Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
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. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the state of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) 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 (iii) 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. Oral arguments were held in October 2016 and the appeal is currently under consideration by the court. 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 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. 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 federal and state 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. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in late 2014. 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. We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted our motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. One plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then filed an appeal of the court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which is currently pending. In October 2016, the court entered final judgment in the case in our favor. 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. 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. No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In July 2013, 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. 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. At the time, under California law, “insurers” were required to 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. The parties were recently assigned a new judge, but no court dates have been set. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, our vendor for pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing, damages related to operational breaches and seeks various declarations under the pharmacy benefit management agreement, or PBM Agreement, between the parties. Our suit asserts that Express Scripts' pricing exceeds the competitive benchmark pricing required by the PBM Agreement by approximately $13,000.0 over the remaining term of the PBM Agreement, and by approximately $1,800.0 through the post-termination transition period. Further, we assert that Express Scripts’ excessive pricing has caused us to lose existing customers and prevented us from gaining new business. In addition to the amounts associated with competitive benchmark pricing, we are seeking over $158.0 in damages associated with operational breaches incurred, together with a declaratory judgment that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) is required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the PBM Agreement, and that we can terminate the PBM Agreement either due to Express Scripts’ breaches or because we have determined that Express Scripts’ performance with respect to the delegated Medicare Part D functions has been unsatisfactory; and (iv) is required under the PBM Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination. In April 2016, Express Scripts filed an answer to the lawsuit disputing our contractual claims and alleging various defenses and counterclaims. Express Scripts contends that we breached the PBM Agreement by failing to negotiate proposed new pricing terms in good faith and that we breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by disregarding the terms of the transaction. In addition, Express Scripts is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the PBM Agreement; (ii) that it has no obligation to ensure that we receive any specific level of pricing, that we have no contractual right to any change in pricing under the PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith; and (iii) that we do not have the right to terminate the PBM Agreement. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675.0 at the time of the PBM Agreement. We believe that Express Scripts’ defenses and counterclaims are without merit. We filed a motion to dismiss Express Scripts' counterclaims, which is pending. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against any counterclaims; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was previously filed against Express Scripts. A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of Anthem insureds for its own pecuniary interest by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for our NextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of the such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem’s self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx. Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs and interest. We filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem, which is pending. ESI filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, and we intend to oppose the transfer. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. As discussed in Note 3, Business Acquisitions - Pending Acquisition of Cigna Corporation, in July 2016, the DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the District Court seeking to block the Acquisition, which is captioned United States of America, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp. Trial commenced in November 2016 and concluded in January 2017. On January 18, 2017, we provided notice to Cigna that we had elected to extend the termination date under the Merger Agreement from January 31, 2017 until April 30, 2017. On February 8, 2017, the District Court ruled in favor of the DOJ, and following our motion to expedite the appeal, which was granted on February 17, 2017, we promptly appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Appellate Court. On February 14, 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court, seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that its purported termination of the Merger Agreement was lawful, among other claims, which is captioned Cigna Corp. v. Anthem Inc. We believe Cigna’s allegations are without merit. Also on February 14, 2017, we initiated our own litigation against Cigna in the Delaware Court seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement, specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the Merger Agreement and damages, which is captioned Anthem Inc. v. Cigna Corp. On February 15, 2017, the Delaware Court granted our motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order enjoining Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement. The temporary restraining order became effective immediately and will remain in place pending any further order from the Delaware Court. A hearing is expected to be scheduled the week of April 10, 2017. We intend to vigorously defend the Acquisition in this litigation and remain committed to completing the Acquisition as soon as practicable. 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, 2016. 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. 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 continued to implement security enhancements since this incident. 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 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. Federal and state 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. In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market conduct and financial exam. In connection with the resolution of the matter, the NAIC requested we provide, and we agreed, a customized credit protection program, equivalent to a credit freeze, for our members who were under the age of eighteen on January 27, 2015. No fines or penalties were imposed on us. 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 filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three counts to proceed. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing one count with prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific named plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to proceed. In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which we answered in August 2016. Fact discovery was completed in December 2016. There remain two 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. 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. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. 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. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner 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. After failing to develop a viable rehabilitation plan, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner filed a petition to convert the rehabilitation to a liquidation, with the liquidation expected to commence following the coordination of certain scheduling matters. When Penn Treaty is placed in liquidation, we and other insurers will be obligated to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. At December 31, 2016, we estimate our portion of the assessments for the Penn Treaty insolvency will approximate $190.0 to $220.0. In accordance with FASB guidance, the ultimate amount of the assessments will be recognized as an expense in the period in which a court ordered liquidation is entered. Payment of the assessments will be largely recovered through premium billing surcharges and premium tax credits over future years. Contractual Obligations and Commitments Express Scripts, through our PBM Agreement, is the exclusive provider of certain PBM services to our plans, excluding our CareMore subsidiary and certain self-insured members, who have exclusive agreements with different PBM service providers. The initial term of this PBM Agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under the PBM 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 PBM 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 PBM Agreement. In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts seeking to recover damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing, damages related to operational breaches and seeking various declarations under the PBM Agreement between the parties. For additional information regarding this lawsuit, refer to the Litigation section above. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this PBM Agreement at December 31, 2016. 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, 2016 was $168.0 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 an agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2016 was $349.0 through March 31, 2020. 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, 2016, 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. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the state of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) 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 (iii) 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. Oral arguments were held in October 2016 and the appeal is currently under consideration by the court. 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 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. 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 federal and state 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. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in late 2014. 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. We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted our motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. One plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then filed an appeal of the court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which is currently pending. In October 2016, the court entered final judgment in the case in our favor. 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. 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. No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In July 2013, 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. 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. At the time, under California law, “insurers” were required to 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. The parties were recently assigned a new judge, but no court dates have been set. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, our vendor for pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing, damages related to operational breaches and seeks various declarations under the pharmacy benefit management agreement, or PBM Agreement, between the parties. Our suit asserts that Express Scripts' pricing exceeds the competitive benchmark pricing required by the PBM Agreement by approximately $13,000.0 over the remaining term of the PBM Agreement, and by approximately $1,800.0 through the post-termination transition period. Further, we assert that Express Scripts’ excessive pricing has caused us to lose existing customers and prevented us from gaining new business. In addition to the amounts associated with competitive benchmark pricing, we are seeking over $158.0 in damages associated with operational breaches incurred, together with a declaratory judgment that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) is required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the PBM Agreement, and that we can terminate the PBM Agreement either due to Express Scripts’ breaches or because we have determined that Express Scripts’ performance with respect to the delegated Medicare Part D functions has been unsatisfactory; and (iv) is required under the PBM Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination. In April 2016, Express Scripts filed an answer to the lawsuit disputing our contractual claims and alleging various defenses and counterclaims. Express Scripts contends that we breached the PBM Agreement by failing to negotiate proposed new pricing terms in good faith and that we breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by disregarding the terms of the transaction. In addition, Express Scripts is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the PBM Agreement; (ii) that it has no obligation to ensure that we receive any specific level of pricing, that we have no contractual right to any change in pricing under the PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith; and (iii) that we do not have the right to terminate the PBM Agreement. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675.0 at the time of the PBM Agreement. We believe that Express Scripts’ defenses and counterclaims are without merit. We filed a motion to dismiss Express Scripts' counterclaims, which is pending. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against any counterclaims; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was previously filed against Express Scripts. A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of Anthem insureds for its own pecuniary interest by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for our NextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of the such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem’s self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx. Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs and interest. We filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem, which is pending. ESI filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, and we intend to oppose the transfer. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

As discussed in Note 3, Business Acquisitions - Pending Acquisition of Cigna Corporation, in July 2016, the DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the District Court seeking to block the Acquisition, which is captioned United States of America, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp. Trial commenced in November 2016 and concluded in January 2017. On January 18, 2017, we provided notice to Cigna that we had elected to extend the termination date under the Merger Agreement from January 31, 2017 until April 30, 2017. On February 8, 2017, the District Court ruled in favor of the DOJ, and following our motion to expedite the appeal, which was granted on February 17, 2017, we promptly appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Appellate Court. On February 14, 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court, seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that its purported termination of the Merger Agreement was lawful, among other claims, which is captioned Cigna Corp. v. Anthem Inc. We believe Cigna’s allegations are without merit. Also on February 14, 2017, we initiated our own litigation against Cigna in the Delaware Court seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement, specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the Merger Agreement and damages, which is captioned Anthem Inc. v. Cigna Corp. On February 15, 2017, the Delaware Court granted our motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order enjoining Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement. The temporary restraining order became effective immediately and will remain in place pending any further order from the Delaware Court. A hearing is expected to be scheduled the week of April 10, 2017. We intend to vigorously defend the Acquisition in this litigation and remain committed to completing the Acquisition as soon as practicable.

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, 2016. 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.

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 continued to implement security enhancements since this incident. 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 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. Federal and state 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. In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market conduct and financial exam. In connection with the resolution of the matter, the NAIC requested we provide, and we agreed, a customized credit protection program, equivalent to a credit freeze, for our members who were under the age of eighteen on January 27, 2015. No fines or penalties were imposed on us. 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 filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three counts to proceed. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing one count with prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific named plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to proceed. In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which we answered in August 2016. Fact discovery was completed in December 2016. There remain two 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. 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. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

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. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner 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. After failing to develop a viable rehabilitation plan, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner filed a petition to convert the rehabilitation to a liquidation, with the liquidation expected to commence following the coordination of certain scheduling matters. When Penn Treaty is placed in liquidation, we and other insurers will be obligated to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. At December 31, 2016, we estimate our portion of the assessments for the Penn Treaty insolvency will approximate $190.0 to $220.0. In accordance with FASB guidance, the ultimate amount of the assessments will be recognized as an expense in the period in which a court ordered liquidation is entered. Payment of the assessments will be largely recovered through premium billing surcharges and premium tax credits over future years.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

Express Scripts, through our PBM Agreement, is the exclusive provider of certain PBM services to our plans, excluding our CareMore subsidiary and certain self-insured members, who have exclusive agreements with different PBM service providers. The initial term of this PBM Agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under the PBM 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 PBM 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 PBM Agreement. In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts seeking to recover damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing, damages related to operational breaches and seeking various declarations under the PBM Agreement between the parties. For additional information regarding this lawsuit, refer to the Litigation section above. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this PBM Agreement at December 31, 2016.

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, 2016 was $168.0 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 an agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at December 31, 2016 was $349.0 through March 31, 2020. 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, 2016, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.