COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Legal Proceedings* We are involved in the following legal actions: United States Senate Committee on Finance Inquiry On May 12, 2010, we received a letter of inquiry from the United States Senate Committee on Finance (the “Committee”) requesting documents and information relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends. A similar letter was sent to the other major publicly traded home health care companies. We cooperated with the Committee with respect to this inquiry. On October 3, 2011, the Committee publicly issued a report titled “Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold.” The Committee recommended that the CMS “must move toward taking therapy out of the payment model.” We believe that the issuance of the report concludes the Committee’s inquiry, but are not in a position to speculate on the potential for future legislative or oversight action by the Committee. Securities Class Action Lawsuits On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010. On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers’ Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages. All defendants previously moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. Through that motion, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to rescind its June 28, 2012 dismissal order and to reverse its decision to grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the alternative, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to modify its dismissal order to grant Co-Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a second amended complaint. Defendants have not yet responded to the motion for reconsideration. Derivative Actions On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. Three similar derivative suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together, the “Federal Derivative Actions”). We are named as a nominal defendant in all of those actions. As noted above, on October 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for pre-trial purposes. On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the “Derivative Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative complaints. The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal controls over certain of our home health and Medicare billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. All defendants in the Federal Derivative Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, have moved to dismiss the Derivative Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before the court. On July 23, 2010, a derivative suit was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. That action also purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative actions pending in federal court. ERISA Class Action Lawsuit On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company, certain of our current and former senior executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan’s participants by causing the 401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints seek a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. As noted above, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action. On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell (the “Co-ERISA Plaintiffs”), filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “ERISA Complaint”), which supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before the court. SEC Investigation On June 30, 2010, we received notice of a formal investigation from the SEC and received a subpoena for documents relating to the matters under review by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and other matters involving our operations. We are cooperating with the SEC with respect to this investigation. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) On September 27, 2010, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act. The CID requires the delivery of a wide range of documents and information to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama, relating to the Company’s clinical and business operations, including reimbursement and billing claims submitted to Medicare for home health services, and related compliance activities. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2003. On April 26, 2011, we received a second CID related to the CID issued in September 2010, which generally covers the same time period as the previous CID and requires the production of additional documents. Such CIDs are often associated with previously filed qui tam actions, or lawsuits filed under seal under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Qui tam actions are brought by private plaintiffs suing on behalf of the federal government for alleged FCA violations. Subsequently, the Company and certain current and former employees have received CIDs for testimony. We are cooperating with the Department of Justice with respect to this investigation and the requests for testimony. Stark Law In May 2012, the Company made a disclosure to CMS under the agency’s Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol relating to certain services agreements between a subsidiary of the Company and a large physician group. During some period of time since December 2007, the arrangements appear not to have complied in certain respects with an applicable exemption to the Stark Law referral prohibition. Revenue earned as a result of referrals from the physician group since December 2007 was approximately $4 million. The Company intends to cooperate with CMS in its review of this matter. Wage and Hour Litigation On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim they were paid under both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby misclassifying them as exempt employees and entitling them to overtime pay. The plaintiffs allege continuing violations of federal and state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the SEC investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice CIDs, the Stark Law matter we have disclosed to CMS and the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation described above given the preliminary stage of these matters. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice CIDs, the Stark Law matter we have disclosed to CMS or the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate. We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to matters involving our home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends or other matters. In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. *Third Party Audits* From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program. In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC’s findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. Our Dayton subsidiary made requests for redetermination to the MAC, which subsequently issued a series of redetermination decisions (“Redetermination Decisions”), 110 of which were unfavorable. Our subsidiary appealed 85 of the unfavorable Redetermination Decisions to MAXIMUS Federal Services, the qualified independent contractor (“QIC”) designated to process appeals from the MAC’s decisions. In November 2011, the QIC affirmed those Redetermination Decisions. We dispute the QIC’s findings and have requested appeal hearings before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in which we will seek to have those findings overturned. The ALJ hearings have not been scheduled, and no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC’s findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the MAC for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.5 million. Our Florence subsidiary made requests for redetermination to the MAC, which subsequently issued a series of redetermination decisions (“Florence Redetermination Decisions”), which were favorable for 4 beneficiaries and unfavorable for 12 beneficiaries. The MAC communicated these decisions to the ZPIC, which re-extrapolated the findings and established a new alleged extrapolated overpayment of $6.3 million. Our subsidiary appealed all of the unfavorable Florence Redetermination Decisions to MAXIMUS Federal Services, the QIC designated to process appeals from the MAC’s decisions. On March 13, 2012, the QIC issued a favorable decision for one beneficiary and unfavorable decisions for 11 beneficiaries. On May 31, 2012, the ZPIC re-extrapolated the findings and established a new alleged extrapolated overpayment of $6.1 million. We dispute the QIC’s unfavorable findings and have requested appeal hearings before an ALJ in which we will seek to have those findings overturned. The ALJ hearings have not been scheduled, and no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. In July 2009, Beacon Hospice, Inc., a subsidiary we acquired on June 7, 2011 (“Beacon”), received from Massachusetts Peer Review Organization, Inc. (“MassPro”), an entity contracted with the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid, a request for records regarding 25 beneficiaries in Boston, Framingham and Plymouth, Massachusetts, who received hospice services from Beacon during the period of August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent MassHealth Program regulations. Based on Masspro’s findings for 89 of the 112 claims submitted in connection with these beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all MassHealth claims for hospice services provided by Beacon billed during the Review Period, on February 15, 2012, MassPro issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from Beacon of an alleged overpayment of approximately $6.6 million. The Review Period covers a time before our ownership of Beacon, and in the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of Beacon for such amounts. An appeal was filed on May 31, 2012. We dispute these findings and intend to vigorously seek to have these findings overturned, but no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of any appeal. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. *Insurance* We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers’ compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported, up to specified deductible limits. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis. Our health insurance has a retention limit of $0.8 million, our workers’ compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.4 million and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million.

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following legal actions:

United States Senate Committee on Finance Inquiry

On May 12, 2010, we received a letter of inquiry from the United States Senate Committee on Finance (the “Committee”) requesting documents and information relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends. A similar letter was sent to the other major publicly traded home health care companies. We cooperated with the Committee with respect to this inquiry.

On October 3, 2011, the Committee publicly issued a report titled “Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold.” The Committee recommended that the CMS “must move toward taking therapy out of the payment model.” We believe that the issuance of the report concludes the Committee’s inquiry, but are not in a position to speculate on the potential for future legislative or oversight action by the Committee.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers’ Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants previously moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. Through that motion, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to rescind its June 28, 2012 dismissal order and to reverse its decision to grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the alternative, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to modify its dismissal order to grant Co-Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a second amended complaint. Defendants have not yet responded to the motion for reconsideration.

Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. Three similar derivative suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together, the “Federal Derivative Actions”). We are named as a nominal defendant in all of those actions. As noted above, on October 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the “Derivative Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative complaints. The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal controls over certain of our home health and Medicare billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. All defendants in the Federal Derivative Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, have moved to dismiss the Derivative Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before the court.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative suit was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. That action also purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative actions pending in federal court.

ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company, certain of our current and former senior executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan’s participants by causing the 401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints seek a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. As noted above, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell (the “Co-ERISA Plaintiffs”), filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “ERISA Complaint”), which supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before the court.

SEC Investigation

On June 30, 2010, we received notice of a formal investigation from the SEC and received a subpoena for documents relating to the matters under review by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and other matters involving our operations. We are cooperating with the SEC with respect to this investigation.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”)

On September 27, 2010, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act. The CID requires the delivery of a wide range of documents and information to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama, relating to the Company’s clinical and business operations, including reimbursement and billing claims submitted to Medicare for home health services, and related compliance activities. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2003. On April 26, 2011, we received a second CID related to the CID issued in September 2010, which generally covers the same time period as the previous CID and requires the production of additional documents. Such CIDs are often associated with previously filed qui tam actions, or lawsuits filed under seal under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Qui tam actions are brought by private plaintiffs suing on behalf of the federal government for alleged FCA violations. Subsequently, the Company and certain current and former employees have received CIDs for testimony. We are cooperating with the Department of Justice with respect to this investigation and the requests for testimony.

Stark Law

In May 2012, the Company made a disclosure to CMS under the agency’s Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol relating to certain services agreements between a subsidiary of the Company and a large physician group. During some period of time since December 2007, the arrangements appear not to have complied in certain respects with an applicable exemption to the Stark Law referral prohibition. Revenue earned as a result of referrals from the physician group since December 2007 was approximately $4 million. The Company intends to cooperate with CMS in its review of this matter.

Wage and Hour Litigation

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim they were paid under both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby misclassifying them as exempt employees and entitling them to overtime pay. The plaintiffs allege continuing violations of federal and state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the SEC investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice CIDs, the Stark Law matter we have disclosed to CMS and the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation described above given the preliminary stage of these matters. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice CIDs, the Stark Law matter we have disclosed to CMS or the securities, shareholder derivative, ERISA and wage and hour litigation matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to matters involving our home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends or other matters.

In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Third Party Audits

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC’s findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. Our Dayton subsidiary made requests for redetermination to the MAC, which subsequently issued a series of redetermination decisions (“Redetermination Decisions”), 110 of which were unfavorable. Our subsidiary appealed 85 of the unfavorable Redetermination Decisions to MAXIMUS Federal Services, the qualified independent contractor (“QIC”) designated to process appeals from the MAC’s decisions. In November 2011, the QIC affirmed those Redetermination Decisions. We dispute the QIC’s findings and have requested appeal hearings before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in which we will seek to have those findings overturned. The ALJ hearings have not been scheduled, and no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC’s findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the MAC for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.5 million. Our Florence subsidiary made requests for redetermination to the MAC, which subsequently issued a series of redetermination decisions (“Florence Redetermination Decisions”), which were favorable for 4 beneficiaries and unfavorable for 12 beneficiaries. The MAC communicated these decisions to the ZPIC, which re-extrapolated the findings and established a new alleged extrapolated overpayment of $6.3 million. Our subsidiary appealed all of the unfavorable Florence Redetermination Decisions to MAXIMUS Federal Services, the QIC designated to process appeals from the MAC’s decisions. On March 13, 2012, the QIC issued a favorable decision for one beneficiary and unfavorable decisions for 11 beneficiaries. On May 31, 2012, the ZPIC re-extrapolated the findings and established a new alleged extrapolated overpayment of $6.1 million. We dispute the QIC’s unfavorable findings and have requested appeal hearings before an ALJ in which we will seek to have those findings overturned. The ALJ hearings have not been scheduled, and no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

In July 2009, Beacon Hospice, Inc., a subsidiary we acquired on June 7, 2011 (“Beacon”), received from Massachusetts Peer Review Organization, Inc. (“MassPro”), an entity contracted with the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid, a request for records regarding 25 beneficiaries in Boston, Framingham and Plymouth, Massachusetts, who received hospice services from Beacon during the period of August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent MassHealth Program regulations. Based on Masspro’s findings for 89 of the 112 claims submitted in connection with these beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all MassHealth claims for hospice services provided by Beacon billed during the Review Period, on February 15, 2012, MassPro issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from Beacon of an alleged overpayment of approximately $6.6 million. The Review Period covers a time before our ownership of Beacon, and in the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of Beacon for such amounts. An appeal was filed on May 31, 2012. We dispute these findings and intend to vigorously seek to have these findings overturned, but no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of any appeal. As of June 30, 2012, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

Insurance

We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers’ compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported, up to specified deductible limits. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis.

Our health insurance has a retention limit of $0.8 million, our workers’ compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.4 million and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million.