, set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for April 11, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The state court in Bagot gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the derivative claims on January 28, 2016, set a hearing for final approval on April 12, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The federal derivative action will be dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

The monetary terms of the settlement in the Schuh case include a payment by HCA of $215 million in return for a full release of all claims against all defendants, including the Company, its officers and directors, the underwriters and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The terms of the settlement of the derivative cases include receipt by the Company of $19 million from insurance policies covering the claims asserted in the derivative cases, certain corporate governance reforms and agreement by the Company to pay attorneys’ fees in the aggregate amount of $5.5 million in return for releases of all claims against all defendants. In the fourth quarter of 2015, HCA recorded legal claim costs, net of expected insurance recoveries, of $120 million for the expected settlements of the shareholder action, the derivative cases and related costs.

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 commitment. 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 accrued 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. The parties filed post-trial motions, on which the court ruled on October 21, 2015. The court denied defendants’ motion to have the court change its rulings on liability and damages related to the capital expenditures issue. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of additional pre-judgment interest, but did not specify whether the interest awarded was simple interest or would be compounded. The court subsequently concluded that interest was to be compounded, and on December 9, 2015, the court entered judgment in the case in the total sum of $434 million, with interest continuing to accrue at 9% per annum, compounded annually, from and after November 19, 2015, until the matter is resolved. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had accrued liabilities of $448 million and $438 million, respectively, for the damages, costs and interest related to this litigation. On January 15, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District. The Court of Appeals has set a schedule that would complete the parties’ briefing by November 2016. Briefing will likely be followed by oral argument, which has not yet been scheduled.