Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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 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, or the Court. 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, rules governing the BlueCard and National Accounts programs 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. 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 and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. We filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017. In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding that the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are barred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion to reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to raise the issue at a later date. In April 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment action, Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., that the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a subset of putative provider class members were released a decade ago by class action settlements in the In re Managed Care Litigation. In June 2017, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss certain of the claims in provider plaintiffs’ latest consolidated complaint. Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claims asserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017. No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. 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, was 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 was 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 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 lawsuits were recently assigned to a new judge and an initial status conference occurred in June 2017. 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. In March 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss Express Scripts’ counterclaims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (ii) unjust enrichment with prejudice. 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 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 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. In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem. In response, in March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint adding two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an additional purported class of self-insured accounts. In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against Anthem. In January 2017, Express Scripts filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, which we opposed. Following a hearing in March 2017, Express Scripts' motion to transfer was denied. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In July 2015, we and Cigna announced that we entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we would acquire all outstanding shares of Cigna. In July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or District Court, seeking to block the Acquisition. In February 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or Delaware Court, seeking damages, including the $1,850.0 termination fee pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, 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. Also in February 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. In April 2017, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the ruling of the District Court, which blocked the Acquisition. In May 2017, after the Delaware Court denied our motion to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement, we delivered to Cigna a notice terminating the Merger Agreement. The litigation in Delaware continues. We believe Cigna’s allegations are without merit and we intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against Cigna's allegations; however, the ultimate outcome of our litigation with Cigna cannot be presently determined. In December 2016, the DOJ issued a civil investigative demand to Anthem, Inc. to discover information about our chart review and risk adjustment programs under Parts C and D of the Medicare Program. We understand the DOJ is investigating the programs of other Medicare Advantage health plans, along with providers and vendors. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of our 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 $0.0 to approximately $250.0 at June 30, 2017. 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 have provided 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 to provide, 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, or the Panel, 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, or the U.S. District Court. The U.S. District Court entered its case management order in September 2015. We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that were 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. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and trial plan in March 2017. We filed our opposition to class certification, motions to strike the testimony of three of the plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in April 2017. Prior to those motions being heard, the parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims for a total settlement payment of $115.0 and certain non-monetary relief. In June 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and a motion to continue all case deadlines. In July 2017, the court granted the motion to continue all case deadlines. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 2017. Three state court cases related to the cyber attack are presently proceeding outside of this Multidistrict Litigation. There remain open regulatory investigations into the incident that are not directly impacted by the Multidistrict Litigation settlement. We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature and will pursue coverage for all applicable losses; however, the ultimate outcome of our pursuit of insurance coverage cannot be presently determined. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining state court cases and regulatory actions related to the cyber attack; 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 March 2017, long term care insurance writers Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary, American Network Insurance Company (collectively Penn Treaty), were ordered to be liquidated by the Pennsylvania state court, which had jurisdiction over the Penn Treaty rehabilitation proceeding. We and other insurers will be obligated to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. We estimated our portion of these net assessments for the Penn Treaty insolvency to approximate $253.8 and recorded the estimate as a general and administrative expense during the three months ended March 31, 2017. 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 June 30, 2017. 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 June 30, 2017, 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 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, or the Court. 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, rules governing the BlueCard and National Accounts programs 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. 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 and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. We filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017. In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding that the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are barred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion to reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to raise the issue at a later date. In April 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment action, Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., that the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a subset of putative provider class members were released a decade ago by class action settlements in the In re Managed Care Litigation. In June 2017, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss certain of the claims in provider plaintiffs’ latest consolidated complaint. Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claims asserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017. No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. 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, was 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 was 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 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 lawsuits were recently assigned to a new judge and an initial status conference occurred in June 2017. 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. In March 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss Express Scripts’ counterclaims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (ii) unjust enrichment with prejudice. 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 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 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. In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem. In response, in March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint adding two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an additional purported class of self-insured accounts. In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against Anthem. In January 2017, Express Scripts filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, which we opposed. Following a hearing in March 2017, Express Scripts' motion to transfer was denied. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In July 2015, we and Cigna announced that we entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we would acquire all outstanding shares of Cigna. In July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or District Court, seeking to block the Acquisition. In February 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or Delaware Court, seeking damages, including the $1,850.0 termination fee pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, 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. Also in February 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. In April 2017, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the ruling of the District Court, which blocked the Acquisition. In May 2017, after the Delaware Court denied our motion to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Merger Agreement, we delivered to Cigna a notice terminating the Merger Agreement. The litigation in Delaware continues. We believe Cigna’s allegations are without merit and we intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against Cigna's allegations; however, the ultimate outcome of our litigation with Cigna cannot be presently determined.

In December 2016, the DOJ issued a civil investigative demand to Anthem, Inc. to discover information about our chart review and risk adjustment programs under Parts C and D of the Medicare Program. We understand the DOJ is investigating the programs of other Medicare Advantage health plans, along with providers and vendors. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation.

Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of our 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 $0.0 to approximately $250.0 at June 30, 2017. 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 have provided 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 to provide, 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, or the Panel, 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, or the U.S. District Court. The U.S. District Court entered its case management order in September 2015. We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that were 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. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and trial plan in March 2017. We filed our opposition to class certification, motions to strike the testimony of three of the plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in April 2017. Prior to those motions being heard, the parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims for a total settlement payment of $115.0 and certain non-monetary relief. In June 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and a motion to continue all case deadlines. In July 2017, the court granted the motion to continue all case deadlines. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 2017. Three state court cases related to the cyber attack are presently proceeding outside of this Multidistrict Litigation. There remain open regulatory investigations into the incident that are not directly impacted by the Multidistrict Litigation settlement.

We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature and will pursue coverage for all applicable losses; however, the ultimate outcome of our pursuit of insurance coverage cannot be presently determined. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining state court cases and regulatory actions related to the cyber attack; 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 March 2017, long term care insurance writers Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary, American Network Insurance Company (collectively Penn Treaty), were ordered to be liquidated by the Pennsylvania state court, which had jurisdiction over the Penn Treaty rehabilitation proceeding. We and other insurers will be obligated to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. We estimated our portion of these net assessments for the Penn Treaty insolvency to approximate $253.8 and recorded the estimate as a general and administrative expense during the three months ended March 31, 2017. 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 June 30, 2017.

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 June 30, 2017, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.