XML 29 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.2
Commitments And Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments And Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings
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.
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 is, in the aggregate, from $0 to approximately $250 at September 30, 2021. 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.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation
We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees (the “Blue plans”) across the country. Cases filed in twenty-eight states were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Court”). Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that 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 (“Sherman Act”) and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.

In April 2018, the Court issued an order on the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment determining that the defendants’ aggregation of geographic market allocations and output restrictions are to be analyzed under a per se standard of review, and the BlueCard® program and other alleged Section 1 Sherman Act violations are to be analyzed under the rule of reason standard of review. The Court also found that there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks. In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which defendants opposed.
The BCBSA and Blue plans have entered into a settlement agreement and release (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”) with the subscriber plaintiffs. If approved by the Court, the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will require the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment, our portion of which is estimated to be $594, and will contain certain non-monetary terms including (i) eliminating the “national best efforts” rule in the BCBSA license agreements (which rule limits the percentage of non-Blue revenue permitted for each Blue plan) and (ii) allowing for some large national employers with self-funded benefit plans to request a bid for insurance coverage from a second Blue plan in addition to their local Blue plan. As of September 30, 2021, the liability balance accrued for our estimated remaining payment obligation was $507, net of payments made.
In November 2020, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, following which members of the subscriber class were provided notice of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to opt out of the class. All terms of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement are subject to final approval by the Court. The deadlines for objections to the settlement, as well as the deadline for those who wish to opt out from the settlement, was July 28, 2021 and a small number of subscribers submitted valid opt outs by the deadline. Claims for settlement payments by members of the subscriber class must be filed by November 5, 2021. Final approval briefs in support of the subscriber settlement were filed on September 3, 2021. A final approval hearing is scheduled for October 21, 2021. If the Court grants
approval of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, and after all appellate rights have expired or have been exhausted in a manner that affirms the Court’s final order and judgment, the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will become effective.
In October 2020, after the Court lifted the stay as to the provider litigation, provider plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. In March 2021, the Court issued an order terminating the pending motion for class certification until the Court determines the standard of review applicable to providers’ claims. In May 2021, the defendants and provider plaintiffs filed renewed standard of review motions which are now fully briefed. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification, which are now fully briefed. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.
Blue Cross of California Taxation Litigation
In July 2013, our California affiliate Blue Cross of California (doing business as Anthem Blue Cross) (“BCC”) was named as a defendant in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the “Superior Court”) captioned 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, 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 (“GPT”) calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed Health Care Service Plan, BCC has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax (“CFT”), the tax paid by California businesses generally. Plaintiff contends that BCC must pay the GPT rather than the CFT, and seeks a writ of mandate directing the taxing agencies to collect the GPT and an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties for the eight-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.
Because the GPT is constitutionally imposed in lieu of certain other taxes, BCC has filed protective tax refund claims with the City of Los Angeles, the California Department of Health Care Services and the Franchise Tax Board to protect its rights to recover certain taxes previously paid should BCC eventually be determined to be subject to the GPT for the tax periods at issue in the litigation.
In March 2018, the Superior Court denied BCC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and similar motions brought by other entities. BCC filed a motion for summary judgment with the Superior Court, which was heard in October 2020. In December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Plaintiff has appealed the order granting summary judgment. We estimate that the briefing on the appeal will be complete by the end of 2021 and that oral arguments will be scheduled sometime in 2022. We intend to vigorously defend the appeal of this lawsuit.
Express Scripts, Inc. Pharmacy Benefit Management Litigation
In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc. (“Express Scripts”), our vendor at the time for 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 over $14,800 in damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing under the agreement between the parties (the “ESI PBM Agreement”), over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI PBM Agreement, including that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) was required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the ESI PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI PBM Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI PBM Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination.
Express Scripts has disputed our contractual claims and is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the ESI PBM Agreement, and (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 ESI PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675 at the time we entered into the ESI PBM Agreement. 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. The only remaining claims are for breach of contract and declaratory
relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment. Our opposition to the motion is due in October 2021, and Express Scripts' reply to our opposition is due in November 2021. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against any counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.
In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation
We are a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that we breached our duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement, (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the best interests of our insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses allegedly suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs and interest.
In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against us, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), which was heard in October 2018. In December 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the ERISA complaint. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. Plaintiff’s Petition for Rehearing was denied. Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which we have opposed. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.
Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation
In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Anthem, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case captioned United States v. Anthem, Inc. The DOJ’s suit alleges, among other things, that we falsely certified the accuracy of the diagnosis data we submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for risk-adjustment purposes under Medicare Part C and knowingly failed to delete inaccurate diagnosis codes. The DOJ further alleges that, as a result of these purported acts, we caused CMS to calculate the risk-adjustment payments based on inaccurate diagnosis information, which enabled us to obtain unspecified amounts of payments in Medicare funds in violation of the False Claims Act. The DOJ filed an amended complaint in July 2020, alleging the same causes of action but revising some of its allegations. In September 2020, we filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the Southern District of Ohio, a motion to dismiss part of the lawsuit, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. The motions are fully briefed and no decision has been rendered. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Investigations of CareMore and HealthSun
With the assistance of outside counsel, we are conducting investigations of risk-adjustment practices involving data submitted to CMS (unrelated to our retrospective chart review program) at CareMore Health Plans, Inc. (“CareMore”), one of our California subsidiaries, and HealthSun Health Plans, Inc. (“HealthSun”), one of our Florida subsidiaries. Our CareMore investigation has resulted in the termination of CareMore’s relationship with one contracted provider in California. Our HealthSun investigation focuses on risk adjustment practices initiated prior to our acquisition of HealthSun in December 2017 that continued after the acquisition. We have voluntarily self-disclosed the existence of both of our investigations to CMS and the Criminal Division of the DOJ, and most recently, to the Civil Division of the DOJ. We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations of the Criminal and Civil Divisions related to these risk adjustment practices. We are in the process of analyzing the scope of potential data corrections to be submitted to CMS. We have also asserted indemnity claims for escrowed funds under the HealthSun purchase agreement for, among other things, breach of healthcare and financial
representation provisions, based on the conduct discovered during our investigation. We are in active litigation with two groups of sellers regarding part of the escrowed funds in cases captioned Shareholder Representative Services, LLC v. ATH Holding Company, LLC and Highland Acquisition Holdings, LLC and LPPAS Representative, LLC v. ATH Holding Company, LLC, both pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

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 healthcare 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 reimbursement 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.
Contractual Obligations and Commitments
In March 2020, we entered into an agreement with a vendor for information technology infrastructure and related management and support services through June 2025. The new agreement supersedes certain prior agreements for such services and includes provisions for additional services not provided under those agreements. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at September 30, 2021 is approximately $1,104. We will have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.
In the second quarter of 2019, we began using our pharmacy benefits manager IngenioRx to market and offer PBM services to our affiliated health plan customers, as well as to external customers outside of the health plans we own. The comprehensive prescription benefits management services portfolio includes, but is not limited to, formulary management, pharmacy networks, prescription drug database, member services and mail order capabilities. IngenioRx delegates certain PBM administrative functions, such as claims processing and prescription fulfillment, to CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, pursuant to a five-year agreement. With IngenioRx, we retain the responsibilities for clinical and formulary strategy and development, member and employer experiences, operations, sales, marketing, account management and retail network strategy.