Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies California Health Plan Rate Settlement Agreement. In the fourth quarter of 2013, our California health plan entered into a settlement agreement with the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The agreement settled rate disputes initiated by our California health plan dating back to 2003 with respect to its participation in Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program). Under the terms of the agreement, a settlement account (the Account) applicable to the California health plan’s managed care contracts has been established. Effective January 1, 2014, the Account was established with an initial balance of zero, and will be settled after December 31, 2017. DHCS will make an interim partial settlement payment to us if it terminates early, without replacement, any of our managed care contracts. The Account will be adjusted annually to reflect a calendar year deficit or surplus, which is determined by comparing the California health plan’s pre-tax margin and a target margin established in the settlement agreement. Upon expiration of the settlement agreement, if the Account is in a deficit position, then DHCS will pay the amount of the deficit to us, subject to an alternative minimum payment amount. If the Account is in a surplus position, then no amount is owed to either party. The maximum amount that DHCS would pay to us under the terms of the settlement agreement is $40.0 million. We estimate and recognize the retrospective adjustments to premium revenue based on our experience to date under the California health plan's managed care contracts. As of March 31, 2014, we recorded a deficit, or receivable, of $5.0 million, net of a valuation discount of $0.3 million, reflecting our estimated retrospective premium adjustment to the Account based on the California health plan's actual pretax margin for the three months ended March 31, 2014. Legal Proceedings. The health care and business process outsourcing industries are subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments. Compliance with these laws and regulations can be subject to government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown and unasserted at this time. Penalties associated with violations of these laws and regulations include significant fines and penalties, exclusion from participating in publicly funded programs, and the repayment of previously billed and collected revenues. We are involved in legal actions in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. We have accrued liabilities for certain matters for which we deem the loss to be both probable and estimable. Although we believe that our estimates of such losses are reasonable, these estimates could change as a result of further developments of these matters. The outcome of legal actions is inherently uncertain and such pending matters for which accruals have not been established have not progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Washington Health Plan. The Washington Health Care Authority (HCA) has communicated that it believes it has overpaid our Washington health plan with regard to certain claims. The alleged overpayments, which relate to and were incorporated into the capitation rates paid to our Washington health plan, date back to July 1, 2012, the start date of the current contract. On March 25, 2014, HCA alleged that the total "overpayments" related to HCA’s delayed enrollment of so-called Washington Community Options Program Entry System (COPES) members were $14.4 million, and demanded payment in that amount. On April 7, 2014, HCA alleged that the total "overpayments" related to certain psychotropic drug claims that had been included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) rate book were $5.8 million, and demanded payment in that amount. HCA has provided us with minimal data by which we might independently validate HCA’s allegations. Furthermore, both alleged errors, if they in fact occurred, were unilateral errors committed and caused by HCA for which our Washington health plan had no contemporaneous knowledge and had assumed and bore no contractual risk. We are in the process of responding to HCA’s demands for payment, noting that the demands are improper since under Washington law there were in fact no "overpayments" since payment was made consistent with the express terms of the parties’ contract. We believe that any actual liability for the alleged overpayment claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. Provider Claims. Many of our medical contracts are complex in nature and may be subject to differing interpretations regarding amounts due for the provision of various services. Such differing interpretations have led certain medical providers to pursue us for additional compensation. The claims made by providers in such circumstances often involve issues of contract compliance, interpretation, payment methodology, and intent. These claims often extend to services provided by the providers over a number of years. Various providers have contacted us seeking additional compensation for claims that we believe to have been settled. These matters, when finally concluded and determined, will not, in our opinion, have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Regulatory Capital and Dividend Restrictions. Our health plans, which are operated by our respective wholly owned subsidiaries in those states, are subject to state laws and regulations that, among other things, require the maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, as defined by each state. Regulators in some states may also attempt to enforce capital requirements upon us that require the retention of net worth in excess of amounts formally required by statute or regulation. Such statues, regulations and informal capital requirements also restrict the timing, payment, and amount of dividends and other distributions that may be paid to us as the sole stockholder. To the extent our subsidiaries must comply with these regulations, they may not have the financial flexibility to transfer funds to us. Based upon current statutes and regulations, the net assets in these subsidiaries (after intercompany eliminations) which may not be transferable to us in the form of loans, advances, or cash dividends was approximately $592 million at March 31, 2014, and $608 million at December 31, 2013. Because of the statutory restrictions that inhibit the ability of our health plans to transfer net assets to us, the amount of retained earnings readily available to pay dividends to our stockholders is generally limited to cash, cash equivalents and investments held by the parent company – Molina Healthcare, Inc. Such cash, cash equivalents and investments amounted to $339.8 million and $365.2 million as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, adopted rules effective December 31, 1998, which, if implemented by the states, set minimum capitalization requirements for insurance companies, HMOs, and other entities bearing risk for health care coverage. The requirements take the form of risk-based capital (RBC) rules. Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have adopted these rules, which may vary from state to state. California and Florida have not adopted NAIC risk-based capital requirements for HMOs and have not formally given notice of their intention to do so. Such requirements, if adopted by California and Florida, may increase the minimum capital required for those states. As of March 31, 2014, our health plans had aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $641 million compared with the required minimum aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $410 million. All of our health plans were in compliance with the minimum capital requirements at March 31, 2014. We have the ability and commitment to provide additional capital to each of our health plans when necessary to ensure that statutory capital and surplus continue to meet regulatory requirements.

Commitments and Contingencies

California Health Plan Rate Settlement Agreement. In the fourth quarter of 2013, our California health plan entered into a settlement agreement with the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The agreement settled rate disputes initiated by our California health plan dating back to 2003 with respect to its participation in Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program). Under the terms of the agreement, a settlement account (the Account) applicable to the California health plan’s managed care contracts has been established.

Effective January 1, 2014, the Account was established with an initial balance of zero, and will be settled after December 31, 2017. DHCS will make an interim partial settlement payment to us if it terminates early, without replacement, any of our managed care contracts. The Account will be adjusted annually to reflect a calendar year deficit or surplus, which is determined by comparing the California health plan’s pre-tax margin and a target margin established in the settlement agreement. Upon expiration of the settlement agreement, if the Account is in a deficit position, then DHCS will pay the amount of the deficit to us, subject to an alternative minimum payment amount. If the Account is in a surplus position, then no amount is owed to either party. The maximum amount that DHCS would pay to us under the terms of the settlement agreement is $40.0 million.

We estimate and recognize the retrospective adjustments to premium revenue based on our experience to date under the California health plan's managed care contracts. As of March 31, 2014, we recorded a deficit, or receivable, of $5.0 million, net of a valuation discount of $0.3 million, reflecting our estimated retrospective premium adjustment to the Account based on the California health plan's actual pretax margin for the three months ended March 31, 2014.

Legal Proceedings. The health care and business process outsourcing industries are subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments. Compliance with these laws and regulations can be subject to government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown and unasserted at this time. Penalties associated with violations of these laws and regulations include significant fines and penalties, exclusion from participating in publicly funded programs, and the repayment of previously billed and collected revenues.

We are involved in legal actions in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. We have accrued liabilities for certain matters for which we deem the loss to be both probable and estimable. Although we believe that our estimates of such losses are reasonable, these estimates could change as a result of further developments of these matters. The outcome of legal actions is inherently uncertain and such pending matters for which accruals have not been established have not progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Washington Health Plan. The Washington Health Care Authority (HCA) has communicated that it believes it has overpaid our Washington health plan with regard to certain claims. The alleged overpayments, which relate to and were incorporated into the capitation rates paid to our Washington health plan, date back to July 1, 2012, the start date of the current contract. On March 25, 2014, HCA alleged that the total "overpayments" related to HCA’s delayed enrollment of so-called Washington Community Options Program Entry System (COPES) members were $14.4 million, and demanded payment in that amount. On April 7, 2014, HCA alleged that the total "overpayments" related to certain psychotropic drug claims that had been included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) rate book were $5.8 million, and demanded payment in that amount. HCA has provided us with minimal data by which we might independently validate HCA’s allegations. Furthermore, both alleged errors, if they in fact occurred, were unilateral errors committed and caused by HCA for which our Washington health plan had no contemporaneous knowledge and had assumed and bore no contractual risk. We are in the process of responding to HCA’s demands for payment, noting that the demands are improper since under Washington law there were in fact no "overpayments" since payment was made consistent with the express terms of the parties’ contract. We believe that any actual liability for the alleged overpayment claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable.

Provider Claims. Many of our medical contracts are complex in nature and may be subject to differing interpretations regarding amounts due for the provision of various services. Such differing interpretations have led certain medical providers to pursue us for additional compensation. The claims made by providers in such circumstances often involve issues of contract compliance, interpretation, payment methodology, and intent. These claims often extend to services provided by the providers over a number of years.

Various providers have contacted us seeking additional compensation for claims that we believe to have been settled. These matters, when finally concluded and determined, will not, in our opinion, have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Regulatory Capital and Dividend Restrictions. Our health plans, which are operated by our respective wholly owned subsidiaries in those states, are subject to state laws and regulations that, among other things, require the maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, as defined by each state. Regulators in some states may also attempt to enforce capital requirements upon us that require the retention of net worth in excess of amounts formally required by statute or regulation. Such statues, regulations and informal capital requirements also restrict the timing, payment, and amount of dividends and other distributions that may be paid to us as the sole stockholder. To the extent our subsidiaries must comply with these regulations, they may not have the financial flexibility to transfer funds to us. Based upon current statutes and regulations, the net assets in these subsidiaries (after intercompany eliminations) which may not be transferable to us in the form of loans, advances, or cash dividends was approximately $592 million at March 31, 2014, and $608 million at December 31, 2013. Because of the statutory restrictions that inhibit the ability of our health plans to transfer net assets to us, the amount of retained earnings readily available to pay dividends to our stockholders is generally limited to cash, cash equivalents and investments held by the parent company – Molina Healthcare, Inc. Such cash, cash equivalents and investments amounted to $339.8 million and $365.2 million as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, adopted rules effective December 31, 1998, which, if implemented by the states, set minimum capitalization requirements for insurance companies, HMOs, and other entities bearing risk for health care coverage. The requirements take the form of risk-based capital (RBC) rules. Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have adopted these rules, which may vary from state to state. California and Florida have not adopted NAIC risk-based capital requirements for HMOs and have not formally given notice of their intention to do so. Such requirements, if adopted by California and Florida, may increase the minimum capital required for those states.

As of March 31, 2014, our health plans had aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $641 million compared with the required minimum aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $410 million. All of our health plans were in compliance with the minimum capital requirements at March 31, 2014. We have the ability and commitment to provide additional capital to each of our health plans when necessary to ensure that statutory capital and surplus continue to meet regulatory requirements.