15. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

We lease facilities, computer hardware, and other furniture and equipment under long-term operating leases that are noncancelable and expire on various dates through 2025. We sublease facilities or partial facilities to third party tenants for space not used in our operations. Rent with scheduled escalation terms are accounted for on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Rent expense and sublease rental income, which are recorded net as an operating cost, for all operating leases were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:


	2011			2010			2009
	(in millions)
Rent expense	$	207		$	155		$	161
Sublease rental income		(10	)		(9	)		(9	)

Net rent expense	$	197		$	146		$	152

Future annual minimum payments due subsequent to December 31, 2011 under all of our noncancelable operating leases with initial terms in excess of one year are as follows:


	Minimum Lease Payments		Sublease Rental Receipts			Net Lease Commitments
	(in millions)
For the years ending December 31:
2012	$	207	$	(1	)	$	206
2013		182		(1	)		181
2014		150		0			150
2015		112		0			112
2016		76		0			76
Thereafter		123		0			123

Total	$	850	$	(2	)	$	848

Purchase Obligations

We have agreements to purchase services, primarily information technology related services, or to make improvements to real estate, in each case that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum levels of service to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the appropriate timing of the transaction. We have purchase obligation commitments of $117 million in 2012, $60 million in 2013, $35 million in 2014, $11 million in 2015, and $22 million thereafter. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancelable without penalty.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As part of our ongoing business, we do not participate or knowingly seek to participate in transactions that generate relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities (SPEs), which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. As of December 31, 2011, we were not involved in any SPE transactions.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

Through indemnity agreements approved by the state regulatory authorities, certain of our regulated subsidiaries generally are guaranteed by Humana Inc., our parent company, in the event of insolvency for (1) member coverage for which premium payment has been made prior to insolvency; (2) benefits for members then hospitalized until discharged; and (3) payment to providers for services rendered prior to insolvency. Our parent also has guaranteed the obligations of our military services subsidiaries.

In the ordinary course of business, we enter into contractual arrangements under which we may agree to indemnify a third party to such arrangement from any losses incurred relating to the services they perform on behalf of us, or for losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims relating to past performance. Such indemnification obligations may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial.

Government Contracts

Our Medicare products, which accounted for approximately 65% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011, primarily consisted of products covered under the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan contracts with the federal government. These contracts are renewed generally for a calendar year term unless CMS notifies us of its decision not to renew by August 1 of the calendar year in which the contract would end, or we notify CMS of our decision not to renew by the first Monday in June of the calendar year in which the contract would end. All material contracts between Humana and CMS relating to our Medicare products have been renewed for 2012, and all of our product offerings filed with CMS for 2012 have been approved.

CMS uses a risk-adjustment model which apportions premiums paid to Medicare Advantage plans according to health severity. The risk-adjustment model pays more for enrollees with predictably higher costs. Under this model, rates paid to Medicare Advantage plans are based on actuarially determined bids, which include a process that bases our prospective payments on a comparison of our beneficiaries' risk scores, derived from medical diagnoses, to those enrolled in the government's original Medicare program. Under the risk-adjustment methodology, all Medicare Advantage plans must collect and submit the necessary diagnosis code information from hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and physician providers to CMS within prescribed deadlines. The CMS risk-adjustment model uses this diagnosis data to calculate the risk-adjusted premium payment to Medicare Advantage plans. We generally rely on providers to code their claim submissions with appropriate diagnoses, which we send to CMS as the basis for our payment received from CMS under the actuarial risk-adjustment model. We also rely on providers to appropriately document all medical data, including the diagnosis data submitted with claims.

CMS is continuing to perform audits of various companies' selected Medicare Advantage contracts related to this risk adjustment diagnosis data. These audits are referred to herein as Risk-Adjustment Data Validation Audits, or RADV audits. RADV audits review medical record documentation in an attempt to validate provider coding practices and the presence of risk adjustment conditions which influence the calculation of premium payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

On December 21, 2010, CMS posted a description of the agency's proposed RADV sampling and payment adjustment calculation methodology to its website, and invited public comment, noting that CMS may revise its sampling and payment error calculation methodology based upon the comments received. We believe the audit and payment adjustment methodology proposed by CMS is fundamentally flawed and actuarially unsound. In essence, in making the comparison referred to above, CMS relies on two interdependent sets of data to set payment rates for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans: (1) fee for service (FFS) data from the government's original Medicare program; and (2) MA data. The proposed methodology would review medical records for only one set of data (MA data), while not performing the same exercise on the other set (FFS data). However, because these two sets of data are inextricably linked, we believe CMS must audit and validate both of them before determining the financial implications of any potential RADV audit results, in order to ensure that any resulting payment adjustment is accurate. We believe that the Social Security Act, under which the payment model was established, requires the consistent use of these data sets in determining risk-adjusted payments to MA plans. Furthermore, our payment received from CMS, as well as benefits offered and premiums charged to members, is based on bids that did not, by CMS design, include any assumption of retroactive audit payment adjustments. We believe that applying a retroactive audit adjustment after CMS acceptance of bids would improperly alter this process of establishing member benefits and premiums.

CMS has received public comments, including our comments and comments from other industry participants and the American Academy of Actuaries, which expressed concerns about the failure to appropriately compare the two sets of data. On February 3, 2011, CMS issued a statement that it was closely evaluating the comments it has received on this matter and anticipates making changes to the proposed methodology based on input it has received, although we are unable to predict the extent of changes that they may make.

To date, six Humana contracts have been selected by CMS for RADV audits for the 2007 contract year, consisting of one "pilot" audit and five "targeted" audits for Humana plans. We believe that the proposed methodology for these audits is actuarially unsound and in violation of the Social Security Act. We intend to defend that position vigorously. However, if CMS moves forward with implementation of the proposed methodology without changes to adequately address the data inconsistency issues described above, it would have a material adverse effect on our revenues derived from the Medicare Advantage program and, therefore, our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

At December 31, 2011, our military services business, which accounted for approximately 10% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011, primarily consisted of the TRICARE South Region contract. The original 5-year South Region contract expired on March 31, 2009 and was extended through March 31, 2012. On February 25, 2011, the Department of Defense TRICARE Management Activity, or TMA, awarded the new TRICARE South Region contract to us, which we expect to take effect on April 1, 2012. The new 5-year South Region contract, which expires March 31, 2017, is subject to annual renewals on April 1 of each year during its term at the government's option.

Under the current TRICARE South Region contract, any variance from the negotiated target health care cost is shared with the federal government. Accordingly, events and circumstances not contemplated in the negotiated target health care cost amount may have a material adverse effect on us. These changes may include an increase or reduction in the number of persons enrolled or eligible to enroll due to the federal government's decision to increase or decrease U.S. military deployments. In the event government reimbursements were to decline from projected amounts, our failure to reduce the health care costs associated with these programs may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

Our Medicaid business, which accounted for approximately 3% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011, consists of contracts in Puerto Rico and Florida, with the vast majority in Puerto Rico. Effective October 1, 2010, as amended in May 2011, the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration, or PRHIA, awarded us three contracts for the East, Southeast, and Southwest regions for a three year term through June 30, 2013.

The loss of any of the contracts above or significant changes in these programs as a result of legislative action, including reductions in premium payments to us, or increases in member benefits without corresponding increases in premium payments to us, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

Legal Proceedings and Certain Regulatory Matters

Provider Litigation

Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc. ("Humana Military") was named as a defendant in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT (the "Sacred Heart" Complaint), a purported class action lawsuit filed on February 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana Military. The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that, Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class of hospitals in six states, including the seven named plaintiffs, that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE health benefits program ("TRICARE"). The Complaint alleged that Humana Military breached its network agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services performed on or after October 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called "CMAC rates"). Humana Military denied that it breached the network agreements with the hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these claims. The Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for the purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs of the litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper. Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc. requested damages and other relief for its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the inducement to contract. On September 25, 2008, the district court certified a class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers in TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November 18, 1999, excluding those network providers who contractually agreed with Humana Military to submit any such disputes with Humana Military to arbitration. On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's class certification order and remanded the case to the district court for further proceeding. On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the district court to amend their complaint to join additional hospital plaintiffs. Humana Military filed its response to the motion on July 28, 2010. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional hospitals on September 24, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the complaint raise a substantial question under federal law. The amended complaint asserts no other material changes to the allegations or relief sought by the plaintiffs. Humana Military's Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 30, 2010. We are currently involved in discovery on this matter, with trial currently scheduled for October 2012.

On March 2, 2009, in a case styled Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., the named plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand, seeking relief on the same grounds as the plaintiffs in the Sacred Heart litigation. The arbitration plaintiffs originally sought certification of a class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers that had contracts with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services and whose agreements provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. Humana Military submitted its response to the demand for arbitration on May 1, 2009. The plaintiffs have subsequently withdrawn their motion for class certification. On June 18, 2010, plaintiffs submitted their amended arbitration complaint. Humana Military's answer to the complaint was submitted on July 9, 2010. An arbitration trial was held from September 26, 2011 to October 7, 2011. On January 20, 2012, the Arbitration Panel issued an Interim Award granting relief in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims for breach of contract and in favor of Humana Military on its counterclaim for recoupment based upon improper coding and billing for services on the part of the plaintiffs. The Arbitration Panel reserved decision on the award of damages pending submission of additional evidence and argument by the parties.

Florida Matters

As previously disclosed, with the assistance of outside counsel, we are conducting an ongoing internal investigation related to certain aspects of our Florida subsidiary operations. We have voluntarily self-reported the existence of this investigation to CMS, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. Matters under review include, without limitation, the relationships between certain of our Florida-based employees and providers in our Medicaid and/or Medicare networks, practices related to the financial support of non-profit or provider access centers for Medicaid enrollment and related enrollment processes, and loans to or other financial support of physician practices. We have reported to these regulatory authorities on the progress of our investigation to date, and intend to continue to discuss with these authorities our factual findings as well as any remedial actions we have taken or may take. We also may face litigation or further government inquiry regarding certain aspects of the Medicare and Medicaid operations of certain of our Florida subsidiaries.

On December 16, 2010, an individual filed a qui tam suit captioned United States of America ex rel. Marc Osheroff v. Humana et al. in the Southern District of Florida, against us, several of our health plan subsidiaries, and certain other companies that operate medical centers in Miami-Dade County, Florida. After the U.S. government declined to intervene, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed, and the individual plaintiff amended his complaint and served the Company on December 8, 2011. The Amended Complaint alleges certain civil violations by our CAC Medical Centers in Florida, including offering various amenities such as transportation and meals, to Medicare and dual eligible individuals in our community center settings. The Amended Complaint seeks damages and penalties on behalf of the United States under the Anti-Inducement and Anti-Kickback Statutes and the False Claims Act. We expect to file motions to dismiss on behalf of Humana and our subsidiaries.

On January 6, 2012, the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida advised our legal counsel that it is seeking documents and information from us and several of our affiliates relating to several matters including the coding of medical claims by one or more South Florida medical providers, and loans to physician practices.

Other Lawsuits and Regulatory Matters

Our current and past business practices are subject to review or other investigations by various state insurance and health care regulatory authorities and other state and federal regulatory authorities. These authorities regularly scrutinize the business practices of health insurance and benefits companies. These reviews focus on numerous facets of our business, including claims payment practices, provider contracting, competitive practices, commission payments, privacy issues, utilization management practices, and sales practices, among others. Some of these reviews have historically resulted in fines imposed on us and some have required changes to some of our practices. We continue to be subject to these reviews, which could result in additional fines or other sanctions being imposed on us or additional changes in some of our practices.

We also are involved in various other lawsuits that arise, for the most part, in the ordinary course of our business operations, certain of which may be styled as class-action lawsuits, including employment litigation, claims of medical malpractice, bad faith, nonacceptance or termination of providers, anticompetitive practices, improper rate setting, failure to disclose network discounts and various other provider arrangements, general contractual matters, intellectual property matters, and challenges to subrogation practices. As a government contractor, we may also be subject to qui tam litigation brought by individuals who seek to sue on behalf of the government, alleging that the government contractor submitted false claims to the government. Litigation of this nature is filed under seal to allow the government an opportunity to investigate and to decide if it wishes to intervene and assume control of the litigation. If the government does not intervene, the lawsuit is unsealed, and the individual may continue to prosecute the action on his or her own. We also are subject to claims relating to performance of contractual obligations to providers, members, and others, including failure to properly pay claims, improper policy terminations, challenges to our implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and other litigation. Under state guaranty assessment laws, we may be assessed (up to prescribed limits) for certain obligations to the policyholders and claimants of insolvent insurance companies that write the same line or lines of business as we do.

Personal injury claims and claims for extracontractual damages arising from medical benefit denials are covered by insurance from our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and excess carriers, except to the extent that claimants seek punitive damages, which may not be covered by insurance in certain states in which insurance coverage for punitive damages is not permitted. In addition, insurance coverage for all or certain forms of liability has become increasingly costly and may become unavailable or prohibitively expensive in the future.

We record accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above because the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes.

The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities. Nevertheless, it is reasonably possible that any such penalties, fines or other sanctions could be substantial, and the outcome of these matters may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows and may affect our reputation.