COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings - Ongoing We are involved in the following legal actions: Securities Class Action Lawsuits As previously disclosed, between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of our former senior executives. The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System (the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”). They filed a consolidated, amended complaint which all defendants moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on June 28, 2012, and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The defendants request for an en banc review was denied on December 29, 2014 and their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 29, 2015. After remand to the District Court, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the “First Amended Securities Complaint”) on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys' securities between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleges that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company's financial results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as “Balanced for Life” and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) “upcoding” patients' Medicare forms to attribute a “primary diagnosis” to a medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First Amended Securities Complaint seeks certification of the case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as interest and an award of attorneys' fees. All defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Securities Complaint on December 15, 2015. While that motion was pending the parties agreed to mediate the case. This mediation was not successful. On August 19, 2016, the District Court issued its ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice all claims against two former officers, dismissing all except Section 20(a) claims against three former officers, and denying all other relief. The Company and four individual defendants then filed their answers to the First Amended Securities Complaint on October 20, 2016. The independent executrix of the estate of William F. Borne, who was substituted as a defendant in the case after Mr. Borne's death, filed her answer on February 6, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter. All parties to the action executed a binding term sheet that, subject to final documentation and court approval, provided in part for a settlement payment of approximately $43.7 million, which we accrued as of June 30, 2017, and the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. Approximately $15.0 million of the settlement amount paid by the Company's insurance carriers during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, was previously recorded with other current assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $28.7 million, was recorded as a charge in our condensed consolidated statements of operations during the three-month period ended June 30, 2017 and paid with cash on hand during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017. Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice On May 21, 2015, we received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Subpoena requests the delivery of information regarding 53 identified hospice patients to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. It also requests the delivery of documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations and related compliance activities. The Subpoena generally covers the period from January 1, 2011, through May 21, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter. Civil Investigative Demand Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice On November 3, 2015, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Morgantown, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia regarding 66 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Morgantown area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter. On June 27, 2016, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Parkersburg, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia regarding 68 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Parkersburg area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2011 through June 20, 2016. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter. 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. Other Investigative Matters - Ongoing Corporate Integrity Agreement On April 23, 2014, with no admissions of liability on our part, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice relating to certain of our clinical and business operations. Concurrently with our entry into this agreement, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS (“OIG”). The CIA formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the CIA requires us to maintain our existing compliance program, executive compliance committee and compliance committee of the Board of Directors; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees to ensure they are eligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to the OIG. Additionally, the CIA specifically requires that we report substantial overpayments that we discover we have received from federal health care programs, as well as probable violations of federal health care laws. Upon breach of the CIA, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years. Idaho and Wyoming Self-Report During 2016, the Company engaged an independent auditing firm to perform a clinical audit of the hospice care centers acquired by Frontier Home Health and Hospice in April 2014. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the audit on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate. Other Investigative Matters - Closed Computer Inventory and Data Security Reporting On March 1 and March 2, 2015, we provided official notice under federal and state data privacy laws concerning the outcome of an extensive risk management process to locate and verify our large computer inventory. The process identified approximately 142 encrypted computers and laptops for which reports were required under federal and state data privacy laws. The devices at issue were originally assigned to Company clinicians and other team members who left the Company between 2011 and 2014. We reported these devices to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state agencies, and individuals whose information may be involved, as required under applicable law because we could not rule out unauthorized access to patient data on the devices. In accordance with our CIA, we notified the OIG of this matter. As of September 30, 2017, this matter has been resolved, and the Company incurred no penalties or fees. Third Party Audits - Ongoing 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 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program. 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 Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. An ALJ hearing was held in early January 2015. On January 18, 2016, we received a letter dated January 6, 2016 referencing the ALJ hearing decision for the overpayment issued on June 6, 2011. The decision was partially favorable with a new overpayment amount of $3.7 million with a balance owed of $5.6 million including interest based on 9 disputed claims (originally 16). We filed an appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council on the remaining 9 disputed claims and also argued that the statistical method used to select the sample was not valid. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the Medicare Appeals Council decision. As of September 30, 2017, Medicare has withheld payments of $5.7 million (including additional interest) as part of their standard procedures once this level of the appeal process has been reached. In the event we are not able to recoup 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 September 30, 2017, we have an indemnity receivable of approximately $4.9 million for the amount withheld related to the period prior to August 1, 2009. In July 2016, the Company received a request for medical records from SafeGuard Services, L.L.C (“SafeGuard”), a ZPIC related to services provided by some of the care centers that the Company acquired from Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. The review period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of the care centers, which were acquired on December 31, 2015. In August 2017, the Company received Requests for Repayment from Palmetto GBA, LLC (“Palmetto”) regarding Infinity Home Care of Lakeland, LLC, (“Lakeland Care Centers”) and Infinity Home Care of Pinellas, LLC, (“Clearwater Care Center”). The Palmetto letters are based on a statistical extrapolation performed by SafeGuard which alleged an overpayment of $34.0 million for the Lakeland Care Centers on a universe of 72 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate and an overpayment of $4.8 million for the Clearwater Care Center on a universe of 70 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate. The Lakeland Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2014, and September 13, 2016. The Clearwater Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2015, and December 9, 2016. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by the prior owners for all claims prior to December 31, 2015, for up to $12.6 million. As these matters continue to develop, the Company is working with the appropriate stakeholders to favorably resolve these matters. At this stage of the review, based on the information currently available to the Company, the Company cannot predict the timing or outcome of this review. The estimated potential range of loss related to this review is between $6.5 million (assuming the Company is successful in seeking indemnity from the prior owners and unsuccessful in demonstrating that the extrapolation method used by SafeGuard was erroneous) and $38.8 million (the maximum amount Palmetto claims has been overpaid for both the Lakeland Care Centers and the Clearwater Care Center of which amount is subject to indemnification by the prior owners for up to $12.6 million as disclosed above). As of September 30, 2017, we have an accrued liability of approximately $17.4 million related to this matter. We expect to be indemnified by the prior owners for approximately $10.9 million and have recorded this amount with other assets, net in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $6.5 million, was recorded as a reduction in revenue in our condensed consolidated statements of operations during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017. As of September 30, 2017, $7.8 million of net receivables have been impacted by this payment suspension. 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, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. 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 an exposure limit of $0.9 million for any individual covered life. Our workers' compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million per incident and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million per incident.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings - Ongoing

We are involved in the following legal actions:

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

As previously disclosed, between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of our former senior executives. The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System (the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”). They filed a consolidated, amended complaint which all defendants moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on June 28, 2012, and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The defendants request for an en banc review was denied on December 29, 2014 and their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 29, 2015.

After remand to the District Court, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the “First Amended Securities Complaint”) on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys' securities between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleges that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company's financial results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as “Balanced for Life” and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) “upcoding” patients' Medicare forms to attribute a “primary diagnosis” to a medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First Amended Securities Complaint seeks certification of the case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as interest and an award of attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Securities Complaint on December 15, 2015. While that motion was pending the parties agreed to mediate the case. This mediation was not successful. On August 19, 2016, the District Court issued its ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice all claims against two former officers, dismissing all except Section 20(a) claims against three former officers, and denying all other relief. The Company and four individual defendants then filed their answers to the First Amended Securities Complaint on October 20, 2016. The independent executrix of the estate of William F. Borne, who was substituted as a defendant in the case after Mr. Borne's death, filed her answer on February 6, 2017.

On June 12, 2017, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter. All parties to the action executed a binding term sheet that, subject to final documentation and court approval, provided in part for a settlement payment of approximately $43.7 million, which we accrued as of June 30, 2017, and the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. Approximately $15.0 million of the settlement amount paid by the Company's insurance carriers during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, was previously recorded with other current assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $28.7 million, was recorded as a charge in our condensed consolidated statements of operations during the three-month period ended June 30, 2017 and paid with cash on hand during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017.

Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice

On May 21, 2015, we received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Subpoena requests the delivery of information regarding 53 identified hospice patients to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. It also requests the delivery of documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations and related compliance activities. The Subpoena generally covers the period from January 1, 2011, through May 21, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

Civil Investigative Demand Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice

On November 3, 2015, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Morgantown, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia regarding 66 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Morgantown area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

On June 27, 2016, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Parkersburg, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia regarding 68 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Parkersburg area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2011 through June 20, 2016. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

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.

Other Investigative Matters - Ongoing

Corporate Integrity Agreement

On April 23, 2014, with no admissions of liability on our part, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice relating to certain of our clinical and business operations. Concurrently with our entry into this agreement, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS (“OIG”). The CIA formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the CIA requires us to maintain our existing compliance program, executive compliance committee and compliance committee of the Board of Directors; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees to ensure they are eligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to the OIG. Additionally, the CIA specifically requires that we report substantial overpayments that we discover we have received from federal health care programs, as well as probable violations of federal health care laws. Upon breach of the CIA, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years.

Idaho and Wyoming Self-Report

During 2016, the Company engaged an independent auditing firm to perform a clinical audit of the hospice care centers acquired by Frontier Home Health and Hospice in April 2014. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the audit on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

Other Investigative Matters - Closed

Computer Inventory and Data Security Reporting

On March 1 and March 2, 2015, we provided official notice under federal and state data privacy laws concerning the outcome of an extensive risk management process to locate and verify our large computer inventory. The process identified approximately 142 encrypted computers and laptops for which reports were required under federal and state data privacy laws. The devices at issue were originally assigned to Company clinicians and other team members who left the Company between 2011 and 2014. We reported these devices to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state agencies, and individuals whose information may be involved, as required under applicable law because we could not rule out unauthorized access to patient data on the devices. In accordance with our CIA, we notified the OIG of this matter. As of September 30, 2017, this matter has been resolved, and the Company incurred no penalties or fees.

Third Party Audits - Ongoing

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 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

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 Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. An ALJ hearing was held in early January 2015. On January 18, 2016, we received a letter dated January 6, 2016 referencing the ALJ hearing decision for the overpayment issued on June 6, 2011. The decision was partially favorable with a new overpayment amount of $3.7 million with a balance owed of $5.6 million including interest based on 9 disputed claims (originally 16). We filed an appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council on the remaining 9 disputed claims and also argued that the statistical method used to select the sample was not valid. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the Medicare Appeals Council decision. As of September 30, 2017, Medicare has withheld payments of $5.7 million (including additional interest) as part of their standard procedures once this level of the appeal process has been reached. In the event we are not able to recoup 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 September 30, 2017, we have an indemnity receivable of approximately $4.9 million for the amount withheld related to the period prior to August 1, 2009.

In July 2016, the Company received a request for medical records from SafeGuard Services, L.L.C (“SafeGuard”), a ZPIC related to services provided by some of the care centers that the Company acquired from Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. The review period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of the care centers, which were acquired on December 31, 2015. In August 2017, the Company received Requests for Repayment from Palmetto GBA, LLC (“Palmetto”) regarding Infinity Home Care of Lakeland, LLC, (“Lakeland Care Centers”) and Infinity Home Care of Pinellas, LLC, (“Clearwater Care Center”). The Palmetto letters are based on a statistical extrapolation performed by SafeGuard which alleged an overpayment of $34.0 million for the Lakeland Care Centers on a universe of 72 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate and an overpayment of $4.8 million for the Clearwater Care Center on a universe of 70 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate.

The Lakeland Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2014, and September 13, 2016. The Clearwater Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2015, and December 9, 2016. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by the prior owners for all claims prior to December 31, 2015, for up to $12.6 million.

As these matters continue to develop, the Company is working with the appropriate stakeholders to favorably resolve these matters. At this stage of the review, based on the information currently available to the Company, the Company cannot predict the timing or outcome of this review. The estimated potential range of loss related to this review is between $6.5 million (assuming the Company is successful in seeking indemnity from the prior owners and unsuccessful in demonstrating that the extrapolation method used by SafeGuard was erroneous) and $38.8 million (the maximum amount Palmetto claims has been overpaid for both the Lakeland Care Centers and the Clearwater Care Center of which amount is subject to indemnification by the prior owners for up to $12.6 million as disclosed above).

As of September 30, 2017, we have an accrued liability of approximately $17.4 million related to this matter. We expect to be indemnified by the prior owners for approximately $10.9 million and have recorded this amount with other assets, net in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $6.5 million, was recorded as a reduction in revenue in our condensed consolidated statements of operations during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017. As of September 30, 2017, $7.8 million of net receivables have been impacted by this payment suspension.

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, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. 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 an exposure limit of $0.9 million for any individual covered life. Our workers' compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million per incident and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million per incident.