Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	19. Contingencies On August 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008. On October 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead plaintiff, and on November 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed containing allegations that the Company, Tullman and Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with the release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11. On January 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 13, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently describe the confidential sources upon which the allegations in the amended complaint were based. On May 12, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead. On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which attributed certain allegations to four different confidential witnesses, but made no other substantive changes. On June 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 10, 2011, the motion was granted in substantial part. However, the Court denied the motion with respect to two alleged false statements. On September 19, 2011, the Court entered an order certifying a class. On February 7, 2012, the parties agreed, subject to execution of settlement documents and Court approval, to settle this matter on a class-wide basis. The settlement amount totaling approximately $10 million will be funded by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carrier and therefore have no material impact on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al. The lawsuit names Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp. ("Arsenal"), Eclipsys, and each of the directors of Eclipsys as defendants. On or about June 17, 2010, John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants (except not Arsenal) captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al. On or about June 18, 2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants as the first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al. On or about June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same parties as the first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al. On or about June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fifth purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and against the same defendants as the first case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) and captioned Iron Workers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al. On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia. On or about July 9, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint. On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al. The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business Case Division. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided and abetted those breaches. Five of the complaints (excepting the first) also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary public offering of certain Allscripts shares owned by Misys and the buy back by Allscripts of certain shares owned by Misys. Certain lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is materially misleading in certain respects including the omission of information concerning certain financial projections and whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock buyback. Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of Eclipsys. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief, rescission of the merger or damages. They also purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint. On or about August 5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers' emergency request for an injunction pending appeal. The appeal was then briefed in the ordinary course. On November 12, 2010, Iron Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court of Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit. Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five cases listed above pending the Iron Workers appeal. Defendants opposed Madala's motion. On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice. On November 3, 2011, the Company, Witmer and Heirs filed a stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court dismissed Witmer's and Heirs' claims with prejudice. On November 16, 2011, the Superior Court entered an order approving the stipulation with Witmer and Heirs to dismiss their cases with prejudice. The remaining two lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court. On February 11, 2011, Medical Services Associates, Inc. ("MSA") filed binding arbitration against the Company alleging that the Company negligently caused a loss of medical billing data, negligently or intentionally misrepresented certain facts regarding the computer system being sold to MSA, and/or breached certain aspects of a contract to provide certain software-related goods and services to MSA. The Company filed its counterclaim on March 11, 2011. The outcome of this matter depends upon questions of fact and law that are disputed or not clear, and cannot be predicted with confidence at this time and no reasonable estimate of potential damages is possible. The Company believes it has strong positions in this matter and intends to defend vigorously as to both liability and damages, but any unfavorable outcome may adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. In the opinion of management, there was not at least a reasonable possibility the Company may have incurred a material loss, or a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to the above matters. However, the outcome of any of the foregoing litigation is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in the same reporting period for amounts in excess of management's expectations, the Company's consolidated financial statements of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected. On December 22, 2011, in connection with a federal grand jury investigation of third parties, we received a subpoena requesting that we provide documents regarding Allscripts' interactions with several healthcare and educational organizations. At this time, we are unable to determine the impact of the foregoing on Allscripts. We are cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office in connection with such subpoena. In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various claims, other pending and potential legal actions for damages and other matters arising in the normal conduct of our business, including employment claims and intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property violation claims. The matter described below relates to an intellectual property claim asserted against the Company. We believe that the matter described in the next paragraph is not material and does not relate to the core of our applications. We also believe that we have strong defensive positions in such matter, but the outcomes of patent and other intellectual property lawsuits are often uncertain and such lawsuits are typically expensive to litigate. On September 14, 2010, Pegasus Imaging Corporation ("Pegasus") filed a lawsuit against the Company and AllscriptsMisys, LLC in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit also named former officers Jeffrey Amrein and John Reinhart as defendants. Prior to serving the complaint, Pegasus filed an amended complaint dropping two of the claims that had been asserted and adding two additional defendants, which are two now-defunct Florida corporations that formerly did business with the Company. The amended complaint asserts causes of action against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, arising from previous business dealings between Pegasus and Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., a software company based in Louisville, Kentucky that the Company purchased in August 2003. On or about November 1, 2010, Defendants moved to transfer the case to the special court for complex business litigation that resides in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Business Court granted Defendants' motion for transfer on January 13, 2011. The Defendants also filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 16, 2010 and December 6, 2010. The motions to dismiss were denied on April 1, 2011 and we have answered the complaint. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The case is currently on the court's September 2012 trial calendar.

19. Contingencies

On August 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008. On October 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead plaintiff, and on November 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed containing allegations that the Company, Tullman and Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with the release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11. On January 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 13, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently describe the confidential sources upon which the allegations in the amended complaint were based. On May 12, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead. On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which attributed certain allegations to four different confidential witnesses, but made no other substantive changes. On June 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 10, 2011, the motion was granted in substantial part. However, the Court denied the motion with respect to two alleged false statements. On September 19, 2011, the Court entered an order certifying a class. On February 7, 2012, the parties agreed, subject to execution of settlement documents and Court approval, to settle this matter on a class-wide basis. The settlement amount totaling approximately $10 million will be funded by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carrier and therefore have no material impact on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al. The lawsuit names Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp. ("Arsenal"), Eclipsys, and each of the directors of Eclipsys as defendants. On or about June 17, 2010, John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants (except not Arsenal) captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al. On or about June 18, 2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants as the first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al. On or about June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class action complaint in the same court and against the same parties as the first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al. On or about June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fifth purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and against the same defendants as the first case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) and captioned Iron Workers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia. On or about July 9, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint. On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al. The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business Case Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided and abetted those breaches. Five of the complaints (excepting the first) also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary public offering of certain Allscripts shares owned by Misys and the buy back by Allscripts of certain shares owned by Misys. Certain lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is materially misleading in certain respects including the omission of information concerning certain financial projections and whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock buyback. Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of Eclipsys. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief, rescission of the merger or damages. They also purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint. On or about August 5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers' emergency request for an injunction pending appeal. The appeal was then briefed in the ordinary course. On November 12, 2010, Iron Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court of Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit.

Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five cases listed above pending the Iron Workers appeal. Defendants opposed Madala's motion. On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice. On November 3, 2011, the Company, Witmer and Heirs filed a stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court dismissed Witmer's and Heirs' claims with prejudice. On November 16, 2011, the Superior Court entered an order approving the stipulation with Witmer and Heirs to dismiss their cases with prejudice. The remaining two lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court.

On February 11, 2011, Medical Services Associates, Inc. ("MSA") filed binding arbitration against the Company alleging that the Company negligently caused a loss of medical billing data, negligently or intentionally misrepresented certain facts regarding the computer system being sold to MSA, and/or breached certain aspects of a contract to provide certain software-related goods and services to MSA. The Company filed its counterclaim on March 11, 2011. The outcome of this matter depends upon questions of fact and law that are disputed or not clear, and cannot be predicted with confidence at this time and no reasonable estimate of potential damages is possible. The Company believes it has strong positions in this matter and intends to defend vigorously as to both liability and damages, but any unfavorable outcome may adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

In the opinion of management, there was not at least a reasonable possibility the Company may have incurred a material loss, or a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to the above matters. However, the outcome of any of the foregoing litigation is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in the same reporting period for amounts in excess of management's expectations, the Company's consolidated financial statements of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

On December 22, 2011, in connection with a federal grand jury investigation of third parties, we received a subpoena requesting that we provide documents regarding Allscripts' interactions with several healthcare and educational organizations. At this time, we are unable to determine the impact of the foregoing on Allscripts. We are cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office in connection with such subpoena.

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various claims, other pending and potential legal actions for damages and other matters arising in the normal conduct of our business, including employment claims and intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property violation claims. The matter described below relates to an intellectual property claim asserted against the Company. We believe that the matter described in the next paragraph is not material and does not relate to the core of our applications. We also believe that we have strong defensive positions in such matter, but the outcomes of patent and other intellectual property lawsuits are often uncertain and such lawsuits are typically expensive to litigate.

On September 14, 2010, Pegasus Imaging Corporation ("Pegasus") filed a lawsuit against the Company and AllscriptsMisys, LLC in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit also named former officers Jeffrey Amrein and John Reinhart as defendants. Prior to serving the complaint, Pegasus filed an amended complaint dropping two of the claims that had been asserted and adding two additional defendants, which are two now-defunct Florida corporations that formerly did business with the Company. The amended complaint asserts causes of action against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, arising from previous business dealings between Pegasus and Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., a software company based in Louisville, Kentucky that the Company purchased in August 2003. On or about November 1, 2010, Defendants moved to transfer the case to the special court for complex business litigation that resides in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Business Court granted Defendants' motion for transfer on January 13, 2011. The Defendants also filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 16, 2010 and December 6, 2010. The motions to dismiss were denied on April 1, 2011 and we have answered the complaint. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The case is currently on the court's September 2012 trial calendar.