Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies Professional and General Liability A portion of the Company’s professional liability risks are insured through a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary providing coverage for up to $5.0 million per claim and $10.0 million for certain other claims through August 31, 2023, and $7.0 million and $10.0 million for certain other claims thereafter. The Company has obtained reinsurance coverage from a third party to cover claims in excess of those retention limits. The reinsurance policy has a coverage limit of $75.0 million or $70.0 million in the aggregate for certain other claims through August 31, 2023, and $78.0 million or $75.0 million in the aggregate for certain other claims thereafter. The Company’s reinsurance receivables are recognized consistent with the related liabilities and include known claims and any incurred but not reported claims that are covered by current insurance policies in place. Legal Proceedings The Company is, from time to time, subject to various claims, lawsuits, governmental investigations and regulatory actions, including claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, overpayments, breach of contract, securities law violations, tort and employment related claims. In these actions, plaintiffs request a variety of damages, including, in some instances, punitive and other types of damages that may not be covered by insurance. In addition, healthcare companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Certain of the Company’s individual facilities have received, and from time to time, the Company's facilities may receive, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, audit requests and other inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. These investigations can result in repayment obligations and violations of the federal False Claims Act can result in substantial monetary penalties and fines, the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement and exclusion from participation in governmental health programs. In addition, the False Claims Act permits private parties to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Desert Hills From October 2018 to August 2020, the Company, its subsidiary Youth and Family Centered Services of New Mexico (“Desert Hills”), and FamilyWorks, a not-for-profit treatment foster care program to which Desert Hills provided management services, including day-to-day administration of the program, via a management services agreement, were among a number of defendants named in five lawsuits (collectively, the “Desert Hills Litigation”) filed in New Mexico State District Court (the “District Court”). These lawsuits each related to abuse that occurred in foster homes where FamilyWorks had placed children. In 2021, the Company finalized out-of-court settlements for two of the five cases for amounts covered under the Company’s professional liability insurance. On July 7, 2023, in connection with one of the lawsuits in the Desert Hills Litigation styled Inman v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00136 (the “Inman Litigation”), a jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $80.0 million and punitive damages of $405.0 million. This award far exceeded the Company’s reasonable expectation based on the previously resolved complaints and far exceeded any precedent for comparable cases. The parties made substantial progress during mediation proceedings on October 6, 2023 and October 7, 2023 in an effort to reach settlement agreements to resolve the Inman Litigation as well as the two other related cases – Rael v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00135 and Endicott-Quinones v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00137 (together with the Inman Litigation, the “Cases”). On October 11, 2023, the Company and Desert Hills, in connection with the Inman Litigation, filed an unopposed motion to stay the District Court’s requirement of posting a bond and execution of its judgment on the Company, Desert Hills or Family Works, in order to allow for settlement discussions and efforts to finalize a written agreement regarding the Cases to continue unimpeded. The motion was granted by the District Court on October 16, 2023. On October 30, 2023, the Company and Desert Hills entered into settlement agreements in connection with each of the Cases. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company will pay an aggregate amount of $400.0 million in exchange for the release and discharge of all claims arising from, relating to, concerning or with respect to all harm, injuries or damages asserted or that may be asserted in the future. The settlement agreements fully resolve each of the Cases and include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by either the Company or Desert Hills. The settlement agreements are subject to approval by the District Court. The Company currently intends to pay the funds associated with the settlement agreements from a combination of insurance, cash on hand and existing credit lines. The settlement amounts must be paid within 30 days from the District Court’s approval of the settlement agreements. In respect of the Cases, the Company has recorded a legal settlements liability of $394.2 million, which is inclusive of associated legal fees and net of reinsurance receivables, within other accrued liabilities and other current assets, respectively, on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2023. Securities Litigation On April 1, 2019, a consolidated complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00988, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased securities of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages. Derivative Actions On February 21, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Davydov v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00167, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a second related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Beard v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0441, which is pending the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider selling. On June 11, 2019, the Davydov and Beard actions were consolidated. On February 22, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case. On October 23, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a third related derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Pfenning v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2020-0915-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty. On February 17, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case. On February 24, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a fourth derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Solak v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2021-0163-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and insider selling. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the cases are in their early stages. Government Investigation In the fall of 2017, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued subpoenas to three of the Company’s facilities requesting certain documents from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida issued a civil investigative demand to one of the Company’s facilities in December 2017 requesting certain documents from November 2012 to the date of the demand. In April 2019, the OIG issued subpoenas relating to six additional facilities requesting certain documents and information from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The government’s investigation of each of these facilities is focused on claims not eligible for payment because of alleged violations of certain regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, medical necessity, admission eligibility, discharge decisions, length of stay and patient care issues. The Company is cooperating with the government’s investigation but is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with these investigations.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

12.

Commitments and Contingencies

Professional and General Liability

A portion of the Company’s professional liability risks are insured through a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary providing coverage for up to $5.0 million per claim and $10.0 million for certain other claims through August 31, 2023, and $7.0 million and $10.0 million for certain other claims thereafter. The Company has obtained reinsurance coverage from a third party to cover claims in excess of those retention limits. The reinsurance policy has a coverage limit of $75.0 million or $70.0 million in the aggregate for certain other claims through August 31, 2023, and $78.0 million or $75.0 million in the aggregate for certain other claims thereafter. The Company’s reinsurance receivables are recognized consistent with the related liabilities and include known claims and any incurred but not reported claims that are covered by current insurance policies in place.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is, from time to time, subject to various claims, lawsuits, governmental investigations and regulatory actions, including claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, overpayments, breach of contract, securities law violations, tort and employment related claims. In these actions, plaintiffs request a variety of damages, including, in some instances, punitive and other types of damages that may not be covered by insurance. In addition, healthcare companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Certain of the Company’s individual facilities have received, and from time to time, the Company's facilities may receive, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, audit requests and other inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. These investigations can result in repayment obligations and violations of the federal False Claims Act can result in substantial monetary penalties and fines, the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement and exclusion from participation in governmental health programs. In addition, the False Claims Act permits private parties to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions.

Desert Hills

From October 2018 to August 2020, the Company, its subsidiary Youth and Family Centered Services of New Mexico (“Desert Hills”), and FamilyWorks, a not-for-profit treatment foster care program to which Desert Hills provided management services, including day-to-day administration of the program, via a management services agreement, were among a number of defendants named in five lawsuits (collectively, the “Desert Hills Litigation”) filed in New Mexico State District Court (the “District Court”). These lawsuits each related to abuse that occurred in foster homes where FamilyWorks had placed children. In 2021, the Company finalized out-of-court settlements for two of the five cases for amounts covered under the Company’s professional liability insurance.

On July 7, 2023, in connection with one of the lawsuits in the Desert Hills Litigation styled Inman v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00136 (the “Inman Litigation”), a jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $80.0 million and punitive damages of $405.0 million. This award far exceeded the Company’s reasonable expectation based on the previously resolved complaints and far exceeded any precedent for comparable cases. The parties made substantial progress during mediation proceedings on October 6, 2023 and October 7, 2023 in an effort to reach settlement agreements to resolve the Inman Litigation as well as the two other related cases – Rael v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00135 and Endicott-Quinones v. Garcia, et al, Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00137 (together with the Inman Litigation, the “Cases”). On October 11, 2023, the Company and Desert Hills, in connection with the Inman Litigation, filed an unopposed motion to stay the District Court’s requirement of posting a bond and execution of its judgment on the Company, Desert Hills or Family Works, in order to allow for settlement discussions and efforts to finalize a written agreement regarding the Cases to continue unimpeded. The motion was granted by the District Court on October 16, 2023.

On October 30, 2023, the Company and Desert Hills entered into settlement agreements in connection with each of the Cases. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company will pay an aggregate amount of $400.0 million in exchange for the release and discharge of all claims arising from, relating to, concerning or with respect to all harm, injuries or damages asserted or that may be asserted in the future. The settlement agreements fully resolve each of the Cases and include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by either the Company or Desert Hills.

The settlement agreements are subject to approval by the District Court. The Company currently intends to pay the funds associated with the settlement agreements from a combination of insurance, cash on hand and existing credit lines. The settlement amounts must be paid within 30 days from the District Court’s approval of the settlement agreements. In respect of the Cases, the Company has recorded a legal settlements liability of $394.2 million, which is inclusive of associated legal fees and net of reinsurance receivables, within other accrued liabilities and other current assets, respectively, on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2023.

Securities Litigation

On April 1, 2019, a consolidated complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00988, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased securities of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages.

Derivative Actions

On February 21, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Davydov v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00167, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a second related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Beard v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0441, which is pending the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider selling. On June 11, 2019, the Davydov and Beard actions were consolidated. On February 22, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case. On October 23, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a third related derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Pfenning v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2020-0915-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty. On February 17, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case. On February 24, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a fourth derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Solak v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2021-0163-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and insider

selling. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the cases are in their early stages.

Government Investigation

In the fall of 2017, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued subpoenas to three of the Company’s facilities requesting certain documents from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida issued a civil investigative demand to one of the Company’s facilities in December 2017 requesting certain documents from November 2012 to the date of the demand. In April 2019, the OIG issued subpoenas relating to six additional facilities requesting certain documents and information from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The government’s investigation of each of these facilities is focused on claims not eligible for payment because of alleged violations of certain regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, medical necessity, admission eligibility, discharge decisions, length of stay and patient care issues. The Company is cooperating with the government’s investigation but is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with these investigations.