Litigation Settlements	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation Settlements	Legal Matters and Contingencies In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, government investigations, and other disputes, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company records a reserve for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described below, except as otherwise noted, the amount or range of possible losses is not reasonably estimable. There can be no assurance that the settlement, resolution, or other outcome of one or more matters, including the matters set forth below, during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows for that period or on the Company's financial condition. For those matters for which the Company has not recognized a liability, the Company cannot predict the outcome of their impact on the Company as uncertainty remains with regard to whether such matters will proceed to trial, whether settlements will be reached, and the amount and terms of any such settlements. Outcomes may include settlements in significant amounts that are not currently estimable, limitations on the Company's conduct, the imposition of corporate integrity obligations, and/or other civil and criminal penalties. Government Enforcement and Related Litigation Matters The Company is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing, promotion, sale, and dispensing of pharmaceutical products in the United States. Some of these investigations originate through what are known as qui tam complaints of the Federal False Claims Act. The qui tam provisions of the Federal False Claims Act and various state and local civil False Claims Acts permit a private person, known as a "relator" or whistleblower, to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal, state, and local governments. Qui tam complaints are initially filed by the relator under seal (or on a confidential basis) and the filing of the complaint imposes obligations on government authorities to investigate the allegations in the complaint and to determine whether or not to intervene in the action. Qui tam complaints remain sealed until the court in which the case was filed orders otherwise. Under the Federal False Claims Act, the government (or relators who pursue the claims without the participation of the government in the case) may seek to recover up to three times the amount of damages in addition to a civil penalty for each purported false claim submitted to the government for payment. Generally speaking, these cases take several years for the investigation to be completed and, ultimately, to be resolved (either through litigation or settlement) after the complaint is unsealed. In addition, some states have pursued investigations under state false claims statutes or consumer protection laws, either in conjunction with a government investigation or separately. There is often collateral litigation that arises from public disclosures of government investigations, including the filing of class action lawsuits by third party payors or by shareholders alleging violations of the securities laws. The Company has learned that there are filings in one or more federal district courts, including a qui tam complaint filed by one of its former employees, that are under seal and may involve allegations against the Company (and/or subsidiaries or businesses of the Company, including its group purchasing organization for oncologists and its oncology distribution business) relating to its distribution of certain pharmaceutical products to providers. Subpoenas and Ongoing Investigations From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies relating to the Company's business or to the business of a customer, supplier, or other industry participant. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative manner. These responses often require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Most of these matters are resolved without incident; however, such subpoenas or requests can lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and other members of the healthcare industry, as well as to substantial settlements. Since fiscal 2012, the Company and its subsidiary AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group ("ABSG") have been responding to subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY") requesting production of documents and information relating to the pre-filled syringe program of ABSG’s subsidiary Medical Initiatives, Inc., ABSG's oncology distribution center, its group purchasing organization for oncologists, and intercompany transfers of certain oncology products. Medical Initiatives, Inc. voluntarily ceased operations in early 2014. The Company has produced documents and witnesses and has engaged in ongoing dialogue with the USAO-EDNY since 2012. As previously disclosed, in fiscal 2017 ABSG resolved the federal criminal investigation related to the failure of Medical Initiatives, Inc. to duly register with the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The USAO-EDNY has also indicated that it intends to pursue alleged civil claims under the False Claims Act. As previously disclosed, ABSG reached an agreement in principle with the USAO-EDNY during the quarter ended December 31, 2017, which the Company understands will resolve the alleged civil claims in their entirety. The agreement in principle is subject to negotiation of final terms, approval by the parties, execution of definitive documents, obtaining the satisfactory resolution of related issues with certain other interested parties, including the resolution of any potential administrative action by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and approval by the Court. Under the terms of the agreement in principle with the USAO-EDNY, ABSG will pay $625.0 million. In connection with the agreement in principle, the Company accrued a $625.0 million reserve in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. This amount, plus accrued interest, remains unpaid and is included in Accrued Expenses and Other on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2018. During the quarter ended December 31, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary U.S. Bioservices Corporation ("U.S. Bio") settled claims with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") and with various states arising from the previously disclosed matter involving the dispensing of one product and U.S. Bio’s relationship with the manufacturer of that product. In accordance with the settlement agreements, the United States’ complaint against U.S. Bio was dismissed and the participating states agreed not to bring, and to dismiss with prejudice, any state law claims that they had the authority to bring against U.S. Bio. The Company paid the United States $10.7 million in fiscal 2017 and paid the participating states $2.8 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2017, which together constitute the previously-disclosed $13.4 million settlement. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, the Company recognized the $13.4 million settlement in Employee Severance, Litigation, and Other on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations. In January 2017, U.S. Bio received a subpoena for information from the USAO-EDNY relating to U.S. Bio’s activities in connection with billing for products and making returns of potential overpayments to government payers. The Company is engaged in discussions with the USAO-EDNY and has been producing documents in response to the subpoena. In November 2017, the Company’s subsidiary PharMEDium received a grand jury subpoena for documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee ("USAO-WDTN") seeking various documents, including information generally related to the laboratory testing procedures of PharMEDium's products, and more specifically, for PharMEDium products packaged in a certain type of syringe at its Memphis, Tennessee facility. The Company is engaged in discussions with the USAO-WDTN and has produced documents in response to the subpoena. Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as several states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and its subsidiary AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC")), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Additionally, several counties and municipalities have named H.D. Smith, a subsidiary that the Company acquired in January 2018, as a defendant in such lawsuits. Other lawsuits regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications have been filed by: third-party payors and similar entities; hospitals; hospital groups; and individuals, including cases styled as putative class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in federal, state, and other courts, generally allege violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes as well as common law claims, including negligence, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages. After a motion filed by certain plaintiffs and a hearing before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in November 2017, an initial group of cases was consolidated for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Additional cases have been, and will likely continue to be, transferred to the MDL. In April 2018, the United States, through the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), filed a motion to participate (i) in settlement discussions and (ii) as a friend of the Court by providing information to facilitate non-monetary remedies. The DOJ’s motion to participate in settlement discussions was granted on June 19, 2018. On April 11, 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions that are scheduled to commence in March 2019. Dispositive motion practice and fact discovery have commenced in certain bellwether cases. Additionally, the Court has continued to oversee court-ordered settlement discussions with attorneys for the plaintiffs and certain states that it instituted at the beginning of the MDL proceedings. Aside from those parties that have already filed suit, other entities, including additional attorneys general’s offices, counties, and cities in multiple states, have indicated their intent to sue. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the pending lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against any threatened lawsuits. The Company is not in a position to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to these matters. In addition, on September 18, 2017, the Company received a request for documents and information on behalf of attorneys general from a coalition of states who are investigating a number of manufacturers and distributors (including ABDC) regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. The Company is engaged in discussions with the representatives of the attorneys general regarding this request and has been producing responsive documents. The Company has also received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests for information, requesting the production of documents regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications from government agencies in other jurisdictions, including certain states. The Company is engaged in discussions with representatives from these government agencies regarding the requests, and has been producing, or intends to begin producing, responsive documents. Additionally, in fiscal 2012, ABDC received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey ("USAO-NJ") in connection with a grand jury proceeding requesting documents concerning ABDC's program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. ABDC also received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") in connection with the matter. Since fiscal 2012, ABDC has received and responded to a number of subpoenas from both the USAO-NJ and DEA requesting grand jury testimony and additional information related to electronically stored information, documents concerning specific customers' purchases of controlled substances, and DEA audits. In July 2017, the USAO-NJ and DEA served an administrative subpoena requesting documents relating to ABDC’s diversion control programs from 2013 to the present. The Company is responding to the 2017 subpoena and continues to engage in dialogue with the USAO-NJ. In the nine months ended June 30, 2018, the Company received administrative subpoenas from the USAO-EDNY, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan, and the DEA office in Orlando, Florida. Those subpoenas are substantively similar to the subpoena received from the USAO-NJ in 2017. Since fiscal 2013, the Company has received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio and ABDC has received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas in connection with grand jury proceedings requesting documents concerning ABDC's program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. As in the USAO-NJ matter described above, in addition to requesting general information on ABDC's diversion control program, the subpoenas have also requested documents concerning specific customers' purchases of controlled substances. The Company has responded to the subpoenas and requests for information. In May 2018, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. The subpoena requests documents primarily relating to certain opioid products and communications with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoena. Other Contingencies New York State ("NYS") enacted the Opioid Stewardship Act ("OSA"), which went into effect on July 1, 2018. The OSA established an annual $100 million Opioid Stewardship Fund (the "Fund") and requires manufacturers, distributors, and importers licensed in NYS to ratably source the Fund. The ratable share of the assessment for each licensee is based upon opioids sold or distributed to or within NYS. The OSA requires licensees to initially report transaction data for the 2017 calendar year by August 1, 2018, which NYS will use to calculate ratable shares of the assessment. Licensees will be notified of their ratable share of the assessment for calendar 2017 by October 15, 2018. The initial payment to NYS is due on January 1, 2019 for opioids sold or distributed during calendar year 2017, and future assessments, beginning with the 2018 calendar year, will be payable quarterly beginning on April 1, 2019. The OSA expires on June 30, 2024. While the Company has concluded that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, it is unable to reasonably estimate a point estimate or a range of amounts which it may owe under the OSA for the sale or distribution of opioids during the period from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 because the information necessary to determine the Company’s share of the assessment is not yet available, and there is significant uncertainty on the application and interpretation of the OSA to the Company’s pharmaceutical distribution activities within the state of New York. As a result, no amount has been accrued as of June 30, 2018. The Company does not expect the OSA will have a material impact to its results of operations or cash flows; however, if other state or local jurisdictions enact similar legislation, such legislation in the aggregate may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition. Litigation Settlements Antitrust Settlements Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recognized gains of $35.6 million and $35.9 million, respectively, related to these class action lawsuits. The Company recognized no gains during the three months ended June 30, 2017 and recognized gains of $1.4 million during the nine months ended June 30, 2017 related to these class action lawsuits. These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Legal Matters and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, government investigations, and other disputes, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company records a reserve for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described below, except as otherwise noted, the amount or range of possible losses is not reasonably estimable. There can be no assurance that the settlement, resolution, or other outcome of one or more matters, including the matters set forth below, during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows for that period or on the Company's financial condition.

For those matters for which the Company has not recognized a liability, the Company cannot predict the outcome of their impact on the Company as uncertainty remains with regard to whether such matters will proceed to trial, whether settlements will be reached, and the amount and terms of any such settlements. Outcomes may include settlements in significant amounts that are not currently estimable, limitations on the Company's conduct, the imposition of corporate integrity obligations, and/or other civil and criminal penalties.

Government Enforcement and Related Litigation Matters

The Company is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing, promotion, sale, and dispensing of pharmaceutical products in the United States. Some of these investigations originate through what are known as qui tam complaints of the Federal False Claims Act. The qui tam provisions of the Federal False Claims Act and various state and local civil False Claims Acts permit a private person, known as a "relator" or whistleblower, to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal, state, and local governments. Qui tam complaints are initially filed by the relator under seal (or on a confidential basis) and the filing of the complaint imposes obligations on government authorities to investigate the allegations in the complaint and to determine whether or not to intervene in the action. Qui tam complaints remain sealed until the court in which the case was filed orders otherwise.

Under the Federal False Claims Act, the government (or relators who pursue the claims without the participation of the government in the case) may seek to recover up to three times the amount of damages in addition to a civil penalty for each purported false claim submitted to the government for payment. Generally speaking, these cases take several years for the investigation to be completed and, ultimately, to be resolved (either through litigation or settlement) after the complaint is unsealed. In addition, some states have pursued investigations under state false claims statutes or consumer protection laws, either in conjunction with a government investigation or separately. There is often collateral litigation that arises from public disclosures of government investigations, including the filing of class action lawsuits by third party payors or by shareholders alleging violations of the securities laws.

The Company has learned that there are filings in one or more federal district courts, including a qui tam complaint filed by one of its former employees, that are under seal and may involve allegations against the Company (and/or subsidiaries or businesses of the Company, including its group purchasing organization for oncologists and its oncology distribution business) relating to its distribution of certain pharmaceutical products to providers.

Subpoenas and Ongoing Investigations

From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies relating to the Company's business or to the business of a customer, supplier, or other industry participant. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative manner. These responses often require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Most of these matters are resolved without incident; however, such subpoenas or requests can lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and other members of the healthcare industry, as well as to substantial settlements.

Since fiscal 2012, the Company and its subsidiary AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group ("ABSG") have been responding to subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY") requesting production of documents and information relating to the pre-filled syringe program of ABSG’s subsidiary Medical Initiatives, Inc., ABSG's oncology distribution center, its group purchasing organization for oncologists, and intercompany transfers of certain oncology products. Medical Initiatives, Inc. voluntarily ceased operations in early 2014. The Company has produced documents and witnesses and has engaged in ongoing dialogue with the USAO-EDNY since 2012. As previously disclosed, in fiscal 2017 ABSG resolved the federal criminal investigation related to the failure of Medical Initiatives, Inc. to duly register with the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

The USAO-EDNY has also indicated that it intends to pursue alleged civil claims under the False Claims Act. As previously disclosed, ABSG reached an agreement in principle with the USAO-EDNY during the quarter ended December 31, 2017, which the Company understands will resolve the alleged civil claims in their entirety. The agreement in principle is subject to negotiation of final terms, approval by the parties, execution of definitive documents, obtaining the satisfactory resolution of related issues with certain other interested parties, including the resolution of any potential administrative action by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and approval by the Court. Under the terms of the agreement in principle with the USAO-EDNY, ABSG will pay $625.0 million. In connection with the agreement in principle, the Company accrued a $625.0 million reserve in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. This amount, plus accrued interest, remains unpaid and is included in Accrued Expenses and Other on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2018.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary U.S. Bioservices Corporation ("U.S. Bio") settled claims with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") and with various states arising from the previously disclosed matter involving the dispensing of one product and U.S. Bio’s relationship with the manufacturer of that product. In accordance with the settlement agreements, the United States’ complaint against U.S. Bio was dismissed and the participating states agreed not to bring, and to dismiss with prejudice, any state law claims that they had the authority to bring against U.S. Bio. The Company paid the United States $10.7 million in fiscal 2017 and paid the participating states $2.8 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2017, which together constitute the previously-disclosed $13.4 million settlement. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, the Company recognized the $13.4 million settlement in Employee Severance, Litigation, and Other on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In January 2017, U.S. Bio received a subpoena for information from the USAO-EDNY relating to U.S. Bio’s activities in connection with billing for products and making returns of potential overpayments to government payers. The Company is engaged in discussions with the USAO-EDNY and has been producing documents in response to the subpoena.

In November 2017, the Company’s subsidiary PharMEDium received a grand jury subpoena for documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee ("USAO-WDTN") seeking various documents, including information generally related to the laboratory testing procedures of PharMEDium's products, and more specifically, for PharMEDium products packaged in a certain type of syringe at its Memphis, Tennessee facility. The Company is engaged in discussions with the USAO-WDTN and has produced documents in response to the subpoena.

Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations

A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as several states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and its subsidiary AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC")), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Additionally, several counties and municipalities have named H.D. Smith, a subsidiary that the Company acquired in January 2018, as a defendant in such lawsuits. Other lawsuits regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications have been filed by: third-party payors and similar entities; hospitals; hospital groups; and individuals, including cases styled as putative class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in federal, state, and other courts, generally allege violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes as well as common law claims, including negligence, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages.

After a motion filed by certain plaintiffs and a hearing before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in November 2017, an initial group of cases was consolidated for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Additional cases have been, and will likely continue to be, transferred to the MDL. In April 2018, the United States, through the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), filed a motion to participate (i) in settlement discussions and (ii) as a friend of the Court by providing information to facilitate non-monetary remedies. The DOJ’s motion to participate in settlement discussions was granted on June 19, 2018. On April 11, 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions that are scheduled to commence in March 2019. Dispositive motion practice and fact discovery have commenced in certain bellwether cases. Additionally, the Court has continued to oversee court-ordered settlement discussions with attorneys for the plaintiffs and certain states that it instituted at the beginning of the MDL proceedings.

Aside from those parties that have already filed suit, other entities, including additional attorneys general’s offices, counties, and cities in multiple states, have indicated their intent to sue. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the pending lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against any threatened lawsuits. The Company is not in a position to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to these matters.

In addition, on September 18, 2017, the Company received a request for documents and information on behalf of attorneys general from a coalition of states who are investigating a number of manufacturers and distributors (including ABDC) regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. The Company is engaged in discussions with the representatives of the attorneys general regarding this request and has been producing responsive documents. The Company has also received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests for information, requesting the production of documents regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications from government agencies in other jurisdictions, including certain states. The Company is engaged in discussions with representatives from these government agencies regarding the requests, and has been producing, or intends to begin producing, responsive documents.

Additionally, in fiscal 2012, ABDC received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey ("USAO-NJ") in connection with a grand jury proceeding requesting documents concerning ABDC's program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. ABDC also received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") in connection with the matter. Since fiscal 2012, ABDC has received and responded to a number of subpoenas from both the USAO-NJ and DEA requesting grand jury testimony and additional information related to electronically stored information, documents concerning specific customers' purchases of controlled substances, and DEA audits. In July 2017, the USAO-NJ and DEA served an administrative subpoena requesting documents relating to ABDC’s diversion control programs from 2013 to the present. The Company is responding to the 2017 subpoena and continues to engage in dialogue with the USAO-NJ. In the nine months ended June 30, 2018, the Company received administrative subpoenas from the USAO-EDNY, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan, and the DEA office in Orlando, Florida. Those subpoenas are substantively similar to the subpoena received from the USAO-NJ in 2017.

Since fiscal 2013, the Company has received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio and ABDC has received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas in connection with grand jury proceedings requesting documents concerning ABDC's program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. As in the USAO-NJ matter described above, in addition to requesting general information on ABDC's diversion control program, the subpoenas have also requested documents concerning specific customers' purchases of controlled substances. The Company has responded to the subpoenas and requests for information.

In May 2018, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. The subpoena requests documents primarily relating to certain opioid products and communications with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoena.

Other Contingencies

New York State ("NYS") enacted the Opioid Stewardship Act ("OSA"), which went into effect on July 1, 2018. The OSA established an annual $100 million Opioid Stewardship Fund (the "Fund") and requires manufacturers, distributors, and importers licensed in NYS to ratably source the Fund. The ratable share of the assessment for each licensee is based upon opioids sold or distributed to or within NYS. The OSA requires licensees to initially report transaction data for the 2017 calendar year by August 1, 2018, which NYS will use to calculate ratable shares of the assessment. Licensees will be notified of their ratable share of the assessment for calendar 2017 by October 15, 2018. The initial payment to NYS is due on January 1, 2019 for opioids sold or distributed during calendar year 2017, and future assessments, beginning with the 2018 calendar year, will be payable quarterly beginning on April 1, 2019. The OSA expires on June 30, 2024. While the Company has concluded that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, it is unable to reasonably estimate a point estimate or a range of amounts which it may owe under the OSA for the sale or distribution of opioids during the period from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 because the information necessary to determine the Company’s share of the assessment is not yet available, and there is significant uncertainty on the application and interpretation of the OSA to the Company’s pharmaceutical distribution activities within the state of New York. As a result, no amount has been accrued as of June 30, 2018. The Company does not expect the OSA will have a material impact to its results of operations or cash flows; however, if other state or local jurisdictions enact similar legislation, such legislation in the aggregate may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition.