Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2014 |
Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | ' |
Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | ' |
1.Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
|
Basis of Presentation |
|
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of HMS Holdings Corp., its subsidiaries and its affiliates (“we,” “our,” “us”) have been prepared in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”), for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, the unaudited interim financial statements furnished herein include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of our financial position at September 30, 2014, the results of our operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 and cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. Interim unaudited financial statements are prepared on a basis consistent with our annual financial statements. The financial statements included herein should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which we refer to as our Annual Report. There have been no significant changes in critical accounting policies since December 31, 2013. |
|
The preparation of our unaudited consolidated financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, primarily accounts receivable, intangible assets, accrued expenses, estimated allowance for appeals and estimated liability for appeals, the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the unaudited consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. Our actual results could differ from those estimates. |
|
These unaudited consolidated financial statements include our accounts and transactions and those of our wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
|
Certain reclassifications were made to prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation. |
|
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
|
As of September 30, 2014, we have accrued an estimated liability for appeals and estimated allowance for appeals based on our historical experience with this activity under our clients’ contracts. At this time, we do not believe that we face a risk of significant loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Accordingly, we believe that an estimate of any possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued is immaterial. Any future changes to any of our client contracts, including further modifications to the transition plan for incumbent Medicare recovery audit contractors, may require us to apply different assumptions that could affect our estimated liability for future periods. We similarly accrue an allowance against accounts receivable related to fees yet to be collected, based on the same estimates used to establish the estimated liability for appeals of fees received. Our inability or failure to correctly estimate or accrue the estimated liabilities and allowance for appeals or accounts receivable could adversely affect our revenue in current or future periods. |
|
Estimated liability for appeals and estimated allowance for appeals, and allowance for doubtful accounts, as of September 30, 2014 are as follows: |
|
Estimated liability for appeals and estimated allowance for appeals (in thousands): |
|
Balance, December 31, 2012 | | $ | 34,426 | |
Provision | | 41,076 | |
Appeals found in providers’ favor | | (19,711 | ) |
Balance, December 31, 2013 | | 55,791 | * |
Provision | | 14,124 | |
Appeals found in providers’ favor | | (27,673 | ) |
Balance, September 30, 2014 | | $ | 42,242 | * |
|
|
*Includes $7,327 and $13,939 related to estimated allowance for appeals that apply to uncollected accounts receivable as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. |
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts (in thousands): |
|
Balance, December 31, 2012 | | $ | 830 | |
Provision | | 718 | |
Recoveries | | (42 | ) |
Charge-offs | | (590 | ) |
Balance, December 31, 2013 | | 916 | |
Provision | | 500 | |
Recoveries | | (17 | ) |
Charge-offs | | (420 | ) |
Balance, September 30, 2014 | | $ | 979 | |
|
Our financial instruments are categorized into a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three broad levels. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). If the inputs used to measure fair value fall within different levels of the hierarchy, the category level is based on the lowest priority level input that is significant to the fair value measurement of the instrument. In the event the fair value is not readily available or determinable, the financial instrument is carried at cost and referred to as a cost method investment. The evaluation of whether an investment’s fair value is less than cost is determined by using a disclosed fair value estimate, if one is available, otherwise, it is determined by evaluating whether an event or change in circumstances has occurred that may have a significant adverse effect on the fair value of the investment (an impairment indicator). We are not aware of any identified events or change in circumstances that would have a significant adverse effect on the carrying value of our cost method investments. Financial instruments recorded at fair value on our unaudited consolidated balance sheets are categorized as follows: |
|
| · | | Level 1: Observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; | |
| · | | Level 2: Inputs, other than the quoted prices in active markets, that are observable either directly or indirectly; and | |
| · | | Level 3: Unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require the reporting entity to develop its own assumptions. | |
|
The following table summarizes the changes in Level 3 instruments during the nine months ended September 30, 2014: |
|
Acquisition related contingent consideration | | (in thousands) | |
Fair value at December 31, 2013 | | $ | 945 | |
Payments on contingent consideration | | (428 | ) |
Change in fair value of contingent consideration | | 17 | |
Fair value at September 30, 2014 | | $ | 534 | |
|
Goodwill, representing the excess of acquisition costs over the fair value of assets and liabilities of acquired businesses, is subject to a periodic assessment for impairment in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 350—Intangibles, Goodwill and Other. We assess goodwill for impairment on an annual basis as of June 30 of each year or more frequently if an event occurs or changes in circumstances would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. Our assessment of goodwill impairment is at the HMS Holdings Corp. entity level as we operate as a single reporting unit. |
|
We have the option to perform a qualitative assessment to determine if an impairment is more likely than not to have occurred. |
|
If we can support the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is greater than its carrying amount, then we would not need to perform the two-step impairment test for that reporting unit. |
|
If we cannot support such a conclusion, or we do not elect to perform the qualitative assessment, then the first step of the goodwill impairment test is used to identify potential impairment by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. |
|
In the prior year, we performed our impairment testing for goodwill using the two step approach. |
|
In the current period, we performed a qualitative assessment to determine if an impairment is more likely than not to have occurred and there was no impairment of goodwill identified. There are no impairment charges related to goodwill for any of the fiscal periods presented. |
|
The carrying amounts for our cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value due to their short-term nature. |
|
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements |
|
On March 31, 2014, the New York Bank and Corporate Franchise Tax Reform was enacted. Under this new law, banks and general corporations will be subject to a substantially revised Article 9-A franchise tax. Substantive changes to the 9-A franchise tax include, but are not limited to, new economic nexus standards, reduced corporate franchise tax rates for general corporations and qualified manufacturers, revised apportionment provisions, and new rules for when unitary combined reporting is required. As required by ASC 740-10-25-48, the effects of a change in the tax law shall be recognized as of the date of enactment. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material effect on our unaudited consolidated financial statements. |
|
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued an ASU that amends the FASB ASC by creating a new Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The new guidance will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific guidance on revenue recognition throughout the Industry Topics of the Codification. |
|
The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To achieve that core principle, an entity should apply the following steps: |
|
Step 1: Identify the contract(s) with a customer. |
Step 2: Identify the performance obligations in the contract. |
Step 3: Determine the transaction price. |
Step 4: Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract. |
Step 5: Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. |
|
In addition, an entity should disclose sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue, and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. |
|
The amendments in this ASU are effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is not permitted. This amendment is to be either retrospectively adopted to each prior reporting period presented or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying this ASU recognized at the date of initial application. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this guidance to our unaudited consolidated financial statements. |
|
In June 2014, FASB issued ASU 2014-12, Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period (“ASU 2014-12”). ASU 2014-12 requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period is treated as a performance condition. As such, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant date fair value of the award. ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this guidance will not have a material effect on our unaudited consolidated financial statements. |
|