Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary course of business, we are defendants in, or parties to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings. To the extent a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the following cases have specified in their complaint or in other court filings the amount of damages being sought, we have noted those alleged damages in the descriptions below. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter and believe we have meritorious defenses. We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance’s 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part in July 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims in January 2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. In May 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in December 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment in January 2013. In August 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment. In March 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption that Anthem Insurance’s ESM determination was correct; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual obligation. In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court’s decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held on the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice. Motions for summary judgment are due in early 2016. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court’s sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court’s enforcement of the injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs’ RICO and antitrust claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition in February 2015. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Our California affiliate Blue Cross of California doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, or BCC, has been named as a defendant, along with an unaffiliated entity, in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned as Michael D. Myers v. State Board of Equalization, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS143436, Second Appellate District Court Case No. B255455. This action is brought under a California statute that permits an individual taxpayer to sue a governmental agency when the taxpayer believes the agency has failed to enforce governing law. Plaintiff contends that BCC, a licensed Health Care Service Plan, or HCSP, is an “insurer” for purposes of taxation despite acknowledging it is not an “insurer” under regulatory law. Under California law, “insurers” must pay a gross premiums tax, or GPT, calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed HCSP, BCC has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax, or CFT, the tax paid by California businesses generally. Plaintiff contends that BCC must pay the GPT rather than the CFT. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate directing the taxing agencies to collect the GPT, and seeks an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties, for a period dating to eight years prior to the July 2013 filing of the complaint. In February 2014, the Superior Court sustained BCC’s demurrer to the complaint, without leave to amend, ruling that BCC is not an “insurer” for purposes of taxation. Plaintiff appealed. In September 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s ruling, and remanded. The Court of Appeal held that a HCSP could be an insurer for purposes of taxation if it wrote predominantly “indemnity” products. In October 2015, BCC filed a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal which was denied. In November 2015, BCC filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court which was denied in December 2015. This lawsuit is being coordinated with similar lawsuits filed against other entities. All are set for an initial status conference in April 2016. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and we can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, we accrue the estimated loss by a charge to income. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss. With respect to many of the proceedings to which we are a party, we cannot provide an estimate of the possible losses, or the range of possible losses in excess of the amount, if any, accrued, for various reasons, including but not limited to some or all of the following: (i) there are novel or unsettled legal issues presented, (ii) the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or decertified or the ultimate size and scope of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) in many cases, the plaintiffs have not specified damages in their complaint or in court filings. For those legal proceedings where a loss is probable, or reasonably possible, and for which it is possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of losses, we currently believe that the range of possible losses, in excess of established reserves, for all of those proceedings is from $0 to approximately $250.0 at December 31, 2015. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information taking into account our best estimate of such losses for which such an estimate can be made. Cyber Attack Incident In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained. We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident and are supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We will recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred. Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of current or former members, current or former employees, other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. District Court entered its Case Management Order in September 2015. We have filed a Motion to Dismiss several of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. There remain a few state court cases that are presently proceeding outside of the Multidistrict Litigation. We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. The coverage has been sufficient to cover the majority of claims and liabilities incurred to date. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. Other Contingencies From time to time, we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, many of which involve claims for coverage encountered in the ordinary course of business. We, like HMOs and health insurers generally, exclude certain health care and other services from coverage under our HMO, PPO and other plans. We are, in the ordinary course of business, subject to the claims of our enrollees arising out of decisions to restrict or deny reimbursement for uncovered services. The loss of even one such claim, if it results in a significant punitive damage award, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the risk of potential liability under punitive damage theories may increase significantly the difficulty of obtaining reasonable settlements of coverage claims. In addition to the lawsuits described above, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business, and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings. These investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings include routine and special inquiries by state insurance departments, state attorneys general, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these actions, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations, or NOLHGA, is a voluntary organization consisting of the state life and health insurance guaranty associations located throughout the U.S. Such associations, working together with NOLHGA, provide a safety net for their state’s policyholders, ensuring that they continue to receive coverage, subject to state maximum limits, even if their insurer is declared insolvent. We are aware that the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, or Insurance Commissioner, has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company, or collectively Penn Treaty, in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency. The state court denied the Insurance Commissioner’s petition for the liquidation of Penn Treaty and ordered the Insurance Commissioner to file an updated plan of rehabilitation. The state court commenced a hearing in connection with the updated plan in July 2015, which has been adjourned. The state court has begun scheduling settlement conferences to resolve outstanding issues with the plan. In the event rehabilitation of Penn Treaty is unsuccessful and Penn Treaty is declared insolvent and placed in liquidation, we and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. Given the uncertainty around whether Penn Treaty will ultimately be declared insolvent and, if so, the amount of the insolvency, the amount and timing of any associated future guaranty fund assessments, and the availability and amount of any potential premium tax and other offsets, we currently cannot estimate our net exposure, if any, to this potential insolvency. We will continue to monitor the situation and may record a liability and expense in future reporting periods, which could be material to our cash flows and results of operations. Contractual Obligations and Commitments We are a party to an agreement with Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, whereby Express Scripts is the exclusive provider of certain pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services to our plans, excluding our CareMore and Simply Healthcare subsidiaries and certain self-insured members, which have exclusive agreements with different PBM service providers. The initial term of this agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, the Express Scripts PBM services include, but are not limited to, pharmacy network management, mail order and specialty drug fulfillment, claims processing, rebate management and specialty pharmaceutical management services. Accordingly, the agreement contains certain financial and operational requirements obligating both Express Scripts and us. Express Scripts’ primary obligations relate to the performance of such services in a compliant manner and meeting certain pricing guarantees and performance standards. Our primary responsibilities relate to formulary management, product and benefit design, provision of data, payment for services, certain minimum volume requirements and oversight. The failure by either party to meet the respective requirements could potentially serve as a basis for financial penalties or early termination of the contract. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this contract at December 31, 2015. During November 2015, we entered into an amended and restated agreement with Accenture LLP to provide business process outsourcing services. This new agreement supersedes certain prior agreements, converts certain services to transaction based pricing and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $224.0 through December 31, 2019. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. During December 2014, we entered into a new agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. This new agreement supersedes certain prior agreements and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $378.4 through March 31, 2020. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. On March 31, 2009, we entered into an agreement with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. to provide certain print and mailroom services that were previously performed in-house. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $15.7 through March 31, 2016. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. Vulnerability from Concentrations Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, investment securities, premium receivables and instruments held through hedging activities. All investment securities are managed by professional investment managers within policies authorized by our Board of Directors. Such policies limit the amounts that may be invested in any one issuer and prescribe certain investee company criteria. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to premium receivables are limited due to the large number of employer groups that constitute our customer base in the states in which we conduct business. As of December 31, 2015, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, we are defendants in, or parties to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings. To the extent a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the following cases have specified in their complaint or in other court filings the amount of damages being sought, we have noted those alleged damages in the descriptions below. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter and believe we have meritorious defenses.

We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance’s 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part in July 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims in January 2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. In May 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in December 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment in January 2013. In August 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment. In March 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption that Anthem Insurance’s ESM determination was correct; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual obligation. In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court’s decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held on the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice. Motions for summary judgment are due in early 2016. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court’s sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court’s enforcement of the injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs’ RICO and antitrust claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition in February 2015. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Our California affiliate Blue Cross of California doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, or BCC, has been named as a defendant, along with an unaffiliated entity, in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned as Michael D. Myers v. State Board of Equalization, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS143436, Second Appellate District Court Case No. B255455. This action is brought under a California statute that permits an individual taxpayer to sue a governmental agency when the taxpayer believes the agency has failed to enforce governing law. Plaintiff contends that BCC, a licensed Health Care Service Plan, or HCSP, is an “insurer” for purposes of taxation despite acknowledging it is not an “insurer” under regulatory law. Under California law, “insurers” must pay a gross premiums tax, or GPT, calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed HCSP, BCC has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax, or CFT, the tax paid by California businesses generally. Plaintiff contends that BCC must pay the GPT rather than the CFT. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate directing the taxing agencies to collect the GPT, and seeks an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties, for a period dating to eight years prior to the July 2013 filing of the complaint. In February 2014, the Superior Court sustained BCC’s demurrer to the complaint, without leave to amend, ruling that BCC is not an “insurer” for purposes of taxation. Plaintiff appealed. In September 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s ruling, and remanded. The Court of Appeal held that a HCSP could be an insurer for purposes of taxation if it wrote predominantly “indemnity” products. In October 2015, BCC filed a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal which was denied. In November 2015, BCC filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court which was denied in December 2015. This lawsuit is being coordinated with similar lawsuits filed against other entities. All are set for an initial status conference in April 2016. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and we can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, we accrue the estimated loss by a charge to income. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss.

With respect to many of the proceedings to which we are a party, we cannot provide an estimate of the possible losses, or the range of possible losses in excess of the amount, if any, accrued, for various reasons, including but not limited to some or all of the following: (i) there are novel or unsettled legal issues presented, (ii) the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or decertified or the ultimate size and scope of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) in many cases, the plaintiffs have not specified damages in their complaint or in court filings. For those legal proceedings where a loss is probable, or reasonably possible, and for which it is possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of losses, we currently believe that the range of possible losses, in excess of established reserves, for all of those proceedings is from $0 to approximately $250.0 at December 31, 2015. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information taking into account our best estimate of such losses for which such an estimate can be made.

Cyber Attack Incident

In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained.

We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident and are supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We will recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred.

Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of current or former members, current or former employees, other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. District Court entered its Case Management Order in September 2015. We have filed a Motion to Dismiss several of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. There remain a few state court cases that are presently proceeding outside of the Multidistrict Litigation.

We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. The coverage has been sufficient to cover the majority of claims and liabilities incurred to date. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved.

Other Contingencies

From time to time, we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, many of which involve claims for coverage encountered in the ordinary course of business. We, like HMOs and health insurers generally, exclude certain health care and other services from coverage under our HMO, PPO and other plans. We are, in the ordinary course of business, subject to the claims of our enrollees arising out of decisions to restrict or deny reimbursement for uncovered services. The loss of even one such claim, if it results in a significant punitive damage award, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the risk of potential liability under punitive damage theories may increase significantly the difficulty of obtaining reasonable settlements of coverage claims.

In addition to the lawsuits described above, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business, and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings. These investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings include routine and special inquiries by state insurance departments, state attorneys general, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these actions, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations, or NOLHGA, is a voluntary organization consisting of the state life and health insurance guaranty associations located throughout the U.S. Such associations, working together with NOLHGA, provide a safety net for their state’s policyholders, ensuring that they continue to receive coverage, subject to state maximum limits, even if their insurer is declared insolvent. We are aware that the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, or Insurance Commissioner, has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company, or collectively Penn Treaty, in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency. The state court denied the Insurance Commissioner’s petition for the liquidation of Penn Treaty and ordered the Insurance Commissioner to file an updated plan of rehabilitation. The state court commenced a hearing in connection with the updated plan in July 2015, which has been adjourned. The state court has begun scheduling settlement conferences to resolve outstanding issues with the plan. In the event rehabilitation of Penn Treaty is unsuccessful and Penn Treaty is declared insolvent and placed in liquidation, we and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. Given the uncertainty around whether Penn Treaty will ultimately be declared insolvent and, if so, the amount of the insolvency, the amount and timing of any associated future guaranty fund assessments, and the availability and amount of any potential premium tax and other offsets, we currently cannot estimate our net exposure, if any, to this potential insolvency. We will continue to monitor the situation and may record a liability and expense in future reporting periods, which could be material to our cash flows and results of operations.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

We are a party to an agreement with Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, whereby Express Scripts is the exclusive provider of certain pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services to our plans, excluding our CareMore and Simply Healthcare subsidiaries and certain self-insured members, which have exclusive agreements with different PBM service providers. The initial term of this agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, the Express Scripts PBM services include, but are not limited to, pharmacy network management, mail order and specialty drug fulfillment, claims processing, rebate management and specialty pharmaceutical management services. Accordingly, the agreement contains certain financial and operational requirements obligating both Express Scripts and us. Express Scripts’ primary obligations relate to the performance of such services in a compliant manner and meeting certain pricing guarantees and performance standards. Our primary responsibilities relate to formulary management, product and benefit design, provision of data, payment for services, certain minimum volume requirements and oversight. The failure by either party to meet the respective requirements could potentially serve as a basis for financial penalties or early termination of the contract. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this contract at December 31, 2015.

During November 2015, we entered into an amended and restated agreement with Accenture LLP to provide business process outsourcing services. This new agreement supersedes certain prior agreements, converts certain services to transaction based pricing and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $224.0 through December 31, 2019. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

During December 2014, we entered into a new agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. This new agreement supersedes certain prior agreements and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $378.4 through March 31, 2020. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

On March 31, 2009, we entered into an agreement with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. to provide certain print and mailroom services that were previously performed in-house. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2015 was $15.7 through March 31, 2016. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

Vulnerability from Concentrations

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, investment securities, premium receivables and instruments held through hedging activities. All investment securities are managed by professional investment managers within policies authorized by our Board of Directors. Such policies limit the amounts that may be invested in any one issuer and prescribe certain investee company criteria. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to premium receivables are limited due to the large number of employer groups that constitute our customer base in the states in which we conduct business. As of December 31, 2015, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.