10-Q Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023	Dec. 31, 2022
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, 2023. 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 28 states were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. 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. With respect to whether the defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks, the Court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which defendants opposed. The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which agreement required the Court’s approval to become effective. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment and contains certain terms imposing non-monetary obligations 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 the local Blue plan. 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. A small number of subscribers submitted valid opt-outs by the opt-out deadline. In August 2022, the Court issued a final order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Order”). The Court amended its Final Approval Order in September 2022, further clarifying the injunctive relief that may be available to subscribers who submitted valid opt-outs. In compliance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $506 into an escrow account in September 2022, for an aggregate and full settlement payment by the Company of $596, which amount was accrued in 2020. Four notices of appeal of the Final Approval Order were filed prior to the September 2022 appeal deadline. Those appeals were heard by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in September 2023. In the event that all appellate rights are exhausted in a manner that affirms the Court’s Final Approval Order, the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will become effective and the funds held in escrow will be distributed in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement. 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 determined the standard of review applicable to the providers’ claims. In response to that order, the parties filed renewed standard of review motions in May 2021. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification. In February 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting certain defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment against the provider plaintiffs who had previously released claims against such defendants, and (ii) granting the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, determining that Ohio v. American Express Co. does not affect the standard of review in this case. In August 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting in part the defendants’ motion regarding the antitrust standard of review, holding that for the period of time after the elimination of the “national best efforts” rule, the rule of reason applies to the provider plaintiffs’ market allocation conspiracy claims, and (ii) denying the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the standard of review, reaffirming its prior holding that the provider groups’ boycott claims are subject to the rule of reason. In November 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefs on certain questions related to the providers’ renewed motion for class certification. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider litigation, which we believe is without merit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) ("Alaska Air"); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) ("Jet Blue"); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.) ("Bed Bath & Beyond"); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00261-RDP (N.D. Ala.); and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.). In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue. In March 2023, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss also based on a statute of limitations defense in Bed Bath & Beyond. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their 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 December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In November 2021, the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order. In March 2023, the appeal was argued before the California Second District Court of Appeal (the “Second District”). The Second District affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment order in April 2023. The plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in June 2023, and BCC filed its answer to the petition in the same month. In July 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review. This matter is now resolved, and the protective tax refund claims mentioned above have been withdrawn. 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 pharmacy benefit management services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”). 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 Agreement”), over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI 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 Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI 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 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 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 Agreement. In March 2017, the District 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. After such ruling, Express Scripts’ only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts’ prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts’ counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI Agreement. Express Scripts filed a second motion for summary judgment in June 2022, challenging our remaining operational breach claims, which we opposed, and the District Court denied in March 2023, allowing our operational breach claim to proceed. A trial date has been set for December 2023. We intend to appeal the earlier summary judgment decision at the appropriate time, vigorously pursue our claims and defend against counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be presently determined. Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) 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 factual 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, all of which the New York District Court denied in October 2022. In November 2022, we filed an answer. In March 2023, discovery commenced, and an initial case management conference was held in April 2023. The Court entered a scheduling order requiring fact discovery to be completed by June 2024 and expert discovery to be complete by February 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; 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 has focused 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 and Civil Divisions of the DOJ. We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the DOJ related to these risk adjustment practices, and have entered into a tolling agreement with the Civil Division of the DOJ related to its investigation. We have submitted corrected data to CMS related to these investigations. 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. While certain elements of the indemnity claims were resolved in the fourth quarters of 2021 and 2022, litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the remaining indemnity claims for escrowed funds remains ongoing. 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 Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations 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 agreement superseded 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, 2023 is approximately $554. We will have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. We formed CarelonRx, to market and offer pharmacy services to our affiliated health plan customers, as well as to external customers outside of the health plans we own, starting in the second quarter of 2019. The comprehensive pharmacy services portfolio includes, but is not limited to, formulary management, pharmacy networks, specialty and home delivery pharmacy services and member services. CarelonRx delegates certain pharmacy services, 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, which is set to terminate on December 31, 2024. With CarelonRx, we retain the responsibilities for clinical and formulary strategy and development, member and employer experiences, operations, sales, marketing, account management and retail network strategy.	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 December 31, 2022. 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 U.S. 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. With respect to whether the defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks, the Court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which defendants opposed. The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which agreement required the Court’s approval to become effective. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment and contains certain terms imposing non-monetary obligations 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 the local Blue plan. 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. A small number of subscribers submitted valid opt-outs by the July 2021 opt-out deadline. A fairness hearing was held in October 2021 and the Court took the request for final approval under advisement. In February 2022, the Court ordered the issuance of a supplemental notice to self-funded account class members. The notice process was completed in March 2022. In August 2022, the Court issued a final order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Order”). The Court amended its Final Approval Order in September 2022, further clarifying the injunctive relief that may be available to subscribers who submitted valid opt-outs. In September 2022, an objector filed a motion to amend the Final Approval Order, which the Court denied. In compliance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $506 into an escrow account in September 2022, for an aggregate and full settlement payment by the Company of $596, which was previously accrued in 2020. Four notices of appeal of the Final Approval Order were filed by the September 2022 appeal deadline. Those appeals are proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In the event that all appellate rights are exhausted in a manner that affirms the Court’s Final Approval Order, the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will become effective and the funds held in escrow will be distributed in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement. 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 the providers’ claims. In May 2021, the defendants and provider plaintiffs filed renewed standard of review motions. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification. In February 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting certain defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment against the provider plaintiffs who had previously released claims against such defendants, and (ii) granting the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Ohio v. American Express Co. does not affect the standard of review in this case. In August 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting in part the defendants’ motion regarding the antitrust standard of review, holding that for the period of time after the elimination of the “national best efforts” rule, the rule of reason applies to the provider plaintiffs’ market allocation conspiracy claims, and (ii) denying the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the standard of review, reaffirming its prior holding that the providers’ group boycott claims are subject to the rule of reason. In November 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefs on certain questions related to providers’ renewed motion for class certification. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider litigation, which we believe is without merit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00261-RDP (N.D. Ala.); and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.). We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their 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. In December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In November 2021, the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order. BCC’s responding brief was filed in March 2022 and Plaintiff’s reply was filed in May 2022. We estimate that the appeal will be heard in March 2023. 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 “District Court”). 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 District 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. After such ruling, Express Scripts’ only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of our 2022 Form 10-K are (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts’ prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts’ counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI PBM Agreement. Express Scripts filed a second motion for summary judgment in June 2022, challenging our remaining operational breach claims, which we opposed in July 2022. We intend to appeal the earlier summary judgment decision at the appropriate time, vigorously pursue our claims and defend against counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be presently determined. Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) 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 factual 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. In an opinion and order issued October 3, 2022, the New York District Court denied our motions, and the case will now proceed in that court. In November 2022, we filed an answer. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; 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 has focused 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 and Civil Divisions of the DOJ. We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the DOJ related to these risk adjustment practices, and have entered into a tolling agreement with the Civil Division of the DOJ related to its investigation. We are analyzing the scope of potential data corrections to be submitted to CMS and have begun to submit data corrections 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. While certain elements of the escrow claims were resolved in the fourth quarters of 2021 and 2022, litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the remaining indemnity claims for escrowed funds remains ongoing. 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 Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations 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 December 31, 2022 is approximately $761. 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 CarelonRx, formerly known as 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 PBM services portfolio includes, but is not limited to, formulary management, pharmacy networks, prescription drug database, member services and mail order capabilities. CarelonRx 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, which is set to terminate on December 31, 2024. With CarelonRx, we retain the responsibilities for clinical and formulary strategy and development, member and employer experiences, operations, sales, marketing, account management and retail network strategy. 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, 2022, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.

10-Q 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, 2023. 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 28 states were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. 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. With respect to whether the defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks, the Court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which defendants opposed.

The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which agreement required the Court’s approval to become effective. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment and contains certain terms imposing non-monetary obligations 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 the local Blue plan.

In August 2022, the Court issued a final order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Order”). The Court amended its Final Approval Order in September 2022, further clarifying the injunctive relief that may be available to subscribers who submitted valid opt-outs. In compliance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $506 into an escrow account in September 2022, for an aggregate and full settlement payment by the Company of $596, which amount was accrued in 2020.

Four notices of appeal of the Final Approval Order were filed prior to the September 2022 appeal deadline. Those appeals were heard by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in September 2023. In the event that all appellate rights are exhausted in a manner that affirms the Court’s Final Approval Order, the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will become effective and the funds held in escrow will be distributed in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement.

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 determined the standard of review applicable to the providers’ claims. In response to that order, the parties filed renewed standard of review motions in May 2021. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification. In February 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting certain defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment against the provider plaintiffs who had previously released claims against such defendants, and (ii) granting the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, determining that Ohio v. American Express Co. does not affect the standard of review in this case. In August 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting in part the defendants’ motion regarding the antitrust standard of review, holding that for the period of time after the elimination of the “national best efforts” rule, the rule of reason applies to the provider plaintiffs’ market allocation conspiracy claims, and (ii) denying the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the standard of review, reaffirming its prior holding that the provider groups’ boycott claims are subject to the rule of reason. In November 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefs on certain questions related to the providers’ renewed motion for class certification. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider litigation, which we believe is without merit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) ("Alaska Air"); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) ("Jet Blue"); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.) ("Bed Bath & Beyond"); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00261-RDP (N.D. Ala.); and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.). In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue. In March 2023, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss also based on a statute of limitations defense in Bed Bath & Beyond. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Blue Cross of California Taxation Litigation

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 December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In November 2021, the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order. In March 2023, the appeal was argued before the California Second District Court of Appeal (the “Second District”). The Second District affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment order in April 2023. The plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in June 2023, and BCC filed its answer to the petition in the same month. In July 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review. This matter is now resolved, and the protective tax refund claims mentioned above have been withdrawn.

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 pharmacy benefit management services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”). 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 Agreement”), over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI 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 Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI 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 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 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 Agreement. In March 2017, the District 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. After such ruling, Express Scripts’ only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts’ prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts’ counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI Agreement. Express Scripts filed a second motion for summary judgment in June 2022, challenging our remaining operational breach claims, which we opposed, and the District Court denied in March 2023, allowing our operational breach claim to proceed. A trial date has been set for December 2023. We intend to appeal the earlier summary judgment decision at the appropriate time, vigorously pursue our claims and defend against counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be presently determined.

Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation

In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) 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 factual 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, all of which the New York District Court denied in October 2022. In November 2022, we filed an answer. In March 2023, discovery commenced, and an initial case management conference was held in April 2023. The Court entered a scheduling order requiring fact discovery to be completed by June 2024 and expert discovery to be complete by February 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; 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 has focused 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 and Civil Divisions of the DOJ. We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the DOJ related to these risk adjustment practices, and have entered into a tolling agreement with the Civil Division of the DOJ related to its investigation. We have submitted corrected data to CMS related to these investigations. 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. While certain elements of the indemnity claims were resolved in the fourth quarters of 2021 and 2022, litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the remaining indemnity claims for escrowed funds remains ongoing.

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 Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations 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 agreement superseded 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, 2023 is approximately $554. We will have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

We formed CarelonRx, to market and offer pharmacy services to our affiliated health plan customers, as well as to external customers outside of the health plans we own, starting in the second quarter of 2019. The comprehensive pharmacy services portfolio includes, but is not limited to, formulary management, pharmacy networks, specialty and home delivery pharmacy services and member services. CarelonRx delegates certain pharmacy services, 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, which is set to terminate on December 31, 2024. With CarelonRx, we retain the responsibilities for clinical and formulary strategy and development, member and employer experiences, operations, sales, marketing, account management and retail network strategy.

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.

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 December 31, 2022. 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 U.S. 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 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. A small number of subscribers submitted valid opt-outs by the July 2021 opt-out deadline. A fairness hearing was held in October 2021 and the Court took the request for final approval under advisement. In February 2022, the Court ordered the issuance of a supplemental notice to self-funded account class members. The notice process was completed in March 2022.

In August 2022, the Court issued a final order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Order”). The Court amended its Final Approval Order in September 2022, further clarifying the injunctive relief that may be available to subscribers who submitted valid opt-outs. In September 2022, an objector filed a motion to amend the Final Approval Order, which the Court denied. In compliance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $506 into an escrow account in September 2022, for an aggregate and full settlement payment by the Company of $596, which was previously accrued in 2020.

Four notices of appeal of the Final Approval Order were filed by the September 2022 appeal deadline. Those appeals are proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In the event that all appellate rights are exhausted in a manner that affirms the Court’s Final Approval Order, the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement will become effective and the funds held in escrow will be distributed in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement.

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 the providers’ claims. In May 2021, the defendants and provider plaintiffs filed renewed standard of review motions. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification. In February 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting certain defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment against the provider plaintiffs who had previously released claims against such defendants, and (ii) granting the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Ohio v. American Express Co. does not affect the standard of review in this case. In August 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting in part the defendants’ motion regarding the antitrust standard of review, holding that for the period of time after the elimination of the “national best efforts” rule, the rule of reason applies to the provider plaintiffs’ market allocation conspiracy claims, and (ii) denying the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the standard of review, reaffirming its prior holding that the providers’ group boycott claims are subject to the rule of reason. In November 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefs on certain questions related to providers’ renewed motion for class certification. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider litigation, which we believe is without merit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00261-RDP (N.D. Ala.); and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.). We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their 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.

In March 2018, the Superior Court denied BCC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and similar motions brought by other entities. In December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In November 2021, the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order. BCC’s responding brief was filed in March 2022 and Plaintiff’s reply was filed in May 2022. We estimate that the appeal will be heard in March 2023. 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 “District Court”). 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 District 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. After such ruling, Express Scripts’ only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of our 2022 Form 10-K are (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts’ prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts’ counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI PBM Agreement. Express Scripts filed a second motion for summary judgment in June 2022, challenging our remaining operational breach claims, which we opposed in July 2022. We intend to appeal the earlier summary judgment decision at the appropriate time, vigorously pursue our claims and defend against counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be presently determined.

Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation

In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) 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 factual 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. In an opinion and order issued October 3, 2022, the New York District Court denied our motions, and the case will now proceed in that court. In November 2022, we filed an answer. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; 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 has focused 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 and Civil Divisions of the DOJ. We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the DOJ related to these risk adjustment practices, and have entered into a tolling agreement with the Civil Division of the DOJ related to its investigation. We are analyzing the scope of potential data corrections to be submitted to CMS and have begun to submit data corrections 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. While certain elements of the escrow claims were resolved in the fourth quarters of 2021 and 2022, litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the remaining indemnity claims for escrowed funds remains ongoing.

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 December 31, 2022 is approximately $761. 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 CarelonRx, formerly known as 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 PBM services portfolio includes, but is not limited to, formulary management, pharmacy networks, prescription drug database, member services and mail order capabilities. CarelonRx 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, which is set to terminate on December 31, 2024. With CarelonRx, we retain the responsibilities for clinical and formulary strategy and development, member and employer experiences, operations, sales, marketing, account management and retail network strategy.

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, 2022, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.