Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve. We believe COVID-19’s impact on our businesses, operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition primarily will be driven by the geographies impacted and the severity and duration of the pandemic; the pandemic’s impact on the U.S. and global economies and consumer behavior and health care utilization patterns; and the timing, scope and impact of stimulus legislation as well as other federal, state and local governmental responses to the pandemic. Those primary drivers are beyond our knowledge and control. As a result, the impact COVID-19 will have on our businesses, operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition is uncertain, but the impact could be adverse and material. COVID-19 also may result in legal and regulatory proceedings, investigations and claims against us. Lease Guarantees Between 1995 and 1997, the Company sold or spun off a number of subsidiaries, including Bob’s Stores and Linens ‘n Things, each of which subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Marshalls. In many cases, when a former subsidiary leased a store, the Company provided a guarantee of the former subsidiary’s lease obligations for the initial lease term and any extension thereof pursuant to a renewal option provided for in the lease prior to the time of the disposition. When the subsidiaries were disposed of and accounted for as discontinued operations, the Company’s guarantees remained in place, although each initial purchaser agreed to indemnify the Company for any lease obligations the Company was required to satisfy. If any of the purchasers or any of the former subsidiaries fail to make the required payments under a store lease, the Company could be required to satisfy those obligations, and any significant adverse impact of COVID-19 on such purchasers and/or former subsidiaries increases the risk that the Company will be required to satisfy those obligations. As of September 30, 2020, the Company guaranteed 76 such store leases (excluding the lease guarantees related to Linens ‘n Things, which have been recorded as a liability on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets), with the maximum remaining lease term extending through 2030. Guaranty Fund Assessments, Market Stabilization and Other Non-Voluntary Risk Sharing Pools Under guaranty fund laws existing in all states, insurers doing business in those states can be assessed (in most states up to prescribed limits) for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. The life and health insurance guaranty associations in which the Company participates that operate under these laws respond to insolvencies of long-term care insurers and life insurers as well as health insurers. The Company’s assessments generally are based on a formula relating to the Company’s health care premiums in the state compared to the premiums of other insurers. Certain states allow assessments to be recovered over time as offsets to premium taxes. Some states have similar laws relating to HMOs and/or other payors such as not-for-profit consumer-governed health plans established under the ACA. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner placed long-term care insurer Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and one of its subsidiaries (collectively, “Penn Treaty”) in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency, and subsequently petitioned a state court to convert the rehabilitation into a liquidation. Penn Treaty was placed in liquidation in March 2017. The Company has recorded a liability for its estimated share of future assessments by applicable life and health insurance guaranty associations. It is reasonably possible that in the future the Company may record a liability and expense relating to other insolvencies which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition and cash flows, and this risk is heightened by any significant adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the solvency of other insurers, including long-term care insurers and life insurers. While historically the Company has ultimately recovered more than half of guaranty fund assessments through statutorily permitted premium tax offsets, significant increases in assessments could lead to legislative and/or regulatory actions that limit future offsets. HMOs in certain states in which the Company does business are subject to assessments, including market stabilization and other risk-sharing pools, for which the Company is assessed charges based on incurred claims, demographic membership mix and other factors. The Company establishes liabilities for these assessments based on applicable laws and regulations. In certain states, the ultimate assessments the Company pays are dependent upon the Company’s experience relative to other entities subject to the assessment, and the ultimate liability is not known at the financial statement date. While the ultimate amount of the assessment is dependent upon the experience of all pool participants, the Company believes it has adequate reserves to cover such assessments. Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings The Company is a party to numerous legal proceedings, investigations, audits and claims arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of its businesses, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s financial condition. Except as otherwise noted, the Company cannot predict with certainty the timing or outcome of the legal matters described below, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for these matters. It is reasonably possible that the outcome of such legal matters could be material to the Company. Usual and Customary Litigation The Company is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including the cases below, that allege that the Company’s retail stores overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price, and related theories. The Company is defending itself against these claims. Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection statutes of certain states on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs. Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and August 2016. In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Company on plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety and certified certain subclasses in September 2017. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court’s grant of summary judgment and reversed the U.S. District Court’s narrowing of the requested class. The Corcoran case is proceeding to a trial on a six state class basis, and trial is scheduled to occur in 2021. The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) premised on an alleged conspiracy between the Company and other PBMs. State of Mississippi v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, Third Judicial District). In July 2016, the Company was served with a complaint filed on behalf of the State of Mississippi. The complaint alleged that CVS retail pharmacies in Mississippi submitted false claims for reimbursement to the Mississippi Medicaid program by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In June 2019, the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. Also in June 2019, the State of Mississippi’s motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaim for declaratory relief was granted. In April 2020, the Company’s motion to dismiss the State of Mississippi’s second amended complaint was denied. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey) et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). In May 2020, eight Blue Cross Blue Shield entities from six states filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging fraud and other state causes of action premised on a theory that the Company’s retail stores overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting accurate usual and customary prices, including by not submitting the price available to members of the former CVS Health Savings Pass program. In October 2020, two Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield entities from New Jersey filed an almost identical lawsuit premised on the same theories. PBM Litigation and Investigations The Company is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits and is subject to a number of investigations concerning its PBM practices. Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action was filed against the Company and other PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan. This case was consolidated with a similar matter and was proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. In October 2020, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice following denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. County of Harris, Texas v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas). This lawsuit was filed against Caremark, Aetna, the manufacturers of insulin and other PBMs in November 2019 by Harris County. Harris County alleges that it was overcharged for insulin as a result of a “price fixing conspiracy” between the manufacturers and PBMs to artificially increase the price of insulin and other diabetes medications. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that the manufacturers and PBMs engaged in an “Insulin Pricing Scheme” whereby the manufacturers artificially increased the reported prices of their insulin products while “secretly” paying rebates to the PBMs in exchange for preferred treatment on the PBMs’ drug formularies. The Company is defending itself against these claims. In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturer of EpiPen products and their authorized generics on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. A nearly identical case was separately filed in the same court (Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.). The court granted a motion to consolidate the two complaints. The Company is defending itself against these claims. In re Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturers of analog insulin products on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. Two nearly identical cases were separately filed in the same court (FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk, et al. and Value Drug Company v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al.). The court granted a motion to consolidate all three complaints. The Company is defending itself against these claims. United States ex rel. Behnke v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In April 2018, the Court unsealed a complaint filed in February 2014. The government has declined to intervene in this case. The relator alleges that the Company submitted, or caused to be submitted, to Part D of the Medicare program Prescription Drug Event data and/or Direct and Indirect Remuneration reports that misrepresented true prices paid by the Company’s PBM to pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Part D beneficiaries with prescription benefits administered by the Company’s PBM. In April 2020, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The Company is defending itself against these claims. The Company has received subpoenas, civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) and other requests for documents and information from, and is being investigated by, Attorneys General of several states regarding its PBM practices, including pricing and rebates. In addition, the Company has received inquiries from congressional committees regarding insulin pricing. The Company has been providing documents and information in response to these subpoenas, CIDs and requests for information. Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Subpoenas In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, Indian tribes and third-party payors, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread prescription opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This multidistrict litigation presumptively includes hundreds of relevant federal court cases that name the Company as a defendant. A significant number of similar cases that name the Company as a defendant in some capacity are pending in state courts. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in similar cases brought by certain state Attorneys General. The Company is defending itself against all such claims. Additionally, the Company has received subpoenas, CIDs and/or other requests for information regarding opioids from state Attorneys General and insurance and other regulators of several states. The Company has been cooperating with the government with respect to these subpoenas, CIDs and other requests for information. The Company routinely is audited by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”). In some instances, the Company is in discussions with the DEA and U.S. Attorney’s Offices concerning allegations that the Company violated certain requirements of the federal Controlled Substances Act. In January 2020, the DOJ served the Company with a DEA administrative subpoena. The subpoena seeks documents relating to practices with respect to prescription opioids and other controlled substances at CVS Pharmacy locations in connection with an investigation concerning potential violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the federal False Claims Act. The Company has been cooperating with the government with respect to this subpoena. Prescription Processing Litigation and Investigations U.S. ex rel. Bassan et al. v. Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corp. and U.S. ex rel. Mohajer et al. v. Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corp. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York). In December 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) filed complaints-in-intervention in these two previously sealed qui tam cases. With respect to the Bassan complaint, all states and Washington, D.C. have declined to intervene at this time. The government’s investigation related to these complaints included the previously disclosed CID that the Company received in October 2015 from the SDNY concerning the Company’s Omnicare pharmacies’ cycle fill process for assisted living facilities. The complaints allege that for certain non-skilled nursing facilities, Omnicare improperly filled prescriptions beyond one year where a valid prescription did not exist and that these dispensing events violated the federal False Claims Act. The Mohajer relators have amended their complaint to include claims based on similar theories related to certain skilled nursing facilities. The Company is defending itself against these claims. In July 2017, the Company also received a subpoena from the California Department of Insurance requesting documents concerning the Company’s Omnicare pharmacies’ cycle fill process for assisted living facilities. The Company has been cooperating with the California Department of Insurance and providing documents and information in response to this subpoena. In December 2016, the Company received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York requesting documents and information in connection with a federal False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company’s retail pharmacies improperly submitted certain insulin claims to Part D of the Medicare program rather than Part B of the Medicare program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to this CID. In May 2017, the Company received a CID from the SDNY requesting documents and information concerning possible false claims submitted to Medicare in connection with reimbursements for prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to this CID. Provider Proceedings The Company is named as a defendant in purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its members by health care providers with whom the Company has a contract and with whom the Company does not have a contract (“out-of-network providers”). Among other things, these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its health plan members and/or providers for these services and/or otherwise allege that the Company failed to timely or appropriately pay or administer claims and benefits (including the Company’s post payment audit and collection practices and reductions in payments to providers due to sequestration). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation. The Company also has received subpoenas and/or requests for documents and other information from, and been investigated by, state Attorneys General and other state and/or federal regulators, legislators and agencies relating to, and the Company is involved in other litigation regarding, its out-of-network benefit payment and administration practices. It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network benefit payment and/or administration practices. CMS Actions The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) regularly audits the Company’s performance to determine its compliance with CMS’s regulations and its contracts with CMS and to assess the quality of services it provides to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS uses various payment mechanisms to allocate and adjust premium payments to the Company’s and other companies’ Medicare plans by considering the applicable health status of Medicare members as supported by information prepared, maintained and provided by health care providers. The Company collects claim and encounter data from providers and generally relies on providers to appropriately code their submissions to the Company and document their medical records, including the diagnosis data submitted to the Company with claims. CMS pays increased premiums to Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare PDP plans for members who have certain medical conditions identified with specific diagnosis codes. Federal regulators review and audit the providers’ medical records to determine whether those records support the related diagnosis codes that determine the members’ health status and the resulting risk-adjusted premium payments to the Company. In that regard, CMS has instituted risk adjustment data validation (“RADV”) audits of various Medicare Advantage plans, including certain of the Company’s plans, to validate coding practices and supporting medical record documentation maintained by health care providers and the resulting risk adjusted premium payments to the plans. CMS may require the Company to refund premium payments if the Company’s risk adjusted premiums are not properly supported by medical record data. The Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) also is auditing the Company’s risk adjustment-related data and that of other companies. The Company expects CMS and the OIG to continue these types of audits. In 2012, CMS revised its audit methodology for RADV audits to determine refunds payable by Medicare Advantage plans for contract year 2011 and forward. Under the revised methodology, among other things, CMS will extrapolate the error rate identified in the audit sample of approximately 200 members to all risk adjusted premium payments made under the contract being audited. For contract years prior to 2011, CMS did not extrapolate sample error rates to the entire contract. As a result, the revised methodology may increase the Company’s exposure to premium refunds to CMS based on incomplete medical records maintained by providers. Since 2013, CMS has selected certain of the Company’s Medicare Advantage contracts for various contract years for RADV audit, and the number of RADV audits continues to increase. The Company is currently unable to predict which of its Medicare Advantage contracts will be selected for future audit, the amounts of any retroactive refunds of, or prospective adjustments to, Medicare Advantage premium payments made to the Company, the effect of any such refunds or adjustments on the actuarial soundness of the Company’s Medicare Advantage bids, or whether any RADV audit findings would require the Company to change its method of estimating future premium revenue in future bid submissions to CMS or compromise premium assumptions made in the Company’s bids for prior contract years, the current contract year or future contract years. Any premium or fee refunds or adjustments resulting from regulatory audits, whether as a result of RADV, Public Exchange related or other audits by CMS, the OIG, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or otherwise, including audits of the Company’s minimum medical loss ratio (“MLR”) rebates, methodology and/or reports, could be material and could adversely affect the Company’s operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition. Medicare and Medicaid CIDs The Company has received CIDs from the Civil Division of the DOJ in connection with a current investigation of the Company’s patient chart review processes in connection with risk adjustment data submissions under Parts C and D of the Medicare program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to these CIDs. In April 2020, the Company received a CID from the Office of the Washington Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Control Division, on behalf of the State of Washington and all other states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The investigation involves, among other things, possible retention of overpayments and possible submission of false claims for Medicaid reimbursement relating to drugs prescribed by providers who were excluded by the applicable federal and/or state Medicaid programs. The Company is cooperating with the government with respect to this investigation. Stockholder Matters The Company and/or its current and/or former directors and/or executive officers are named as defendants in a number of lawsuits and a request for access to information initiated by holders or putative holders of CVS Health common stock. Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island); Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Act Litigation (formerly captioned Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al.) (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations relating to the performance of the Company’s LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019. The Labourers’ Pension Fund and Cambria County cases have been consolidated into a single action based on the Labourers’ Pension Fund complaint. The Freundlich and City of Warren cases have been consolidated into In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation and stayed in favor of the earlier-filed Anarkat and Labourers’ Pension Fund cases. The Company is defending itself against these claims. In January 2020, a derivative complaint was filed against the Company’s directors and current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island by a stockholder. Lovoi v. Aguirre, et al. makes allegations similar to those contained the six stockholder class action complaints described above, including that the Company made false or misleading statements about its LTC business unit’s financial health. The Lovoi complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former executive officers and for violation of the federal securities laws. The Lovoi complaint seeks damages, restitution and equitable relief on behalf of the Company. The Lovoi case has been stayed pending the resolution of the two federal class action complaints described above. The Company’s directors and current and former executive officers are defending themselves against these claims. In August and September 2020, two ERISA class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut against CVS Health Corp., Aetna Inc., and several current and former executives, directors and/or members of Aetna’s Compensation and Talent Management Committee: Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to participants in the Aetna 401(k) plan’s investment in company stock between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses related to the performance of the Company’s LTC business unit. The Company also received a related document request pursuant to ERISA § 104(b). The Company is evaluating these matters. Other Legal and Regulatory Proceedings The Company is also a party to other legal proceedings and is subject to government investigations, inquiries and audits and has received and is cooperating with the government in response to CIDs, subpoenas or similar process from various governmental agencies requesting information, arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of its businesses. These other legal proceedings and government actions include claims of or relating to bad faith, medical or professional malpractice, claims processing, dispensing of medications, non-compliance with state and federal regulatory regimes, marketing misconduct, failure to timely or appropriately pay or administer claims and benefits, provider network structure (including the use of performance-based networks and termination of provider contracts), rescission of insurance coverage, improper disclosure or use of personal information, anticompetitive practices, general contractual matters, product liability, intellectual property litigation and employment litigation. Some of these other legal proceedings are or are purported to be class actions or derivative claims. The Company is defending itself against the claims brought in these matters. Awards to the Company and others of certain government contracts, particularly Medicaid contracts and other contracts with government customers in the Company’s Health Care Benefits segment, frequently are subject to protests by unsuccessful bidders. These protests may result in awards to the Company being reversed, delayed or modified. The loss or delay in implementation of any government contract could adversely affect the Company’s operating results. The Company will continue to defend contract awards it receives. There also continues to be a heightened level of review and/or audit by regulatory authorities and legislators of, and increased litigation regarding, the Company’s and the rest of the health care and related benefits industry’s business and reporting practices, including premium rate increases, utilization management, development and application of medical policies, complaint, grievance and appeal processing, information privacy, provider network structure (including provider network adequacy, the use of performance-based networks and termination of provider contracts), provider directory accuracy, calculation of minimum medical loss ratios and/or payment of related rebates, delegated arrangements, rescission of insurance coverage, limited benefit health products, student health products, pharmacy benefit management practices (including manufacturers’ rebates, pricing, the use of narrow networks and the placement of drugs in formulary tiers), sales practices, customer service practices, vendor oversight and claim payment practices (including payments to out-of-network providers). As a leading national health care company, the Company regularly is the subject of government actions of the types described above. These government actions may prevent or delay the Company from implementing planned premium rate increases and may result, and have resulted, in restrictions on the Company’s businesses, changes to or clarifications of the Company’s business practices, retroactive adjustments to premiums, refunds or other payments to members, beneficiaries, states or the federal government, withholding of premium payments to the Company by government agencies, assessments of damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions, including the possible suspension or loss of licensure and/or suspension or exclusion from participation in government programs. The Company can give no assurance that its businesses, financial condition, operating results and/or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected, or that the Company will not be required to materially change its business practices, based on: (i) future enactment of new health care or other laws or regulations; (ii) the interpretation or application of existing laws or regulations as they may relate to one or more of the Company’s businesses, one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally; (iii) pending or future federal or state government investigations of one or more of the Company’s businesses, one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally; (iv) pending or future government audits, investigations or enforcement actions against the Company; (v) adverse developments in any pending qui tam lawsuit against the Company, whether sealed or unsealed, or in any future qui tam lawsuit that may be filed against the Company; or (vi) adverse developments in pending or future legal proceedings against the Company or affecting one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve. We believe COVID-19’s impact on our businesses, operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition primarily will be driven by the geographies impacted and the severity and duration of the pandemic; the pandemic’s impact on the U.S. and global economies and consumer behavior and health care utilization patterns; and the timing, scope and impact of stimulus legislation as well as other federal, state and local governmental responses to the pandemic. Those primary drivers are beyond our knowledge and control. As a result, the impact COVID-19 will have on our businesses, operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition is uncertain, but the impact could be adverse and material. COVID-19 also may result in legal and regulatory proceedings, investigations and claims against us.

Between 1995 and 1997, the Company sold or spun off a number of subsidiaries, including Bob’s Stores and Linens ‘n Things, each of which subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Marshalls. In many cases, when a former subsidiary leased a store, the Company provided a guarantee of the former subsidiary’s lease obligations for the initial lease term and any extension thereof pursuant to a renewal option provided for in the lease prior to the time of the disposition. When the subsidiaries were disposed of and accounted for as discontinued operations, the Company’s guarantees remained in place, although each initial purchaser agreed to indemnify the Company for any lease obligations the Company was required to satisfy. If any of the purchasers or any of the former subsidiaries fail to make the required payments under a store lease, the Company could be required to satisfy those obligations, and any significant adverse impact of COVID-19 on such purchasers and/or former subsidiaries increases the risk that the Company will be required to satisfy those obligations. As of September 30, 2020, the Company guaranteed 76 such store leases (excluding the lease guarantees related to Linens ‘n Things, which have been recorded as a liability on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets), with the maximum remaining lease term extending through 2030.

Under guaranty fund laws existing in all states, insurers doing business in those states can be assessed (in most states up to prescribed limits) for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. The life and health insurance guaranty associations in which the Company participates that operate under these laws respond to insolvencies of long-term care insurers and life insurers as well as health insurers. The Company’s assessments generally are based on a formula relating to the Company’s health care premiums in the state compared to the premiums of other insurers. Certain states allow assessments to be recovered over time as offsets to premium taxes. Some states have similar laws relating to HMOs and/or other payors such as not-for-profit consumer-governed health plans established under the ACA.

In 2009, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner placed long-term care insurer Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and one of its subsidiaries (collectively, “Penn Treaty”) in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency, and subsequently petitioned a state court to convert the rehabilitation into a liquidation. Penn Treaty was placed in liquidation in March 2017. The Company has recorded a liability for its estimated share of future assessments by applicable life and health insurance guaranty associations. It is reasonably possible that in the future the Company may record a liability and expense relating to other insolvencies which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition and cash flows, and this risk is heightened by any significant adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the solvency of other insurers, including long-term care insurers and life insurers. While historically the Company has ultimately recovered more than half of guaranty fund assessments through statutorily permitted premium tax offsets, significant increases in assessments could lead to legislative and/or regulatory actions that limit future offsets.

HMOs in certain states in which the Company does business are subject to assessments, including market stabilization and other risk-sharing pools, for which the Company is assessed charges based on incurred claims, demographic membership mix and other factors. The Company establishes liabilities for these assessments based on applicable laws and regulations. In certain states, the ultimate assessments the Company pays are dependent upon the Company’s experience relative to other entities subject to the assessment, and the ultimate liability is not known at the financial statement date. While the ultimate amount of the assessment is dependent upon the experience of all pool participants, the Company believes it has adequate reserves to cover such assessments.

The Company is a party to numerous legal proceedings, investigations, audits and claims arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of its businesses, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s financial condition.

Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection statutes of certain states on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs. Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Rhode Island) in February and August 2016. In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Company on plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety and certified certain subclasses in September 2017. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court’s grant of summary judgment and reversed the U.S. District Court’s narrowing of the requested class. The Corcoran case is proceeding to a trial on a six state class basis, and trial is scheduled to occur in 2021. The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) premised on an alleged conspiracy between the Company and other PBMs.

State of Mississippi v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, Third Judicial District). In July 2016, the Company was served with a complaint filed on behalf of the State of Mississippi. The complaint alleged that CVS retail pharmacies in Mississippi submitted false claims for reimbursement to the Mississippi Medicaid program by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In June 2019, the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. Also in June 2019, the State of Mississippi’s motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaim for declaratory relief was granted. In April 2020, the Company’s motion to dismiss the State of Mississippi’s second amended complaint was denied.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey) et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). In May 2020, eight Blue Cross Blue Shield entities from six states filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging fraud and other state causes of action premised on a theory that the Company’s retail stores overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting accurate usual and customary prices, including by not submitting the price available to members of the former CVS Health Savings Pass program. In October 2020, two Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield entities from New Jersey filed an almost identical lawsuit premised on the same theories.

Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action was filed against the Company and other PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan. This case was consolidated with a similar matter and was proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. In October 2020, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice following denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

County of Harris, Texas v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas). This lawsuit was filed against Caremark, Aetna, the manufacturers of insulin and other PBMs in November 2019 by Harris County. Harris County alleges that it was overcharged for insulin as a result of a “price fixing conspiracy” between the manufacturers and PBMs to artificially increase the price of insulin and other diabetes medications. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that the manufacturers and PBMs engaged in an “Insulin Pricing Scheme” whereby the manufacturers artificially increased the reported prices of their insulin products while “secretly” paying rebates to the PBMs in exchange for preferred treatment on the PBMs’ drug formularies. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturer of EpiPen products and their authorized generics on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. A nearly identical case was separately filed in the same court (Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.). The court granted a motion to consolidate the two complaints. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

In re Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturers of analog insulin products on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. Two nearly identical cases were

United States ex rel. Behnke v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In April 2018, the Court unsealed a complaint filed in February 2014. The government has declined to intervene in this case. The relator alleges that the Company submitted, or caused to be submitted, to Part D of the Medicare program Prescription Drug Event data and/or Direct and Indirect Remuneration reports that misrepresented true prices paid by the Company’s PBM to pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Part D beneficiaries with prescription benefits administered by the Company’s PBM. In April 2020, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

The Company has received subpoenas, civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) and other requests for documents and information from, and is being investigated by, Attorneys General of several states regarding its PBM practices, including pricing and rebates. In addition, the Company has received inquiries from congressional committees regarding insulin pricing. The Company has been providing documents and information in response to these subpoenas, CIDs and requests for information.

In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, Indian tribes and third-party payors, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread prescription opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This multidistrict litigation presumptively includes hundreds of relevant federal court cases that name the Company as a defendant. A significant number of similar cases that name the Company as a defendant in some capacity are pending in state courts. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in similar cases brought by certain state Attorneys General. The Company is defending itself against all such claims. Additionally, the Company has received subpoenas, CIDs and/or other requests for information regarding opioids from state Attorneys General and insurance and other regulators of several states. The Company has been cooperating with the government with respect to these subpoenas, CIDs and other requests for information.

In January 2020, the DOJ served the Company with a DEA administrative subpoena. The subpoena seeks documents relating to practices with respect to prescription opioids and other controlled substances at CVS Pharmacy locations in connection with an investigation concerning potential violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the federal False Claims Act. The Company has been cooperating with the government with respect to this subpoena.

U.S. ex rel. Bassan et al. v. Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corp. and U.S. ex rel. Mohajer et al. v. Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corp. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York). In December 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) filed complaints-in-intervention in these two previously sealed qui tam cases. With respect to the Bassan complaint, all states and Washington, D.C. have declined to intervene at this time. The government’s investigation related to these complaints included the previously disclosed CID that the Company received in October 2015 from the SDNY concerning the Company’s Omnicare pharmacies’ cycle fill process for assisted living facilities. The complaints allege that for certain non-skilled nursing facilities, Omnicare improperly filled prescriptions beyond one year where a valid prescription did not exist and that these dispensing events violated the federal False Claims Act. The Mohajer relators have amended their complaint to include claims based on similar theories related to certain skilled nursing facilities. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

In December 2016, the Company received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York requesting documents and information in connection with a federal False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company’s retail pharmacies improperly submitted certain insulin claims to Part D of the Medicare program rather than Part B of the Medicare program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to this CID.

The Company is named as a defendant in purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its members by health care providers with whom the Company has a contract and with whom the Company does not have a contract (“out-of-network providers”). Among other things, these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its health plan members and/or providers for these services and/or otherwise allege that the Company failed to timely or appropriately pay or administer claims and benefits (including the Company’s post payment audit and collection practices and reductions in payments to providers due to sequestration). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

The Company also has received subpoenas and/or requests for documents and other information from, and been investigated by, state Attorneys General and other state and/or federal regulators, legislators and agencies relating to, and the Company is involved in other litigation regarding, its out-of-network benefit payment and administration practices. It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network benefit payment and/or administration practices.

The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) regularly audits the Company’s performance to determine its compliance with CMS’s regulations and its contracts with CMS and to assess the quality of services it provides to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS uses various payment mechanisms to allocate and adjust premium payments to the Company’s and other companies’ Medicare plans by considering the applicable health status of Medicare members as supported by information prepared, maintained and provided by health care providers. The Company collects claim and encounter data from providers and generally relies on providers to appropriately code their submissions to the Company and document their medical records, including the diagnosis data submitted to the Company with claims. CMS pays increased premiums to Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare PDP plans for members who have certain medical conditions identified with specific diagnosis codes. Federal regulators review and audit the providers’ medical records to determine whether those records support the related diagnosis codes that determine the members’ health status and the resulting risk-adjusted premium payments to the Company. In that regard, CMS has instituted risk adjustment data validation (“RADV”) audits of various Medicare Advantage plans, including certain of the Company’s plans, to validate coding practices and supporting medical record documentation maintained by health care providers and the resulting risk adjusted premium payments to the plans. CMS may require the Company to refund premium payments if the Company’s risk adjusted premiums are not properly supported by medical record data. The Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) also is auditing the Company’s risk adjustment-related data and that of other companies. The Company expects CMS and the OIG to continue these types of audits.

In 2012, CMS revised its audit methodology for RADV audits to determine refunds payable by Medicare Advantage plans for contract year 2011 and forward. Under the revised methodology, among other things, CMS will extrapolate the error rate identified in the audit sample of approximately 200 members to all risk adjusted premium payments made under the contract being audited. For contract years prior to 2011, CMS did not extrapolate sample error rates to the entire contract. As a result, the revised methodology may increase the Company’s exposure to premium refunds to CMS based on incomplete medical records maintained by providers. Since 2013, CMS has selected certain of the Company’s Medicare Advantage contracts for various contract years for RADV audit, and the number of RADV audits continues to increase. The Company is currently unable to predict which of its Medicare Advantage contracts will be selected for future audit, the amounts of any retroactive refunds of, or prospective adjustments to, Medicare Advantage premium payments made to the Company, the effect of any such refunds or adjustments on the actuarial soundness of the Company’s Medicare Advantage bids, or whether any RADV audit findings would require the Company to change its method of estimating future premium revenue in future bid submissions to CMS or compromise premium assumptions made in the Company’s bids for prior contract years, the current contract year or future contract years. Any premium or fee refunds or adjustments resulting from regulatory audits, whether as a result of

In April 2020, the Company received a CID from the Office of the Washington Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Control Division, on behalf of the State of Washington and all other states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The investigation involves, among other things, possible retention of overpayments and possible submission of false claims for Medicaid reimbursement relating to drugs prescribed by providers who were excluded by the applicable federal and/or state Medicaid programs. The Company is cooperating with the government with respect to this investigation.

Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island); Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Act Litigation (formerly captioned Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al.) (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations relating to the performance of the Company’s LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019. The Labourers’ Pension Fund and Cambria County cases have been consolidated into a single action based on the Labourers’ Pension Fund complaint. The Freundlich and City of Warren cases have been consolidated into In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation and stayed in favor of the earlier-filed Anarkat and Labourers’ Pension Fund cases. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

In January 2020, a derivative complaint was filed against the Company’s directors and current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island by a stockholder. Lovoi v. Aguirre, et al. makes allegations similar to those contained the six stockholder class action complaints described above, including that the Company made false or misleading statements about its LTC business unit’s financial health. The Lovoi complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former executive officers and for violation of the federal securities laws. The Lovoi complaint seeks damages, restitution and equitable relief on behalf of the Company. The Lovoi case has been stayed pending the resolution of the two federal class action complaints described above. The Company’s directors and current and former executive officers are defending themselves against these claims.

In August and September 2020, two ERISA class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut against CVS Health Corp., Aetna Inc., and several current and former executives, directors and/or members of Aetna’s Compensation and Talent Management Committee: Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to participants in the Aetna 401(k) plan’s investment in company stock between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses related to the performance of the Company’s LTC business unit. The Company also received a related document request pursuant to ERISA § 104(b). The Company is evaluating these matters.

proceedings and government actions include claims of or relating to bad faith, medical or professional malpractice, claims processing, dispensing of medications, non-compliance with state and federal regulatory regimes, marketing misconduct, failure to timely or appropriately pay or administer claims and benefits, provider network structure (including the use of performance-based networks and termination of provider contracts), rescission of insurance coverage, improper disclosure or use of personal information, anticompetitive practices, general contractual matters, product liability, intellectual property litigation and employment litigation. Some of these other legal proceedings are or are purported to be class actions or derivative claims. The Company is defending itself against the claims brought in these matters.

Awards to the Company and others of certain government contracts, particularly Medicaid contracts and other contracts with government customers in the Company’s Health Care Benefits segment, frequently are subject to protests by unsuccessful bidders. These protests may result in awards to the Company being reversed, delayed or modified. The loss or delay in implementation of any government contract could adversely affect the Company’s operating results. The Company will continue to defend contract awards it receives.

There also continues to be a heightened level of review and/or audit by regulatory authorities and legislators of, and increased litigation regarding, the Company’s and the rest of the health care and related benefits industry’s business and reporting practices, including premium rate increases, utilization management, development and application of medical policies, complaint, grievance and appeal processing, information privacy, provider network structure (including provider network adequacy, the use of performance-based networks and termination of provider contracts), provider directory accuracy, calculation of minimum medical loss ratios and/or payment of related rebates, delegated arrangements, rescission of insurance coverage, limited benefit health products, student health products, pharmacy benefit management practices (including manufacturers’ rebates, pricing, the use of narrow networks and the placement of drugs in formulary tiers), sales practices, customer service practices, vendor oversight and claim payment practices (including payments to out-of-network providers).

As a leading national health care company, the Company regularly is the subject of government actions of the types described above. These government actions may prevent or delay the Company from implementing planned premium rate increases and may result, and have resulted, in restrictions on the Company’s businesses, changes to or clarifications of the Company’s business practices, retroactive adjustments to premiums, refunds or other payments to members, beneficiaries, states or the federal government, withholding of premium payments to the Company by government agencies, assessments of damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions, including the possible suspension or loss of licensure and/or suspension or exclusion from participation in government programs.

The Company can give no assurance that its businesses, financial condition, operating results and/or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected, or that the Company will not be required to materially change its business practices, based on: (i) future enactment of new health care or other laws or regulations; (ii) the interpretation or application of existing laws or regulations as they may relate to one or more of the Company’s businesses, one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally; (iii) pending or future federal or state government investigations of one or more of the Company’s businesses, one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally; (iv) pending or future government audits, investigations or enforcement actions against the Company; (v) adverse developments in any pending qui tam lawsuit against the Company, whether sealed or unsealed, or in any future qui tam lawsuit that may be filed against the Company; or (vi) adverse developments in pending or future legal proceedings against the Company or affecting one or more of the industries in which the Company competes and/or the health care industry generally.