XML 33 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies 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. As of September 30, 2024, the Company guaranteed 61 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 2035. 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 health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and/or other payors such as not-for-profit consumer-governed health plans established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 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. 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 has been involved or is currently involved in numerous legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration, government investigations, audits, reviews and claims. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by CMS, state insurance and health and welfare departments, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), state Attorneys General, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and other governmental authorities. Legal proceedings, in general, and securities, class action and multi-district litigation, in particular, and governmental special investigations, audits and reviews can be expensive and disruptive. Some of the litigation matters may purport or be determined to be class actions and/or involve parties seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages, and may remain unresolved for several years. The Company also may be named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties that could also be separately pursued by a governmental body. The results of legal proceedings, including government investigations, are often uncertain and difficult to predict, and the costs incurred in these matters can be substantial, regardless of the outcome. 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. Other than the controlled substances litigation accruals described below, none of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. 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. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in pending legal proceedings have merit and does not believe that any of these pending matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. Substantial unanticipated verdicts, fines and rulings, however, do sometimes occur, which could result in judgments against the Company, entry into settlements or a revision to its expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. In addition, as a result of governmental investigations or proceedings, the Company may be subject to damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions including possible suspension or loss of licensure and/or exclusion from participating in government programs. The outcome of such governmental investigations of proceedings could be material to the Company. Usual and Customary Pricing Litigation The Company is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits that allege that the Company’s retail pharmacies overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the correct usual and customary price during the claims adjudication process. These actions are brought by a number of different types of plaintiffs, including plan members, private payors and government payors, and are based on different legal theories. Some of these cases are brought as putative class actions, and in some instances, classes have been certified. The Company is defending itself against these claims. 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. The Company is facing multiple lawsuits, including by the FTC, state Attorneys General, governmental subdivisions, private parties and several putative class actions, regarding drug pricing and its rebate arrangements with drug manufacturers. These complaints, brought by a number of different types of plaintiffs under a variety of legal theories, generally allege that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused inflated prices for certain drug products. The majority of these cases have now been transferred into a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company is defending itself against these claims. The Company has also received subpoenas, civil investigative demands (“CIDs”), and other requests for documents and information from, and is being investigated by, the FTC and Attorneys General of several states and the District of Columbia regarding its PBM practices, including pharmacy contracting practices and reimbursement, pricing and rebates. The Company has been providing documents and information in response to these subpoenas, CIDs, and requests for information. In July 2024, the FTC released an interim staff report on PBMs in which it studies, among other things, the impacts that the PBM industry may have on prescription drug costs and pharmacies. The Company disagrees with many of the statements made in the FTC’s interim staff report. In September 2024, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against the three largest PBMs and their affiliated group purchasing organizations, including subsidiaries of the Company. The complaint alleged that the PBMs engaged in anti-competitive and unfair practices that “artificially” increased insulin costs. The Company is aggressively defending itself against the complaint. 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. The Company is defending itself against these claims. Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Subpoenas In December 2022, the Company agreed to a formal settlement agreement, the financial amounts of which were agreed to in principle in October 2022, with a leadership group of a number of state Attorneys General and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. Upon finalization, the agreement resolves substantially all opioid claims against Company entities by participating states and political subdivisions but not private plaintiffs, alleging claims beginning as far back as the early 2000s generally concerning the impacts of widespread prescription opioid abuse. The maximum amount payable by the Company under the settlement is approximately $4.3 billion in opioid remediation and $625 million in attorneys’ fees and costs and additional remediation. The amounts are payable over 10 years, beginning in 2023. The agreement also contains injunctive terms relating to the dispensing of opioid medications. The settlement agreement is available at nationalopioidsettlement.com. Upon reaching an agreement in principle in October 2022, the Company concluded that settlement of opioid claims by governmental entities and tribes was probable, and the loss related thereto could be reasonably estimated. As a result of that conclusion, and its assessment of certain other opioid-related claims including those for which the Company reached agreement in August and September 2022, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $5.3 billion during the year ended December 31, 2022. Settlement accruals expected to be paid within twelve months from the balance sheet date are classified as accrued expenses on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets and settlement accruals expected to be paid greater than twelve months from the balance sheet date are classified as other long-term liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. In June 2023, the Company elected to move forward with a final settlement agreement, the financial amounts of which were agreed to in principle in October 2022, to resolve claims brought by participating states and political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns, but not by private plaintiffs, alleging claims beginning as far back as the early 2000s generally concerning the impacts of widespread prescription opioid abuse. The agreement became effective in June 2023. Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, and all eligible United States territories are participating in the settlement. A high percentage of eligible subdivisions within the participating states also have elected to join the settlement. The Company has separately entered into settlement agreements with four states – Florida, West Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada – and a high percentage of eligible subdivisions within those states also have elected to participate. The final settlement agreement contains certain contingencies related to payment obligations. Because these contingencies are inherently unpredictable, the assessment requires judgments about future events. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from the amount accrued by the Company. The State of Maryland has elected not to participate, and thus subdivisions within the State of Maryland may not participate, in the settlement. The State of Maryland has issued a civil subpoena for information from the Company, and litigation is pending with certain subdivisions within the State of Maryland, though in August 2024 the Company reached a settlement with the City of Baltimore for an amount immaterial to the Company. The Company is defending itself against claims made in these cases. In December 2022, the Company also agreed to a formal settlement agreement with a leadership group representing tribes throughout the United States. The agreement resolves substantially all opioid claims against Company entities by such tribes. The maximum amount payable by the Company under the settlement is $113 million in opioid remediation and $16 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, payable over 10 years. The Company also entered into a separate settlement with the Cherokee Nation. These settlements resolve a majority of the cases against the Company that had been pending in the consolidated multidistrict litigation captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. However, certain opioid-related cases against the Company remain pending in the multidistrict litigation and in various state courts, including those brought by non-participating subdivisions, including the City of Philadelphia, and private parties such as hospitals and third-party payors. The Company continues to defend those cases. In November 2021, the Company was among the chain pharmacies found liable by a jury in a trial in federal court in Ohio; in August 2022, the court issued a judgment jointly against the three defendants in the amount of $651 million to be paid over 15 years and also ordered certain injunctive relief. The Company is appealing the judgment and has not accrued a liability for this matter. Because of the many uncertainties associated with any settlement arrangement or other resolution of opioid-related litigation matters, and because the Company continues to actively defend ongoing litigation for which it believes it has defenses and assertions that have merit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the range of ultimate possible loss for all opioid-related litigation matters at this time. The outcome of these legal matters could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results and/or cash flows. 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 concerning potential violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the federal False Claims Act. The DOJ subsequently served additional DEA administrative subpoenas relating to controlled substances. The DOJ also served the Company with additional CIDs relating to controlled substances. The Company is providing documents and information in response to these matters. Prescription Processing 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 prescription processing practices, including related to billing government payors for prescriptions, and the following: U.S. ex rel. Bassan 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 filed a complaint-in-intervention in this previously sealed qui tam case. The complaint alleges 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 Company is defending itself against these claims. U.S. ex rel. Gill et al. v. CVS Health Corp. et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). In July 2022, the Delaware Attorney General’s Office moved for partial intervention as to allegations under the Delaware false claims act related to not escheating alleged overpayments in this previously sealed qui tam case. The federal government and the remaining states declined to intervene on other additional theories in the relator’s complaint. The Company is defending itself against all of the claims. 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 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 out-of-network services (including COVID-19 testing) 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). 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 claims payments, 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 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 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 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 the U.S. Department 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, in the “Notice of Final Payment Error Calculation for Part C Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment Validation Data (“RADV”) Contract-Level Audits,” CMS revised its audit methodology for RADV contract-level audits to determine refunds payable by Medicare Advantage plans for contract year 2011 and forward. Under the revised methodology, among other things, CMS announced extrapolation of the error rate identified in the audit sample along with the application of a process to account for errors in the government’s traditional fee-for-service Medicare program (“FFS Adjuster”). For contract years prior to 2011, CMS did not extrapolate sample error rates to the entire contract, nor did CMS propose to apply a FFS adjuster. By applying the FFS Adjuster, Medicare Advantage organizations would have been liable for repayments only to the extent that their extrapolated payment errors exceeded the error rate in Original Medicare, which could have impacted the extrapolated repayments to which Medicare Advantage organizations are subject. This revised contract-level audit methodology increased the Company’s exposure to premium refunds to CMS based on incomplete medical records maintained by providers. In the RADV audit methodology CMS used from 2011-2013, CMS selected only a few of the Company’s Medicare Advantage contracts for various contract years for contract-level RADV audits. In October 2018, CMS in the proposed rule announced a new methodology for RADV audits targeting certain health conditions and members with many diagnostic conditions along with extrapolation for the error rates identified without use of a FFS Adjuster. While the rule was under proposal, CMS initiated contract-level RADV audits for the years 2014 and 2015 with this new RADV methodology without a final rule. On January 30, 2023, CMS released the final rule (“RADV Audit Rule”), announcing it may use extrapolation for payment years 2018 forward, for both RADV audits and OIG contract level audits, and eliminated the application of a FFS Adjuster in Part C contract-level RADV audits of Medicare Advantage organizations. In the RADV Audit Rule, CMS indicated that it will use more than one audit methodology going forward and indicated CMS will audit contracts it believes are at the highest risk for overpayments based on its statistical modeling, citing a 2016 Governmental Accountability Office report that recommended selection of contract-level RADV audits with a focus on contracts likely to have high rates of improper payment, the highest coding intensity scores, and contracts with high levels of unsupported diagnoses from prior RADV audits. CMS announced that it would begin the RADV and OIG contract-level audits for payment year 2018, however as of the end of October 2024 no Company contracts have been selected. 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 for years prior to 2018 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 or otherwise, including audits of the Company’s minimum loss ratio rebates, methodology and/or reports, could be material and could adversely affect the Company’s operating results, cash flows and/or financial condition. The RADV Audit Rule does not apply to the CMS Part C Improper Payment Measures audits nor the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services RADV programs. Medicare and Medicaid Litigation and Investigations The Company has received CIDs from the Civil Division of the DOJ in connection with investigations of the Company’s identification and/or submission of diagnosis codes related to risk adjustment payments, including patient chart review processes, under Parts C and D of the Medicare program. The Company is cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to these CIDs. In May 2017, the Company received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York 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. In November 2021, prior to its acquisition by the Company, Oak Street Health received a CID from the DOJ in connection with an investigation of possible false claims submitted to Medicare related to Oak Street Health’s relationships with third-party marketing agents and Oak Street Health’s provision of free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries. In September 2024, the Company settled the matter for an amount immaterial to the Company. Since January 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts has issued subpoenas to Aetna Life Insurance Company seeking, among other things, information in connection with its relationship and compensation arrangements with certain brokers, and the Company may receive similar inquiries in the future. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. Stockholder Matters Beginning in February 2019, multiple class action complaints, as well as a derivative complaint, were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors. 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. Since filing, several of the cases have been consolidated, and two have resolved, including the first-filed federal case, City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust, et al. (formerly known as Anarkat), the dismissal of which the First Circuit affirmed in August 2022. The Company and its current and former officers and directors are defending themselves against remaining claims. The Company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint in In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Act Litigation (formerly known as Waterford). In In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation (formerly known as City of Warren and Freundlich), the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in February 2023 and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. Beginning in December 2021, the Company has received three demands for inspection of books and records pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220 (“Section 220 demands”), as well as a derivative complaint (Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Lynch, et al.) that was filed in January 2023, which the defendants have moved to dismiss. The Section 220 demands and the complaint purport to be related to potential breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board in relation to certain matters concerning opioids. Following the Company’s response to the Section 220 demands, two of the three stockholders sent demand letters to the Board containing allegations substantially similar to those made in the earlier Section 220 demands and the derivative matter, and requested that it take certain actions, including consideration of its governance and policies with respect to controlled substances. The Board deferred consideration of these two demands until after the motion to dismiss the Gusinsky case was decided. In July 2024, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Gusinsky case. In September 2024, the Board received a third demand letter containing similar allegations and requesting the Board take action. The Board is considering its response to the three demands in light of the Gusinsky dismissal. In January 2022, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Allison v. Oak Street Health, Inc., et al. Defendants include Oak Street Health and certain of its pre-acquisition officers and directors. The putative plaintiffs assert causes of action under various securities laws premised on allegations that defendants made omissions and misrepresentations to investors relating to marketing conduct they allege may violate the False Claims Act. In May 2024, the parties reached agreement in principle to settle this action for an amount immaterial to the Company. The court preliminarily approved the settlement in September 2024, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for December 2024. Beginning in July 2024, two purported class action complaints, as well as multiple derivative complaints, were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action under federal securities laws and state law that are premised on allegations that the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations relating to the profitability of the Health Care Benefits segment. The two purported class actions were filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Nixon v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Tatone v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., as were two of the pending derivative cases, Kaufmann v. Lynch, et al., and Silva v. Lynch, et al. Two derivative cases were filed in the District of Rhode Island, Duffy v. Lynch, et al. and Lovoi v. Lynch, et al., and two were filed in Rhode Island Superior Court, Goff v. Lynch, et al. and Brodin v. Lynch, et al. The Company and the individual defendants are defending themselves against these claims. 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. These other legal proceedings and government actions include claims of or relating to bad faith, medical or professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, claims processing, dispensing of medications, the use of medical testing devices in the in-home evaluation setting, non-compliance with state and federal regulatory regimes, marketing misconduct, denial of or 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, the Company’s participation in the 340B program, general contractual matters, product liability, intellectual property litigation, discrimination 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 solutions 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration