Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	7. Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation Commitments Generic Sourcing Venture with CVS Health Corporation ("CVS Health") In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing venture with CVS Health for an initial term of 10 years. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of its participants. Due to the achievement of predetermined milestones, we are required to make quarterly payments of $45.6 million to CVS Health for the remainder of the initial term. Legal Proceedings We become involved from time to time in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters. We are named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties. In such actions, the private parties purport to act on behalf of federal or state governments, allege that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if their claims are successful. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on his or her own purporting to act on behalf of the government. From time to time, we become aware through employees, internal audits or other parties of possible compliance matters, such as complaints or concerns relating to accounting, internal accounting controls, financial reporting, auditing, or other ethical matters or relating to compliance with laws such as healthcare fraud and abuse, anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws. When we become aware of such possible compliance matters, we investigate internally and take appropriate corrective action. In addition, from time to time, we receive subpoenas or requests for information from various federal or state agencies relating to our business or to the business of a customer, supplier or other industry participants. Internal investigations, subpoenas or requests for information have led, and may in the future lead, to the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us or result in sanctions. From time to time, we determine that products we manufacture or market do not meet our specifications, regulatory requirements, or published standards. When we or a regulatory agency identify a potential quality or regulatory issue, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions can lead to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales, action by regulators and product liability claims and lawsuits, including class actions. Even absent an identified regulatory or quality issue or product recall, we can become subject to product liability claims and lawsuits. We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. We recognize income from the favorable outcome of litigation when we receive the associated cash or assets. We recognize estimated loss contingencies for certain litigation and regulatory matters and income from favorable resolution of litigation in litigation (recoveries)/charges in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings. Opioid Lawsuits Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in approximately 2,400 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities, cities and political subdivisions in various federal, state, and other courts. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL”). In addition, 21 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against distributors, including us, in various state courts. Additionally, 43 state attorneys general have formed a multi-state task force to investigate the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid medications. We have received requests related to the multi-state investigation, as well as separate civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state attorneys general offices. In October 2019, we agreed in principle to a global settlement framework with a leadership group of four state attorneys general from the multi-state task force that is designed to resolve all pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions, but not private plaintiffs (the "Settlement Framework"). This Settlement Framework is subject to contingencies and uncertainties as to final terms, but is the basis for our negotiation of definitive terms and documentation. The Settlement Framework includes (1) a cash component, pursuant to which we would pay up to $5.56 billion over eighteen years, (2) development and participation in a program for free or rebated distribution of opioid abuse treatment medications for a period of ten years, and (3) industry-wide changes to be specified to controlled substance anti-diversion programs. The Settlement Framework is in its early phases, and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied. We have included a $5.56 billion accrual related to the Settlement Framework in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets and litigation (recoveries)/charges, net, in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings. On October 21, 2019, we and two other national distributors agreed to a $215 million settlement with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, to resolve all claims in the first bellwether trial in the MDL that had been scheduled for trial in October 2019. In connection with this settlement, we have accrued $66 million, which is included in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets and litigation (recoveries)/charges, net, in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings. In connection with these matters, we recorded a total pre-tax charge of $5.63 billion ($5.14 billion after tax) during the three-months ended September 30, 2019 for the cash component. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. Moreover, the global Settlement Framework is in early stages and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied. We will regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether our accrual is adequate. We are unable to reasonably estimate the liability associated with any potential distribution of treatment medications and any incremental costs for changes to our controlled substance anti-diversion program that we may agree to under the Settlement Framework. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from this accrual. We continue to strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits and reaching an agreement in principle on a global settlement framework is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. The Settlement Framework does not address claims by private parties, which includes unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses and individuals. Private parties had brought approximately 325 lawsuits as of November 1, 2019. Of these, 97 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters. Product Liability Lawsuits As of November 1, 2019, we are named as a defendant in 280 product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 3,463 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products. Another 24 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 28 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these lawsuits. At September 30, 2019, we had a total of $414 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits which are presented on a gross basis in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. We believe there is a range of estimated losses with respect to these matters. Because no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, we have accrued the minimum amount in the range. We estimate the high end of the range to be approximately $836 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries. Shareholder Securities Litigation In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. We believe that the claims asserted in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in this matter.

In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing venture with CVS Health for an initial term of 10 years. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of its participants. Due to the achievement of predetermined milestones, we are required to make quarterly payments of $45.6 million to CVS Health for the remainder of the initial term.

We are named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties. In such actions, the private parties purport to act on behalf of federal or state governments, allege that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if their claims are successful. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on his or her own purporting to act on behalf of the government.

From time to time, we become aware through employees, internal audits or other parties of possible compliance matters, such as complaints or concerns relating to accounting, internal accounting controls, financial reporting, auditing, or other ethical matters or relating to compliance with laws such as healthcare fraud and abuse, anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws. When we become aware of such possible compliance matters, we investigate internally and take appropriate corrective action. In addition, from time to time, we receive subpoenas or requests for information from various federal or state agencies relating to our business or to the business of a customer, supplier or other industry participants. Internal investigations, subpoenas or requests for information have led, and may in the future lead, to the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us or result in sanctions.

From time to time, we determine that products we manufacture or market do not meet our specifications, regulatory requirements, or published standards. When we or a regulatory agency identify a potential quality or regulatory issue, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions can lead to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales, action by regulators and product liability claims and lawsuits, including class actions. Even absent an identified regulatory or quality issue or product recall, we can become subject to product liability claims and lawsuits.

We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates.

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in approximately 2,400 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities, cities and political subdivisions in various federal, state, and other courts. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants.

The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL”).

Additionally, 43 state attorneys general have formed a multi-state task force to investigate the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid medications. We have received requests related to the multi-state investigation, as well as separate civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state attorneys general offices.

In October 2019, we agreed in principle to a global settlement framework with a leadership group of four state attorneys general from the multi-state task force that is designed to resolve all pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions, but not private plaintiffs (the "Settlement Framework"). This Settlement Framework is subject to contingencies and uncertainties as to final terms, but is the basis for our negotiation of definitive terms and documentation.

The Settlement Framework includes (1) a cash component, pursuant to which we would pay up to $5.56 billion over eighteen years, (2) development and participation in a program for free or rebated distribution of opioid abuse treatment medications for a period of ten years, and (3) industry-wide changes to be specified to controlled substance anti-diversion programs. The Settlement Framework is in its early phases, and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied. We have included a $5.56 billion accrual related to the Settlement Framework in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets and litigation (recoveries)/charges, net, in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

Summit, to resolve all claims in the first bellwether trial in the MDL that had been scheduled for trial in October 2019. In connection with this settlement, we have accrued $66 million, which is included in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets and litigation (recoveries)/charges, net, in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

In connection with these matters, we recorded a total pre-tax charge of $5.63 billion ($5.14 billion after tax) during the three-months ended September 30, 2019 for the cash component. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. Moreover, the global Settlement Framework is in early stages and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied. We will regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether our accrual is adequate. We are unable to reasonably estimate the liability associated with any potential distribution of treatment medications and any incremental costs for changes to our controlled substance anti-diversion program that we may agree to under the Settlement Framework. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from this accrual. We continue to strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits and reaching an agreement in principle on a global settlement framework is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

The Settlement Framework does not address claims by private parties, which includes unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses and individuals. Private parties had brought approximately 325 lawsuits as of November 1, 2019. Of these, 97 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters.

As of November 1, 2019, we are named as a defendant in 280 product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 3,463 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products. Another 24 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 28 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these lawsuits.

At September 30, 2019, we had a total of $414 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits which are presented on a gross basis in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. We believe there is a range of estimated losses with respect to these matters. Because no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, we have accrued the minimum amount in the range. We estimate the high end of the range