Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Contract Dispute We currently are involved in a contractual dispute with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota regarding fees paid to us as part of a former contractual relationship. On January 25, 2010, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota issued notice of arbitration with the American Arbitration Association in Minneapolis alleging a violation of certain contract provisions. We believe we performed our services in compliance with the terms of our agreement and that the assertions made in the arbitration notice are without merit. On August 3, 2011, we asserted numerous counterclaims against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. We are not able to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related to this dispute . Anti-Trust Lawsuit On May 1, 2012, American Specialty Health Group ("ASH") amended a claim (the "Amended Claim") that it had previously filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California ("Court") on December 2, 2011 (the "Original Claim"). The Original Claim alleged that the Company's exclusivity provisions in some of its contracts with participating locations in its SilverSneakers fitness network violate California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and that the Company interfered with ASH's contractual relations and prospective economic advantages. The Amended Claim added allegations that the Company is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "Act") because such exclusivity provisions create illegal restraints on trade and constitute monopolization or attempted monopolization in violation of the Act. Under the Amended Claim, ASH is seeking damages in excess of $15,000,000, treble damages under the Act, and injunctive relief. The Company has asserted counterclaims against ASH for interference and violation of the UCL, and on October 12, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to add an additional counterclaim that ASH has falsely advertised the composition of its fitness facility network in violation of the Lanham Act. We believe ASH's claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the Amended Claim. Performance Award Lawsuit On September 4, 2012, Milton Pfeiffer ("Plaintiff"), claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative action against the Company and the Board of Directors (the "Board") in Delaware Chancery Court alleging that the Compensation Committee of the Board and the Board breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Company's 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") by granting Ben R. Leedle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, discretionary performance awards under the Plan in the form of options to purchase an aggregate of 500,000 shares of the Company's common stock, which consisted of a performance award in November 2011 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 365,000 shares and a performance award in February 2012 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 135,000 shares (the "Performance Awards"). Plaintiff alleges that the Performance Awards exceeded what is authorized by the Plan and that the Company's 2012 proxy statement, in which the Performance Awards are disclosed, is false and misleading. Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Leedle breached his fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched by receiving the Performance Awards. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, the rescission or disgorgement of all alleged "excess" awards granted to Mr. Leedle under the Performance Awards, to recover any incidental damages to the Company, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On November 2, 2012, the Company and the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to make a demand upon the Board as required by Delaware law. Outlook We are also subject to other contractual disputes, claims and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. While we are unable to estimate a range of potential losses, we do not believe that any of the legal proceedings pending against us as of the date of this report will have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition. As these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, our view of these matters may change in the future. Contractual Commitments We entered into a 25-year strategic relationship agreement with Gallup in January 2008 and a 5-year global joint venture agreement with Gallup in October 2012. We have minimum remaining contractual cash obligations of $49.5 million related to these agreements. In May 2011, we entered into a ten-year applications and technology services outsourcing agreement with HP Enterprise Services, LLC that contains minimum fee requirements. Total payments over the remaining term, including an estimate for future contractual cost of living adjustments, must equal or exceed a minimum level of approximately $161.2 million; however, based on initial required service and equipment level assumptions, we estimate that the remaining payments will be approximately $331.3 million. The agreement allows us to terminate all or a portion of the services after the first two years provided we pay certain termination fees, which could be material to the Company.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Contract Dispute

We currently are involved in a contractual dispute with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota regarding fees paid to us as part of a former contractual relationship. On January 25, 2010, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota issued notice of arbitration with the American Arbitration Association in Minneapolis alleging a violation of certain contract provisions. We believe we performed our services in compliance with the terms of our agreement and that the assertions made in the arbitration notice are without merit. On August 3, 2011, we asserted numerous counterclaims against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. We are not able to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related to this dispute .

Anti-Trust Lawsuit

On May 1, 2012, American Specialty Health Group ("ASH") amended a claim (the "Amended Claim") that it had previously filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California ("Court") on December 2, 2011 (the "Original Claim"). The Original Claim alleged that the Company's exclusivity provisions in some of its contracts with participating locations in its SilverSneakers fitness network violate California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and that the Company interfered with ASH's contractual relations and prospective economic advantages. The Amended Claim added allegations that the Company is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "Act") because such exclusivity provisions create illegal restraints on trade and constitute monopolization or attempted monopolization in violation of the Act. Under the Amended Claim, ASH is seeking damages in excess of $15,000,000, treble damages under the Act, and injunctive relief. The Company has asserted counterclaims against ASH for interference and violation of the UCL, and on October 12, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to add an additional counterclaim that ASH has falsely advertised the composition of its fitness facility network in violation of the Lanham Act.

We believe ASH's claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the Amended Claim.

Performance Award Lawsuit

On September 4, 2012, Milton Pfeiffer ("Plaintiff"), claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative action against the Company and the Board of Directors (the "Board") in Delaware Chancery Court alleging that the Compensation Committee of the Board and the Board breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Company's 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") by granting Ben R. Leedle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, discretionary performance awards under the Plan in the form of options to purchase an aggregate of 500,000 shares of the Company's common stock, which consisted of a performance award in November 2011 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 365,000 shares and a performance award in February 2012 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 135,000 shares (the "Performance Awards"). Plaintiff alleges that the Performance Awards exceeded what is authorized by the Plan and that the Company's 2012 proxy statement, in which the Performance Awards are disclosed, is false and misleading. Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Leedle breached his fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched by receiving the Performance Awards. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, the rescission or disgorgement of all alleged "excess" awards granted to Mr. Leedle under the Performance Awards, to recover any incidental damages to the Company, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On November 2, 2012, the Company and the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to make a demand upon the Board as required by Delaware law.

Outlook

We are also subject to other contractual disputes, claims and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. While we are unable to estimate a range of potential losses, we do not believe that any of the legal proceedings pending against us as of the date of this report will have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition. As these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, our view of these matters may change in the future.

Contractual Commitments

We entered into a 25-year strategic relationship agreement with Gallup in January 2008 and a 5-year global joint venture agreement with Gallup in October 2012. We have minimum remaining contractual cash obligations of $49.5 million related to these agreements.

In May 2011, we entered into a ten-year applications and technology services outsourcing agreement with HP Enterprise Services, LLC that contains minimum fee requirements. Total payments over the remaining term, including an estimate for future contractual cost of living adjustments, must equal or exceed a minimum level of approximately $161.2 million; however, based on initial required service and equipment level assumptions, we estimate that the remaining payments will be approximately $331.3 million. The agreement allows us to terminate all or a portion of the services after the first two years provided we pay certain termination fees, which could be material to the Company.