(9) CERTAIN CONCENTRATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Concentration And Contingency Disclosure [Text Block]	(9) CERTAIN CONCENTRATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES Financial instruments which potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of the common stock of marketable electric utilities. At June 30, 2011 stocks representing 99.27% of the market value of common stocks held by the Company were listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Company maintains its investments in four different brokerage accounts, three at UBS and one at TD Ameritrade. UBS and TD Ameritrade provide supplemental insurance up to the face value of the securities in excess of the SIPC limit of $500,000. Both of these brokerage houses are well known in the industry and management does not believe that these securities bear any risk of loss over and above the basic risk that a security bears through the normal activity of the securities markets. However, at June 30, 2011 the fair market value of securities in excess of the SIPC insured limit is $1,977,670 and the cash on deposit in excess of the insured limit is $4,894,872. For the three months ended June 30, 2011, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 69.89% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.12% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits. For the three months ended June 30, 2010, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 63.25% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.35% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 68.60% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.16% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits. For the six months ended June 30, 2010, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 65.16% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 58.77% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits. Management believes that the loss of any one of these customers would have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated business for a short period of time. All of these four hospitals have purchased their BVA-100 equipment. The Company has not had any situations in which a hospital, after having purchased a blood volume analyzer, discontinued purchasing Volumex kits. This suggests that, when more hospitals purchase equipment, they will continue with ongoing purchase of Volumex kits. The Company continues to seek new customers, so that any one hospital will represent a smaller percentage of overall sales. As disclosed in our previous filings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a significant policy change affecting the reimbursement for all diagnostic radiopharmaceutical products and contrast agents which was effective as of January 1, 2008. As a result of this policy change, diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals such as Daxor’s Volumex are no longer separately reimbursable by Medicare for outpatient services. At this time, it is still unclear if this policy change will also be implemented by private third party health insurance companies. The reimbursement policy for hospital outpatients through December 31, 2007 included payment for both the cost of the procedure to perform a blood volume analysis (BVA) and the radiopharmaceutical (Daxor’s Volumex radiopharmaceutical). CMS’s policy now only includes the reimbursement for the procedure and would require the hospital to absorb the cost of the radiopharmaceutical. There will be an upward adjustment for the procedure code to include some of the costs of the radiopharmaceutical. However, this upward adjustment does not entirely cover the costs associated with the procedure and the radiopharmaceutical. In response to Medicare’s change in its reimbursement policy for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals, Daxor has lobbied CMS both individually and as a member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine’s APC Task Force, which is a select group of representatives from industry and healthcare that represents the more than 16,000 nuclear medicine professionals in the United States. One of the missions of the APC Task Force is to work directly with the CMS in an attempt to amend the current policy limiting the reimbursement of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals for outpatient diagnostic services. There is no guarantee that the APC task force will be successful in their efforts to persuade the CMS to amend their policy of limiting the reimbursement of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals for outpatient diagnostic services. This change in Medicare’s reimbursement policy was still in effect at June 30, 2011. On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.3590).” This legislation was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The goal of this legislation is to make health care more accessible to Americans. At this time, we are unable to quantify how this legislation will affect our operating income. Although it is possible that increased coverage could lead to greater access to our products and services if the reimbursement rate is lower, this would limit the benefit to Daxor and could have a negative effect on our operating results and our business. The Company’s Volumex syringes are filled by an FDA approved radiopharmaceutical manufacturer. This manufacturer is the only one approved by the FDA in the United States to manufacture Volumex for interstate commerce. If this manufacturer were to cease filling the Volumex syringes for Daxor, the Company would have to make alternative arrangements to insure a supply of Volumex. The effect of such a disruption on Daxor’s business could be material. From time to time, the Company is the subject of legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that any proceedings currently pending or threatened will have a material adverse effect on its business or results of operations. In 2005 and 2007, the Company and Dr. Joseph Feldschuh, its President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, received Wells Notices from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting their comments on the SEC Staff’s view that the Company was in violation of Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act in that it was operating as an unregistered investment company. The Company and Dr. Feldschuh responded to those requests when made. In November 2009, the staff of the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC contacted the Company and invited both the Company and Dr. Feldschuh to make a new Wells submission based upon more recent operations and results. The Company and Dr. Feldschuh responded to the staff’s invitation on December 20, 2009. The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for September 30, 2010, Form 10-K for December 31, 2010 and Form 10-Q for March 31, 2011 that the SEC instituted administrative proceedings pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 on September 17, 2010. The New York City staff of the Enforcement Division of the SEC is claiming that Daxor is primarily an investment company and not primarily an operating company. The Company has disclosed in previous public filings that it is dependent upon earnings from its investment portfolio to fund operations and that a single individual, Dr. Joseph Feldschuh, makes all investment decisions. The administrative proceeding took place from March 7, 2011 through March 9, 2011 in New York City. The Company feels strongly that the extensive documentation of its history of operations presented at the administrative proceeding will demonstrate that it is primarily an operating medical instrumentation and biotechnology company and not primarily an investment company On June 9, 2011, The Chief Judge filed a motion requesting an extension of time until September 6, 2011 to issue an initial decision in the administrative proceeding. Daxor filed a consent to the Chief Judge’s motion for an extension and the deadline was extended until September 6, 2011. There is a risk that Daxor will be found to be an investment company as a result of this administrative proceeding. If Daxor is found to be an Investment Company, we may attempt to register with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a Regulated Investment Company (“RIC”). There is no guarantee that the Company would meet the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code for qualification as an RIC. However, one requirement of being an RIC is that Daxor would have to distribute at least 90% of its investment company taxable income and 90% of its net tax-exempt income to its shareholders annually. If Daxor would not meet this requirement, it would be taxed as Regular Corporation and still be liable for Income Tax and Personal Holding Company Tax. The management of the Company believes the additional disclosures that would be necessary if Daxor were to become an RIC would not materially affect investment policies and practices currently in place. The management also believes that the operating segments of the Company would also not be materially affected if Daxor was compelled to become an RIC.

Financial instruments which potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of the common stock of marketable electric utilities. At June 30, 2011 stocks representing 99.27% of the market value of common stocks held by the Company were listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Company maintains its investments in four different brokerage accounts, three at UBS and one at TD Ameritrade. UBS and TD Ameritrade provide supplemental insurance up to the face value of the securities in excess of the SIPC limit of $500,000.

Both of these brokerage houses are well known in the industry and management does not believe that these securities bear any risk of loss over and above the basic risk that a security bears through the normal activity of the securities markets. However, at June 30, 2011 the fair market value of securities in excess of the SIPC insured limit is $1,977,670 and the cash on deposit in excess of the insured limit is $4,894,872.

For the three months ended June 30, 2011, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 69.89% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.12% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits.

For the three months ended June 30, 2010, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 63.25% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.35% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits.

For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 68.60% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 60.16% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, the sales of Blood Volume Kits accounted for 65.16% of the Company’s total consolidated operating revenue. There were four customers (hospitals) that accounted for 58.77% of the Company’s sales of Blood Volume Kits.

Management believes that the loss of any one of these customers would have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated business for a short period of time. All of these four hospitals have purchased their BVA-100 equipment. The Company has not had any situations in which a hospital, after having purchased a blood volume analyzer, discontinued purchasing Volumex kits. This suggests that, when more hospitals purchase equipment, they will continue with ongoing purchase of Volumex kits. The Company continues to seek new customers, so that any one hospital will represent a smaller percentage of overall sales.

As disclosed in our previous filings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a significant policy change affecting the reimbursement for all diagnostic radiopharmaceutical products and contrast agents which was effective as of January 1, 2008. As a result of this policy change, diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals such as Daxor’s Volumex are no longer separately reimbursable by Medicare for outpatient services. At this time, it is still unclear if this policy change will also be implemented by private third party health insurance companies.

The reimbursement policy for hospital outpatients through December 31, 2007 included payment for both the cost of the procedure to perform a blood volume analysis (BVA) and the radiopharmaceutical (Daxor’s Volumex radiopharmaceutical). CMS’s policy now only includes the reimbursement for the procedure and would require the hospital to absorb the cost of the radiopharmaceutical. There will be an upward adjustment for the procedure code to include some of the costs of the radiopharmaceutical. However, this upward adjustment does not entirely cover the costs associated with the procedure and the radiopharmaceutical.

In response to Medicare’s change in its reimbursement policy for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals, Daxor has lobbied CMS both individually and as a member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine’s APC Task Force, which is a select group of representatives from industry and healthcare that represents the more than 16,000 nuclear medicine professionals in the United States. One of the missions of the APC Task Force is to work directly with the CMS in an attempt to amend the current policy limiting the reimbursement of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals for outpatient diagnostic services. There is no guarantee that the APC task force will be successful in their efforts to persuade the CMS to amend their policy of limiting the reimbursement of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals for outpatient diagnostic services. This change in Medicare’s reimbursement policy was still in effect at June 30, 2011.

On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.3590).” This legislation was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The goal of this legislation is to make health care more accessible to Americans. At this time, we are unable to quantify how this legislation will affect our operating income. Although it is possible that increased coverage could lead to greater access to our products and services if the reimbursement rate is lower, this would limit the benefit to Daxor and could have a negative effect on our operating results and our business.

The Company’s Volumex syringes are filled by an FDA approved radiopharmaceutical manufacturer. This manufacturer is the only one approved by the FDA in the United States to manufacture Volumex for interstate commerce. If this manufacturer were to cease filling the Volumex syringes for Daxor, the Company would have to make alternative arrangements to insure a supply of Volumex. The effect of such a disruption on Daxor’s business could be material.

From time to time, the Company is the subject of legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that any proceedings currently pending or threatened will have a material adverse effect on its business or results of operations.

In 2005 and 2007, the Company and Dr. Joseph Feldschuh, its President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, received Wells Notices from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting their comments on the SEC Staff’s view that the Company was in violation of Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act in that it was operating as an unregistered investment company. The Company and Dr. Feldschuh responded to those requests when made.

In November 2009, the staff of the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC contacted the Company and invited both the Company and Dr. Feldschuh to make a new Wells submission based upon more recent operations and results. The Company and Dr. Feldschuh responded to the staff’s invitation on December 20, 2009.

The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for September 30, 2010, Form 10-K for December 31, 2010 and Form 10-Q for March 31, 2011 that the SEC instituted administrative proceedings pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 on September 17, 2010. The New York City staff of the Enforcement Division of the SEC is claiming that Daxor is primarily an investment company and not primarily an operating company.

The Company has disclosed in previous public filings that it is dependent upon earnings from its investment portfolio to fund operations and that a single individual, Dr. Joseph Feldschuh, makes all investment decisions.

The administrative proceeding took place from March 7, 2011 through March 9, 2011 in New York City. The Company feels strongly that the extensive documentation of its history of operations presented at the administrative proceeding will demonstrate that it is primarily an operating medical instrumentation and biotechnology company and not primarily an investment company

On June 9, 2011, The Chief Judge filed a motion requesting an extension of time until September 6, 2011 to issue an initial decision in the administrative proceeding. Daxor filed a consent to the Chief Judge’s motion for an extension and the deadline was extended until September 6, 2011.

There is a risk that Daxor will be found to be an investment company as a result of this administrative proceeding. If Daxor is found to be an Investment Company, we may attempt to register with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a Regulated Investment Company (“RIC”). There is no guarantee that the Company would meet the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code for qualification as an RIC.

However, one requirement of being an RIC is that Daxor would have to distribute at least 90% of its investment company taxable income and 90% of its net tax-exempt income to its shareholders annually. If Daxor would not meet this requirement, it would be taxed as Regular Corporation and still be liable for Income Tax and Personal Holding Company Tax.

The management of the Company believes the additional disclosures that would be necessary if Daxor were to become an RIC would not materially affect investment policies and practices currently in place. The management also believes that the operating segments of the Company would also not be materially affected if Daxor was compelled to become an RIC.