Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 18 — Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and subject to government investigations, as noted in this section below. All legal proceedings and any government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other adverse events which could occur. Unfavorable outcomes could include substantial monetary damages or awards, injunctions or other remedies, and if any of these were to occur, the possibility exists for a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. The Company might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of its stockholders and its business, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. As previously disclosed, since 2010 the SEC and the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had each been conducting formal investigations of the Company regarding a range of matters, including the possibility of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), primarily related to certain historical sales and marketing activities with respect to the Company’s China operations. In response to these matters, the Company’s Board appointed a Special Committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”) to oversee its response to the government inquiry. Based on an initial review, the Special Committee decided to undertake an independent investigation as to matters reflected in and arising from the SEC and DOJ investigations in order to evaluate whether any violation of the FCPA or other laws occurred. The Company previously recorded a charge to operating expenses in the fourth quarter of 2013 in the amount of $2.0 million for the accrual of an estimated loss associated with the SEC and DOJ investigations based on the available information at the time. In the second quarter of 2015, the Company recorded an additional charge to operating expenses of $10.8 million based on an agreement in principle reached with the SEC which had not yet been finalized, bringing the accrued liability to $12.8 million. On October 7, 2015, the Company deposited $12.8 million in an interest-bearing escrow account that it established related to the agreement in principle regarding a proposed settlement of FCPA-related matters with the staff of the SEC, creating a cash restriction at the time of deposit. On February 4, 2016, the Company announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC fully resolving the SEC’s investigation into possible violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in February 2016 the Company paid to the SEC a total of $12.8 million which was released from its escrow account, including disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a penalty as final settlement. This payment is in line with the charges the Company previously recorded and disclosed as summarized above. As part of the agreement the Company neither admitted nor denied engagement in any wrongdoing and the Company agreed to give status reports to the SEC for the next three years on its continued remediation and implementation of anti-corruption compliance measures. The DOJ has also completed its related investigation and has declined to pursue any action. NovaMed was a party to a Distribution and Supply Agreement with MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (“MEDA”). Following the Company’s acquisition of NovaMed, MEDA claimed it had a right to terminate the agreement under a change of control provision. NovaMed does not believe that MEDA had a right of termination under the agreement. NovaMed filed an application for binding arbitration with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) on July 26, 2012. On April 2, 2014, CIETAC issued the final Award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal found that MEDA did have a right to terminate the agreement upon a change of control, but that MEDA must make reasonable reimbursement to NovaMed before any product rights are returned to MEDA. The amount that must be paid includes $333,333 as “unjust enrichment” plus an amount for reasonable compensation for such services provided by NovaMed to MEDA. The amount of such payment for services was not determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, but was left to be determined by NovaMed. On April 30, 2014, NovaMed informed MEDA that its determination of reasonable compensation for its services was $3,314,629, including the $333,333 for unjust enrichment. MEDA made a counter offer and the parties were attempting to resolve the matter without an additional arbitration proceeding. In December 2014, NovaMed filed a “Request for Second Arbitration” with CIETAC in order to enforce its right to compensation. The arbitration case is pending with CIETAC and no hearing has taken place yet. The amount of any final payment to NovaMed remains uncertain, and as such the Company has not recognized it as a gain contingency.

Note 18 — Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and subject to government investigations, as noted in this section below. All legal proceedings and any government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other adverse events which could occur. Unfavorable outcomes could include substantial monetary damages or awards, injunctions or other remedies, and if any of these were to occur, the possibility exists for a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. The Company might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of its stockholders and its business, and any such settlement could include substantial payments.

As previously disclosed, since 2010 the SEC and the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had each been conducting formal investigations of the Company regarding a range of matters, including the possibility of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), primarily related to certain historical sales and marketing activities with respect to the Company’s China operations. In response to these matters, the Company’s Board appointed a Special Committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”) to oversee its response to the government inquiry. Based on an initial review, the Special Committee decided to undertake an independent investigation as to matters reflected in and arising from the SEC and DOJ investigations in order to evaluate whether any violation of the FCPA or other laws occurred.

The Company previously recorded a charge to operating expenses in the fourth quarter of 2013 in the amount of $2.0 million for the accrual of an estimated loss associated with the SEC and DOJ investigations based on the available information at the time. In the second quarter of 2015, the Company recorded an additional charge to operating expenses of $10.8 million based on an agreement in principle reached with the SEC which had not yet been finalized, bringing the accrued liability to $12.8 million.

On October 7, 2015, the Company deposited $12.8 million in an interest-bearing escrow account that it established related to the agreement in principle regarding a proposed settlement of FCPA-related matters with the staff of the SEC, creating a cash restriction at the time of deposit. On February 4, 2016, the Company announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC fully resolving the SEC’s investigation into possible violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in February 2016 the Company paid to the SEC a total of $12.8 million which was released from its escrow account, including disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a penalty as final settlement. This payment is in line with the charges the Company previously recorded and disclosed as summarized above. As part of the agreement the Company neither admitted nor denied engagement in any wrongdoing and the Company agreed to give status reports to the SEC for the next three years on its continued remediation and implementation of anti-corruption compliance measures. The DOJ has also completed its related investigation and has declined to pursue any action.

NovaMed was a party to a Distribution and Supply Agreement with MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (“MEDA”). Following the Company’s acquisition of NovaMed, MEDA claimed it had a right to terminate the agreement under a change of control provision. NovaMed does not believe that MEDA had a right of termination under the agreement. NovaMed filed an application for binding arbitration with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) on July 26, 2012. On April 2, 2014, CIETAC issued the final Award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal found that MEDA did have a right to terminate the agreement upon a change of control, but that MEDA must make reasonable reimbursement to NovaMed before any product rights are returned to MEDA. The amount that must be paid includes $333,333 as “unjust enrichment” plus an amount for reasonable compensation for such services provided by NovaMed to MEDA. The amount of such payment for services was not determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, but was left to be determined by NovaMed. On April 30, 2014, NovaMed informed MEDA that its determination of reasonable compensation for its services was $3,314,629, including the $333,333 for unjust enrichment. MEDA made a counter offer and the parties were attempting to resolve the matter without an additional arbitration proceeding. In December 2014, NovaMed filed a “Request for Second Arbitration” with CIETAC in order to enforce its right to compensation. The arbitration case is pending with CIETAC and no hearing has taken place yet. The amount of any final payment to NovaMed remains uncertain, and as such the Company has not recognized it as a gain contingency.