Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Legal Claim Costs	NOTE 10 — 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 also subject to claims by various taxing authorities 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. 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. 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 stipulated were 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, accrued 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. On January 15, 2016, HCA filed a Notice of Appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District, and oral arguments were presented during December 2016. On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that partly affirmed and partly overruled the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled that the construction of new hospitals did qualify as capital expenditures, and that HCA had met its overall $450 million five-year capital commitment. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that certain interim milestones were not properly met, and consequently found HCA liable to the foundation for a shortfall amount plus attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the issues of pre-judgement interest and compounding of interest. It entered a modified judgement in the amount of $188 million, plus post-judgement interest accruing at 9% per annum, simple interest, beginning in December 2015. The parties subsequently reached a settlement whereby each side gave up their rights to seek further review in the Missouri Supreme Court in return for payment by HCA of $188 million (no interest was paid in the settlement), which payment was made on February 1, 2017. The settlement agreement enabled HCA to reduce the accrual for this claim by $290 million and resulted in the recognition of net legal claim benefits of $246 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

NOTE 10 — 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 also subject to claims by various taxing authorities 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. 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.

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 stipulated were 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, accrued 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. On January 15, 2016, HCA filed a Notice of Appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District, and oral arguments were presented during December 2016. On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that partly affirmed and partly overruled the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled that the construction of new hospitals did qualify as capital expenditures, and that HCA had met its overall $450 million five-year capital commitment. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that certain interim milestones were not properly met, and consequently found HCA liable to the foundation for a shortfall amount plus attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the issues of pre-judgement interest and compounding of interest. It entered a modified judgement in the amount of $188 million, plus post-judgement interest accruing at 9% per annum, simple interest, beginning in December 2015. The parties subsequently reached a settlement whereby each side gave up their rights to seek further review in the Missouri Supreme Court in return for payment by HCA of $188 million (no interest was paid in the settlement), which payment was made on February 1, 2017. The settlement agreement enabled HCA to reduce the accrual for this claim by $290 million and resulted in the recognition of net legal claim benefits of $246 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.