Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding or in a series of related proceedings or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlements, damages and losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $1.779 billion as of June 30, 2017 and $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded $208 million of litigation-related charges during the first half of 2017 and $628 million of litigation-related charges during the first half of 2016. The net charges recorded in the first half of 2017 and 2016 primarily include amounts related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability cases and claims. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2017, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On November 29, 2016 Nevro Corp. (“Nevro”) filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that six U.S. patents (Alataris) owned by Nevro are infringed by our spinal cord stimulation systems. On June 29, 2017, Nevro amended the complaint to add an additional patent (Fang). We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. Product Liability Litigation As of July 26, 2017, approximately 48,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of July 26, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 38,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 38,000 cases and claims, approximately 14,500 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On February 27, 2017, Carolyn Turner filed a complaint against us and five other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division and alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), negligence, strict liability, breach of an express or implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Ms. Turner served this complaint against the Company on April 7, 2017. As of April 27, 2017, this case has been stayed, pending resolution of the transfer petition to the mesh multidistrict litigation. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators’ complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events, and promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators’ unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013. The Court denied relators’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims on September 4, 2014. Following the completion of fact and expert discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment against all claims on January 27, 2017; relators filed their own motion for summary judgment against our counterclaims that same date; and the parties await the Court’s rulings on the motions. On December 1, 2015, the Brazilian governmental entity known as CADE (the Administrative Council of Economic Defense), served a search warrant on the offices of our Brazilian subsidiary, as well as on the Brazilian offices of several other major medical device makers who do business in Brazil, in furtherance of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity with respect to certain tender offers for government contracts. On June 20, 2017, CADE, through the publication of a “technical note,” announced that it was launching a formal administrative proceeding against Boston Scientific’s Brazilian subsidiary, Boston Scientific do Brasil Ltda., as well as against the Brazilian operations of Medtronic, Biotronik, and St. Jude Medical, two Brazilian associations, ABIMED and AMBIMO, and 29 individuals for alleged anti-competitive behavior. We deny the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On December 14, 2016, we learned that the Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE filed a complaint against the Company, Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This complaint, which ABRAMGE never served against the Company, alleges that the defendants or their agents paid kickbacks to health care providers in order to increase sales and prices and are liable under a variety of common law theories. On February 6, 2017, ABRAMGE filed and served an amended complaint on the Company and the other defendants. The amended complaint does not contain any material changes in the allegations against the Company. Subsequently, on March 2, 2017, ABRAMGE filed a motion to consolidate this lawsuit with two other similar suits that it had brought against Stryker and Abbott Laboratories, in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. On April 13, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, as well as a separate opposition to the multidistrict litigation motion, and on May 31, 2017, the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation denied ABRAMGE’s motion for the multidistrict litigation. Other Proceedings On November 2, 2015, Acacia Research Corporation (ARC) filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company breached an agreement relating to the sale of patents from the Company to ARC. The hearing began on February 20, 2017. On May 12, 2017 the arbitrators reached a confidential decision.

NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding or in a series of related proceedings or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlements, damages and losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $1.779 billion as of June 30, 2017 and $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded $208 million of litigation-related charges during the first half of 2017 and $628 million of litigation-related charges during the first half of 2016. The net charges recorded in the first half of 2017 and 2016 primarily include amounts related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability cases and claims. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2017, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On November 29, 2016 Nevro Corp. (“Nevro”) filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that six U.S. patents (Alataris) owned by Nevro are infringed by our spinal cord stimulation systems. On June 29, 2017, Nevro amended the complaint to add an additional patent (Fang). We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

Product Liability Litigation

As of July 26, 2017, approximately 48,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of July 26, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 38,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 38,000 cases and claims, approximately 14,500 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

On February 27, 2017, Carolyn Turner filed a complaint against us and five other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division and alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), negligence, strict liability, breach of an express or implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Ms. Turner served this complaint against the Company on April 7, 2017. As of April 27, 2017, this case has been stayed, pending resolution of the transfer petition to the mesh multidistrict litigation. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators’ complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events, and promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators’ unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013. The Court denied relators’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims on September 4, 2014. Following the completion of fact and expert discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment against all claims on January 27, 2017; relators filed their own motion for summary judgment against our counterclaims that same date; and the parties await the Court’s rulings on the motions.

On December 1, 2015, the Brazilian governmental entity known as CADE (the Administrative Council of Economic Defense), served a search warrant on the offices of our Brazilian subsidiary, as well as on the Brazilian offices of several other major medical device makers who do business in Brazil, in furtherance of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity with respect to certain tender offers for government contracts. On June 20, 2017, CADE, through the publication of a “technical note,” announced that it was launching a formal administrative proceeding against Boston Scientific’s Brazilian subsidiary, Boston Scientific do Brasil Ltda., as well as against the Brazilian operations of Medtronic, Biotronik, and St. Jude Medical, two Brazilian associations, ABIMED and AMBIMO, and 29 individuals for alleged anti-competitive behavior. We deny the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

On December 14, 2016, we learned that the Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE filed a complaint against the Company, Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This complaint, which ABRAMGE never served against the Company, alleges that the defendants or their agents paid kickbacks to health care providers in order to increase sales and prices and are liable under a variety of common law theories. On February 6, 2017, ABRAMGE filed and served an amended complaint on the Company and the other defendants. The amended complaint does not contain any material changes in the allegations against the Company. Subsequently, on March 2, 2017, ABRAMGE filed a motion to consolidate this lawsuit with two other similar suits that it had brought against Stryker and Abbott Laboratories, in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. On April 13, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, as well as a separate opposition to the multidistrict litigation motion, and on May 31, 2017, the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation denied ABRAMGE’s motion for the multidistrict litigation.

Other Proceedings

On November 2, 2015, Acacia Research Corporation (ARC) filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company breached an agreement relating to the sale of patents from the Company to ARC. The hearing began on February 20, 2017. On May 12, 2017 the arbitrators reached a confidential decision.