Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies In April 2013, the Company completed a tender offer for publicly traded shares of Amil Participações S.A. (Amil) in which it acquired an additional 25% of the total outstanding shares of Amil for $1.4 billion. After the tender offer, 1% of Amil's total outstanding shares remain publicly traded. The Company expects to acquire all of the remaining Amil public shares in the second quarter of 2013 as permitted under applicable Brazilian law. For more information on the Company's investment in Amil, see Note 6 of the Notes of the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 2012 10-K. Legal Matters Because of the nature of its businesses, the Company is frequently made party to a variety of legal actions and regulatory inquiries, including class actions and suits brought by members, care providers, customers and regulators, relating to the Company’s businesses, including management and administration of health benefit plans and other services. These matters include medical malpractice, employment, intellectual property, antitrust, privacy and contract claims, and claims related to health care benefits coverage and other business practices. The Company records liabilities for its estimates of probable costs resulting from these matters where appropriate. Estimates of costs resulting from legal and regulatory matters involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly where the matters: involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; or could result in a change in business practices. Accordingly, the Company is often unable to estimate the losses or ranges of losses for those matters where there is a reasonable possibility or it is probable that a loss may be incurred. Litigation Matters Out-of-Network Reimbursement Litigation. The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits challenging reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based on the Company’s use of a database previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight), including putative class actions and multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of members of Aetna and WellPoint. These suits allege, among other things, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenix was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies to underpay their members’ claims and seek unspecified damages and treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company is vigorously defending these suits. In 2012, the Company was dismissed as a party from a similar lawsuit involving Cigna and its members. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters due to the procedural status of the cases, dispositive motions that remain pending, the absence of class certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of other insurance companies as defendants. California Claims Processing Matter. On January 25, 2008, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) issued an Order to Show Cause to PacifiCare Life and Health Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Company, alleging violations of certain insurance statutes and regulations related to an alleged failure to include certain language in standard claims correspondence, timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, interest payments, care provider contract implementation, care provider dispute resolution and other related matters. The matter has been the subject of an administrative hearing before a California administrative law judge since December 2009. Although the Company believes that CDI has never issued a penalty in excess of $8 million, CDI is seeking a penalty of approximately $325 million in this matter. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims in this matter and believes that the penalty requested by CDI is excessive and without merit. After the administrative law judge issues a ruling at the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, expected in 2013, the California Insurance Commissioner may accept, reject or modify the administrative law judge’s ruling, issue his own decision, and impose a fine or penalty. The Commissioner’s decision is subject to challenge in court. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the procedural status of the dispute, the legal issues presented (including the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory fines and penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event a fine or penalty is assessed. Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada Litigation. In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. Company plans are party to 42 additional individual lawsuits and 2 class actions relating to the outbreak. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given the likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Government Investigations, Audits and Reviews The Company has been and is currently involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by CMS, state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Congressional committees, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the Brazilian securities regulator - Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, Internal Revenue Service, the Brazilian federal revenue service - the Secretaria da Receita Federal, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other governmental authorities. Certain of the Company’s businesses have been reviewed or are currently under review, including for, among other things, compliance with coding and other requirements under the Medicare risk-adjustment model. In February 2012, CMS announced a final Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audit and payment adjustment methodology and that it will conduct RADV audits beginning with the 2011 payment year. These audits involve a review of medical records maintained by care providers and may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. CMS has not communicated how the final payment adjustment under its methodology will be implemented. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from any material government investigations, audits and reviews in which it is currently involved given the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory action, fines and penalties, if any, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event of an adverse finding.

Commitments and Contingencies

In April 2013, the Company completed a tender offer for publicly traded shares of Amil Participações S.A. (Amil) in which it acquired an additional 25% of the total outstanding shares of Amil for $1.4 billion. After the tender offer, 1% of Amil's total outstanding shares remain publicly traded. The Company expects to acquire all of the remaining Amil public shares in the second quarter of 2013 as permitted under applicable Brazilian law. For more information on the Company's investment in Amil, see Note 6 of the Notes of the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 2012 10-K.

Legal Matters

Because of the nature of its businesses, the Company is frequently made party to a variety of legal actions and regulatory inquiries, including class actions and suits brought by members, care providers, customers and regulators, relating to the Company’s businesses, including management and administration of health benefit plans and other services. These matters include medical malpractice, employment, intellectual property, antitrust, privacy and contract claims, and claims related to health care benefits coverage and other business practices.

The Company records liabilities for its estimates of probable costs resulting from these matters where appropriate. Estimates of costs resulting from legal and regulatory matters involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly where the matters: involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; or could result in a change in business practices. Accordingly, the Company is often unable to estimate the losses or ranges of losses for those matters where there is a reasonable possibility or it is probable that a loss may be incurred.

Litigation Matters

Out-of-Network Reimbursement Litigation. The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits challenging reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based on the Company’s use of a database previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight), including putative class actions and multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of members of Aetna and WellPoint. These suits allege, among other things, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenix was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies to underpay their members’ claims and seek unspecified damages and treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company is vigorously defending these suits. In 2012, the Company was dismissed as a party from a similar lawsuit involving Cigna and its members. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters due to the procedural status of the cases, dispositive motions that remain pending, the absence of class certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of other insurance companies as defendants.

California Claims Processing Matter. On January 25, 2008, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) issued an Order to Show Cause to PacifiCare Life and Health Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Company, alleging violations of certain insurance statutes and regulations related to an alleged failure to include certain language in standard claims correspondence, timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, interest payments, care provider contract implementation, care provider dispute resolution and other related matters. The matter has been the subject of an administrative hearing before a California administrative law judge since December 2009. Although the Company believes that CDI has never issued a penalty in excess of $8 million, CDI is seeking a penalty of approximately $325 million in this matter. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims in this matter and believes that the penalty requested by CDI is excessive and without merit. After the administrative law judge issues a ruling at the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, expected in 2013, the California Insurance Commissioner may accept, reject or modify the administrative law judge’s ruling, issue his own decision, and impose a fine or penalty. The Commissioner’s decision is subject to challenge in court. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the procedural status of the dispute, the legal issues presented (including the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory fines and penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event a fine or penalty is assessed.

Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada Litigation. In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. Company plans are party to 42 additional individual lawsuits and 2 class actions relating to the outbreak. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given the likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.

Government Investigations, Audits and Reviews

The Company has been and is currently involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by CMS, state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Congressional committees, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the Brazilian securities regulator - Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, Internal Revenue Service, the Brazilian federal revenue service - the Secretaria da Receita Federal, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other governmental authorities. Certain of the Company’s businesses have been reviewed or are currently under review, including for, among other things, compliance with coding and other requirements under the Medicare risk-adjustment model.

In February 2012, CMS announced a final Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audit and payment adjustment methodology and that it will conduct RADV audits beginning with the 2011 payment year. These audits involve a review of medical records maintained by care providers and may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. CMS has not communicated how the final payment adjustment under its methodology will be implemented.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from any material government investigations, audits and reviews in which it is currently involved given the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory action, fines and penalties, if any, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event of an adverse finding.