Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies The Company is involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the outcome of pending litigation will not have a material adverse effect, after considering the effect of the Company’s insurance coverage, on the Company’s interim financial information. On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. On March 3, 2015, the District Court entered its Judgments adopting the Report and Recommendation previously issued and dismissing the action with prejudice. The time for appeal has passed and no appeals were filed. This matter is now concluded. The Company's insurance carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million settlement amount. On October 18, 2013, a derivative complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, employees and members of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled Plummer v. Myers, et al., Case No. 6:13-cv-2899-JTT-CMH. The action was brought derivatively on behalf of the Company, which is also named as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company. The complaint also alleges claims for insider selling and unjust enrichment against the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer. On December 30, 2013, a related derivative complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, employees and members of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, styled McCormack v. Myers, et al., Case No. 6:13-cv-3301-JTT-CMH. The action was brought derivatively on the Company’s behalf and the Company was also named as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company and wasted corporate assets. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company’s Directors are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges claims for insider selling, misappropriation of information and unjust enrichment against the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer. On March 25, 2014, the McCormack derivative action was consolidated with the Plummer derivative action described above and stayed. On October 7, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Derivative Settlement. On October 26, 2015, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement in the amount of $0.6 million. On January 11, 2016, the District Court entered its Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. The Company's insurance carrier has funded the entire settlement amount, which was immediately releasable to Plaintiffs' counsel on January 11, 2016. The Company's balance sheet reflects the entire settlement in current assets as a receivable due from insurance carrier and correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in current liabilities as a legal settlement payable. Joint Venture Buy/Sell Provisions Most of the Company’s joint ventures include a buy/sell option that grants to the Company and its joint venture partners the right to require the other joint venture party to either purchase all of the exercising member’s membership interests or sell to the exercising member all of the non-exercising member’s membership interest, at the non-exercising member’s option, within 30 days of the receipt of notice of the exercise of the buy/sell option. In some instances, the purchase price is based on a multiple of the historical or future earnings before income taxes and depreciation and amortization of the equity joint venture at the time the buy/sell option is exercised. In other instances, the buy/sell purchase price will be negotiated by the partners and subject to a fair market valuation process. The Company has not received notice from any joint venture partners of their intent to exercise the terms of the buy/sell agreement nor has the Company notified any joint venture partners of its intent to exercise the terms of the buy/sell agreement. Compliance The laws and regulations governing the Company’s operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how the Company does business, the services offered and its interactions with patients and the public. These laws and regulations, and their interpretations, are subject to frequent change. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or their interpretations, or the enactment of new laws or regulations could materially and adversely affect the Company’s operations and financial condition. The Company is subject to various routine and non-routine governmental reviews, audits and investigations. In recent years, federal and state civil and criminal enforcement agencies have heightened and coordinated their oversight efforts related to the health care industry, including referral practices, cost reporting, billing practices, joint ventures and other financial relationships among health care providers. Violation of the laws governing the Company’s operations, or changes in the interpretation of those laws, could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and/or termination of the Company’s rights to participate in federal and state-sponsored programs and suspension or revocation of the Company’s licenses. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the outcome of pending litigation will not have a material adverse effect, after considering the effect of the Company’s insurance coverage, on the Company’s interim financial information.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. On March 3, 2015, the District Court entered its Judgments adopting the Report and Recommendation previously issued and dismissing the action with prejudice. The time for appeal has passed and no appeals were filed. This matter is now concluded. The Company's insurance carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million settlement amount.

On October 18, 2013, a derivative complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, employees and members of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, styled Plummer v. Myers, et al., Case No. 6:13-cv-2899-JTT-CMH. The action was brought derivatively on behalf of the Company, which is also named as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company. The complaint also alleges claims for insider selling and unjust enrichment against the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer.

On December 30, 2013, a related derivative complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, employees and members of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, styled McCormack v. Myers, et al., Case No. 6:13-cv-3301-JTT-CMH. The action was brought derivatively on the Company’s behalf and the Company was also named as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company and wasted corporate assets. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer caused false and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company’s Directors are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges claims for insider selling, misappropriation of information and unjust enrichment against the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer.

On March 25, 2014, the McCormack derivative action was consolidated with the Plummer derivative action described above and stayed. On October 7, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Derivative Settlement. On October 26, 2015, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement in the amount of $0.6 million. On January 11, 2016, the District Court entered its Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. The Company's insurance carrier has funded the entire settlement amount, which was immediately releasable to Plaintiffs' counsel on January 11, 2016. The Company's balance sheet reflects the entire settlement in current assets as a receivable due from insurance carrier and correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in current liabilities as a legal settlement payable.

Joint Venture Buy/Sell Provisions

Most of the Company’s joint ventures include a buy/sell option that grants to the Company and its joint venture partners the right to require the other joint venture party to either purchase all of the exercising member’s membership interests or sell to the exercising member all of the non-exercising member’s membership interest, at the non-exercising member’s option, within 30 days of the receipt of notice of the exercise of the buy/sell option. In some instances, the purchase price is based on a multiple of the historical or future earnings before income taxes and depreciation and amortization of the equity joint venture at the time the buy/sell option is exercised. In other instances, the buy/sell purchase price will be negotiated by the partners and subject to a fair market valuation process. The Company has not received notice from any joint venture partners of their intent to exercise the terms of the buy/sell agreement nor has the Company notified any joint venture partners of its intent to exercise the terms of the buy/sell agreement.

Compliance

The laws and regulations governing the Company’s operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how the Company does business, the services offered and its interactions with patients and the public. These laws and regulations, and their interpretations, are subject to frequent change. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or their interpretations, or the enactment of new laws or regulations could materially and adversely affect the Company’s operations and financial condition.

The Company is subject to various routine and non-routine governmental reviews, audits and investigations. In recent years, federal and state civil and criminal enforcement agencies have heightened and coordinated their oversight efforts related to the health care industry, including referral practices, cost reporting, billing practices, joint ventures and other financial relationships among health care providers. Violation of the laws governing the Company’s operations, or changes in the interpretation of those laws, could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and/or termination of the Company’s rights to participate in federal and state-sponsored programs and suspension or revocation of the Company’s licenses. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.