Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is subject to various claims and legal proceedings covering matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities, including the matters described below. Estimates for resolution of legal and other contingencies are accrued when losses are probable and reasonable estimable in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Qui Tam Lawsuit In June 2016, our wholly-owned subsidiary, CBI, received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services requesting that CBI produce documents relating to entities that received payment from CBI for the collection and processing of blood specimens for testing, including a named unrelated company, healthcare providers and other third party entities. The Office of Inspector General subsequently requested additional documentation in December 2017. CBI provided to the Office of Inspector General the documents requested. On January 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California unsealed a qui tam complaint, filed on April 16, 2016 against CBI and the Company, alleging violations of the Federal and California False Claims Acts and the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act. On January 22, 2020, after a multi-year investigation into CBI’s and the Company’s alleged conduct, the United States declined to intervene. On January 27, 2020, the State of California likewise filed its notice of declination. The Company was not aware of the complaint until after it was unsealed. On May 23, 2020, the court denied CBI and the Company’s motion to dismiss. We have accrued $48.0 million for a potential settlement of this qui tam lawsuit against CBI and the Company, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. If no settlement is reached, we intend to continue to vigorously defend against this case, but we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate resolution of this matter or determine whether, or to what extent, any loss with respect to this matter may exceed the amount that we have accrued. Securities Class Action On September 27, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, against the Company, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, and our Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee (“Defendants”). On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which added our former Executive Vice President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional Defendant. This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations, and acquisitions. The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees. On March 16, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 1, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Stockholder Derivative Actions On August 9, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, our Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, our former Executive Vice President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, and certain of our current and former directors, Lawrence C. Best, Walter Gilbert, John T. Henderson, Heiner Dreismann, Dennis Langer, Lee N. Newcomer, S. Louise Phanstiel, and Colleen F. Reitan (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action, including that the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations. The plaintiff, Donna Hickock, asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the Individual Defendants and seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches, or disgorgement or restitution, from each of the Individual Defendants, plus interest. Plaintiff Hickock also seeks legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. On November 19, 2021, this action was stayed by the Delaware Court of Chancery pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. On September 17, 2021, a second stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court in the District of Delaware against the Individual Defendants, and the Company, as nominal defendant. The action is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action and Hickock stockholder derivative action. The plaintiff, Karen Marcey, asserts that the Individual Defendants violated U.S. securities laws and breached their fiduciary duties, and also asserts unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and insider trading claims against all or some of the Individual Defendants. Plaintiff Marcey seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged violations and restitution from the Individual Defendants, plus interest and, on behalf of herself, legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. On January 4, 2022, this action was stayed by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. On January 18, 2022, a third stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Individual Defendants, and the Company, as nominal defendant. The action is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action and the Hickock and Marcey stockholder derivative actions. The plaintiff, Esther Kogus, asserts that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and also asserts unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiff Kogus seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches and claims, and restitution from the Individual Defendants. On behalf of herself, plaintiff Kogus seeks legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Other Legal Proceedings On July 27, 2020, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, by Heide Abelli and Victor Pricolo. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, breach of contract and associated torts in connection with an alleged error in testing performed by the Company in 2004. The plaintiffs sought damages allegedly sustained by them by reason of the allegations set forth in their complaint, together with interest and costs. As of December 31, 2021, we accrued $14.0 million for a potential settlement of this lawsuit, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021. On January 24, 2022, the Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay $14.0 million to the plaintiffs. The settlement agreement also provides for a full release by the plaintiffs of all claims against the Company and contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility on the part of the Company. On February 3, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California by Ashley Carroll. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company made false statements about the accuracy of its Prequel prenatal screening test. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. As of December 31, 2021, the management of the Company believes any reasonably possible liability that may result from the resolution of any other matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, operating results, or cash flows. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of other matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations or financial condition for a particular period. From time to time, the Company receives recoupment requests from third-party payors for alleged overpayments. The Company disagrees with the contentions of the pending requests or has recorded an estimated reserve for the alleged overpayments.