Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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 was issued on September 5, 2016 confirming the terms of the provisional decision. No appeal has been notified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal as of yet. Third parties have until November 4, 2016 to challenge the decision (subject to any extensions). 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, began 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 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 September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued liabilities of $468 million 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 scheduled December 20, 2016 for oral arguments.

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 was issued on September 5, 2016 confirming the terms of the provisional decision. No appeal has been notified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal as of yet. Third parties have until November 4, 2016 to challenge the decision (subject to any extensions).

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, began 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 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 September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued liabilities of $468 million 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 scheduled December 20, 2016 for oral arguments.