LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below. Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Plavix* — Australia As previously disclosed, Sanofi was notified that, in August 2007, GenRx Proprietary Limited (GenRx) obtained regulatory approval of an application for clopidogrel bisulfate 75mg tablets in Australia. GenRx, formerly a subsidiary of Apotex Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi’s Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of the Company was subsequently added as a party to the proceedings. In February 2008, a second company, Spirit Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., also filed a revocation suit against the same patent. This case was consolidated with the Apotex case, and a trial occurred in April 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Federal Court of Australia held that claims of Patent No. 597784 covering clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate salts were valid. The Federal Court also held that the process claims, pharmaceutical composition claims, and claim directed to clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were invalid. The Company and Sanofi filed notices of appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) appealing the holding of invalidity of the claim covering clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, process claims, and pharmaceutical composition claims which have stayed the Federal Court’s ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi’s request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is also seeking damages for alleged losses experienced during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case has been dismissed. The Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial was concluded in September 2017. The Company is expecting a decision in 2018. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the Australian government’s claim or its impact on the Company. Sprycel - European Union In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the EPO seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. The ‘038 patent is scheduled to expire in April 2020 (excluding potential term extensions). On January 20, 2016, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the ‘038 patent. In May 2016, the Company appealed the EPO’s decision to the EPO Board of Appeal. In February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal upheld the Opposition Division's decision, and revoked the ‘038 patent. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expired in November 2016. The EPO Board of Appeal's decision does not affect the validity of our other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including different patents that cover the monohydrate form of dasatinib and the use of dasatinib to treat CML. Additionally, in February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal reversed and remanded an invalidity decision on European Patent No. 1610780 and its claim to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which the EPO's Opposition Division had revoked in October 2012. The Company intends to take appropriate legal actions to protect Sprycel. We may experience a decline in European revenues in the event that generic dasatinib product enters the market. Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship of five related U.S. patents directed to methods of treating cancer using PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. In September 2017, Pfizer filed a motion seeking to intervene in this case alleging that one of the scientists identified by Dana-Farber was employed by a company eventually acquired by Pfizer. This motion has not been acted upon by the court. Eliquis Patent Litigation In February, March and April 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent the Company Paragraph-IV certification letters informing the Company that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis. As a result, two Eliquis patents listed in the FDA Orange Book have now been challenged: the composition of matter patent claiming apixaban specifically and a formulation patent. In April 2017, the Company, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in federal district courts in Delaware and West Virginia. In August 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is the Company’s basis for projected loss of exclusivity, from February 2023 to November 2026. In September 2017, the Company settled its lawsuit with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and the parties agreed to dismiss the case. The settlement does not impact the Company’s projected loss of exclusivity for Eliquis. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits The Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection and/or false advertising actions brought by several states relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their potential impact on the Company. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products. Plavix As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix. Over 5,000 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, have been filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi’s motion to establish a multi-district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. Following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2017 reversal of a California Supreme Court decision that had held that the California state courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-California residents, over 2,000 out-of-state resident plaintiffs' claims (including spouses and beneficiaries) previously pending in the California state court have been, or are in the process of being dismissed. Some number of these California non-resident plaintiffs’ claims may be re-filed in federal court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. Byetta* Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta. To date, there are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 2,000 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 15 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in an MDL or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. Abilify* The Company and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been over 400 cases filed in state and federal courts and several additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Eliquis The Company and Pfizer are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Eliquis. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of bleeding they allege was caused by their use of Eliquis. The majority of these claims are pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in state court in Delaware. As of October 2017, there are over 150 cases pending in the MDL and state courts in the United States and one pending in Canada. Over 80 cases have been dismissed with prejudice by the MDL. Plaintiffs have appealed some of the dismissed cases to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Since December 2015, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty surrounding the Company’s previously disclosed October 2015 civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. As of October 2017, all three of the lawsuits have been dismissed. The Company received a notice of appeal for one of the lawsuits in September 2017. GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which BMS operates. As a result, the Company, from time to time, is subject to various governmental inquiries and investigations. It is possible that criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, could result from government investigations. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including CERCLA, for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties. CERCLA Matters With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $63 million at September 30, 2017, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties). The amount includes the estimated costs for any additional probable loss associated with the previously disclosed North Brunswick Township High School Remediation Site.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below.

Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Plavix* — Australia

As previously disclosed, Sanofi was notified that, in August 2007, GenRx Proprietary Limited (GenRx) obtained regulatory approval of an application for clopidogrel bisulfate 75mg tablets in Australia. GenRx, formerly a subsidiary of Apotex Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi’s Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of the Company was subsequently added as a party to the proceedings. In February 2008, a second company, Spirit Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., also filed a revocation suit against the same patent. This case was consolidated with the Apotex case, and a trial occurred in April 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Federal Court of Australia held that claims of Patent No. 597784 covering clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate salts were valid. The Federal Court also held that the process claims, pharmaceutical composition claims, and claim directed to clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were invalid. The Company and Sanofi filed notices of appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) appealing the holding of invalidity of the claim covering clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, process claims, and pharmaceutical composition claims which have stayed the Federal Court’s ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi’s request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is also seeking damages for alleged losses experienced during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case has been dismissed. The Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial was concluded in September 2017. The Company is expecting a decision in 2018. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the Australian government’s claim or its impact on the Company.

Sprycel - European Union

In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the EPO seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. The ‘038 patent is scheduled to expire in April 2020 (excluding potential term extensions). On January 20, 2016, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the ‘038 patent. In May 2016, the Company appealed the EPO’s decision to the EPO Board of Appeal. In February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal upheld the Opposition Division's decision, and revoked the ‘038 patent. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expired in November 2016. The EPO Board of Appeal's decision does not affect the validity of our other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including different patents that cover the monohydrate form of dasatinib and the use of dasatinib to treat CML. Additionally, in February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal reversed and remanded an invalidity decision on European Patent No. 1610780 and its claim to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which the EPO's Opposition Division had revoked in October 2012. The Company intends to take appropriate legal actions to protect Sprycel. We may experience a decline in European revenues in the event that generic dasatinib product enters the market.

Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation

In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship of five related U.S. patents directed to methods of treating cancer using PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. In September 2017, Pfizer filed a motion seeking to intervene in this case alleging that one of the scientists identified by Dana-Farber was employed by a company eventually acquired by Pfizer. This motion has not been acted upon by the court.

Eliquis Patent Litigation

In February, March and April 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent the Company Paragraph-IV certification letters informing the Company that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis. As a result, two Eliquis patents listed in the FDA Orange Book have now been challenged: the composition of matter patent claiming apixaban specifically and a formulation patent. In April 2017, the Company, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in federal district courts in Delaware and West Virginia. In August 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is the Company’s basis for projected loss of exclusivity, from February 2023 to November 2026. In September 2017, the Company settled its lawsuit with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and the parties agreed to dismiss the case. The settlement does not impact the Company’s projected loss of exclusivity for Eliquis.

PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION

Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits

The Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection and/or false advertising actions brought by several states relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix*. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their potential impact on the Company.

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products.

Plavix*

As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Over 5,000 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, have been filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi’s motion to establish a multi-district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. Following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2017 reversal of a California Supreme Court decision that had held that the California state courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-California residents, over 2,000 out-of-state resident plaintiffs' claims (including spouses and beneficiaries) previously pending in the California state court have been, or are in the process of being dismissed. Some number of these California non-resident plaintiffs’ claims may be re-filed in federal court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.

Byetta*

Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 2,000 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 15 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in an MDL or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company.

Abilify*

The Company and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify*. Plaintiffs allege Abilify* caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been over 400 cases filed in state and federal courts and several additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Eliquis

The Company and Pfizer are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Eliquis. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of bleeding they allege was caused by their use of Eliquis. The majority of these claims are pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in state court in Delaware. As of October 2017, there are over 150 cases pending in the MDL and state courts in the United States and one pending in Canada. Over 80 cases have been dismissed with prejudice by the MDL. Plaintiffs have appealed some of the dismissed cases to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Since December 2015, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty surrounding the Company’s previously disclosed October 2015 civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. As of October 2017, all three of the lawsuits have been dismissed. The Company received a notice of appeal for one of the lawsuits in September 2017.

GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS

Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which BMS operates. As a result, the Company, from time to time, is subject to various governmental inquiries and investigations. It is possible that criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, could result from government investigations.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including CERCLA, for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $63 million at September 30, 2017, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties). The amount includes the estimated costs for any additional probable loss associated with the previously disclosed North Brunswick Township High School Remediation Site.