Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Financing Arrangements As of September 30, 2016, the Company had irrevocable stand-by letters of credit outstanding that were issued in connection with property leases and other similar agreements totaling $21.9 million that were cash collateralized. The cash used to support these letters of credit is included in restricted cash, as of September 30, 2016, on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet. Effective as of October 13, 2016, the letters of credit are covered by the Company's credit agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and the lenders referred to therein, and as a result, are no longer cash collateralized. Litigation On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants’ sales of the Company’s stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on December 24, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their opening brief and the Company filed its opposition brief on March 7, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument on the appeal took place on July 26, 2016. On October 3, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint. As of September 30, 2016, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. Guaranties and Indemnifications As permitted under Massachusetts law, the Company’s Articles of Organization and By-laws provide that the Company will indemnify certain of its officers and directors for certain claims asserted against them in connection with their service as an officer or director. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited. However, the Company has purchased directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies that could reduce its monetary exposure and enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. No indemnification claims currently are outstanding, and the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification arrangements is minimal. The Company customarily agrees in the ordinary course of its business to indemnification provisions in agreements with clinical trial investigators and sites in its drug development programs, sponsored research agreements with academic and not-for-profit institutions, various comparable agreements involving parties performing services for the Company and its real estate leases. The Company also customarily agrees to certain indemnification provisions in its drug discovery, development and commercialization collaboration agreements. With respect to the Company’s clinical trials and sponsored research agreements, these indemnification provisions typically apply to any claim asserted against the investigator or the investigator’s institution relating to personal injury or property damage, violations of law or certain breaches of the Company’s contractual obligations arising out of the research or clinical testing of the Company’s compounds or drug candidates. With respect to lease agreements, the indemnification provisions typically apply to claims asserted against the landlord relating to personal injury or property damage caused by the Company, to violations of law by the Company or to certain breaches of the Company’s contractual obligations. The indemnification provisions appearing in the Company’s collaboration agreements are similar to those for the other agreements discussed above, but in addition provide some limited indemnification for its collaborator in the event of third-party claims alleging infringement of intellectual property rights. In each of the cases above, the indemnification obligation generally survives the termination of the agreement for some extended period, although the Company believes the obligation typically has the most relevance during the contract term and for a short period of time thereafter. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these provisions is generally unlimited. The Company has purchased insurance policies covering personal injury, property damage and general liability that reduce its exposure for indemnification and would enable it in many cases to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company has never paid any material amounts to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. Accordingly, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification arrangements is minimal. Other Contingencies The Company has certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company accrues a reserve for contingent liabilities when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. There were no material contingent liabilities accrued as of September 30, 2016 or December 31, 2015.

Commitments and Contingencies

Financing Arrangements

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had irrevocable stand-by letters of credit outstanding that were issued in connection with property leases and other similar agreements totaling $21.9 million that were cash collateralized. The cash used to support these letters of credit is included in restricted cash, as of September 30, 2016, on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet. Effective as of October 13, 2016, the letters of credit are covered by the Company's credit agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and the lenders referred to therein, and as a result, are no longer cash collateralized.

Litigation

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants’ sales of the Company’s stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on December 24, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their opening brief and the Company filed its opposition brief on March 7, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument on the appeal took place on July 26, 2016. On October 3, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint. As of September 30, 2016, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action.

Guaranties and Indemnifications

As permitted under Massachusetts law, the Company’s Articles of Organization and By-laws provide that the Company will indemnify certain of its officers and directors for certain claims asserted against them in connection with their service as an officer or director. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited. However, the Company has purchased directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies that could reduce its monetary exposure and enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. No indemnification claims currently are outstanding, and the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification arrangements is minimal.

The Company customarily agrees in the ordinary course of its business to indemnification provisions in agreements with clinical trial investigators and sites in its drug development programs, sponsored research agreements with academic and not-for-profit institutions, various comparable agreements involving parties performing services for the Company and its real estate leases. The Company also customarily agrees to certain indemnification provisions in its drug discovery, development and commercialization collaboration agreements. With respect to the Company’s clinical trials and sponsored research agreements, these indemnification provisions typically apply to any claim asserted against the investigator or the investigator’s institution relating to personal injury or property damage, violations of law or certain breaches of the Company’s contractual obligations arising out of the research or clinical testing of the Company’s compounds or drug candidates. With respect to lease agreements, the indemnification provisions typically apply to claims asserted against the landlord relating to personal injury or property damage caused by the Company, to violations of law by the Company or to certain breaches of the Company’s contractual obligations. The indemnification provisions appearing in the Company’s collaboration agreements are similar to those for the other agreements discussed above, but in addition provide some limited indemnification for its collaborator in the event of third-party claims alleging infringement of intellectual property rights. In each of the cases above, the indemnification obligation generally survives the termination of the agreement for some extended period, although the Company believes the obligation typically has the most relevance during the contract term and for a short period of time thereafter. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these provisions is generally unlimited. The Company has purchased insurance policies covering personal injury, property damage and general liability that reduce its exposure for indemnification and would enable it in many cases to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company has never paid any material amounts to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. Accordingly, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification arrangements is minimal.

Other Contingencies

The Company has certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company accrues a reserve for contingent liabilities when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. There were no material contingent liabilities accrued as of September 30, 2016 or December 31, 2015.