Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Regulatory Capital Requirements and Dividend Restrictions Our health plans, which are operated by our respective wholly owned subsidiaries in those states, are subject to state laws and regulations that, among other things, require the maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, as defined by each state. Regulators in some states may also attempt to enforce capital requirements that require the retention of net worth in excess of amounts formally required by statute or regulation. Such statutes, regulations and informal capital requirements also restrict the timing, payment, and amount of dividends and other distributions that may be paid to us as the sole stockholder. To the extent our subsidiaries must comply with these regulations, they may not have the financial flexibility to transfer funds to us. Based on current statutes and regulations, the net assets in these subsidiaries (after intercompany eliminations) which may not be transferable to us in the form of loans, advances, or cash dividends was approximately $1,527 million at March 31, 2017, and $1,492 million at December 31, 2016. Because of the statutory restrictions that inhibit the ability of our health plans to transfer net assets to us, the amount of retained earnings readily available to pay dividends to our stockholders is generally limited to cash, cash equivalents and investments held by the parent company – Molina Healthcare, Inc. Such cash, cash equivalents and investments amounted to $273 million and $264 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted rules effective December 31, 1998, which, if implemented by the states, set minimum capitalization requirements for insurance companies, HMOs, and other entities bearing risk for health care coverage. The requirements take the form of risk-based capital (RBC) rules which may vary from state to state. All of the states in which our health plans operate, except California, Florida and New York, have adopted these rules. Such requirements, if adopted by California, Florida and New York, may increase the minimum capital required for those states. As of March 31, 2017, our health plans had aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $1,722 million compared with the required minimum aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $1,100 million. All of our health plans were in compliance with the minimum capital requirements at March 31, 2017. We have the ability, and have committed to provide, additional capital to each of our health plans as necessary to ensure compliance with statutory capital and surplus requirements. Legal Proceedings The health care and Medicaid-related business process outsourcing industries are subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments. Compliance with these laws and regulations can be subject to government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown and unasserted at this time. Penalties associated with violations of these laws and regulations include significant fines and penalties, exclusion from participating in publicly funded programs, and the repayment of previously billed and collected revenues. We are involved in legal actions in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. We have accrued liabilities for certain matters for which we deem the loss to be both probable and estimable. Although we believe that our estimates of such losses are reasonable, these estimates could change as a result of further developments of these matters. The outcome of legal actions is inherently uncertain and such pending matters for which accruals have not been established have not progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Marketplace Risk Corridor Program. On January 19, 2017, we filed suit against the United States of America in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Case Number 1:55-cv-01000-UNJ, on behalf of our health plans seeking recovery from the federal government of approximately $52 million in Marketplace risk corridor payments for calendar year 2015. Based upon current estimates, we believe our health plans are also owed approximately $90 million in Marketplace risk corridor payments from the federal government for calendar year 2016, and a further nominal amount for calendar year 2014. Our lawsuit seeks recovery of all of these unpaid amounts. We have not recognized revenue, nor have we recorded a receivable, for any amount due from the federal government for unpaid Marketplace risk corridor payments as of March 31, 2017. We have fully recognized all liabilities due to the federal government that we have incurred under the Marketplace risk corridor program, and have paid all amounts due to the federal government as required. Rodriguez v. Providence Community Corrections. On October 1, 2015, seven individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Case No. 3:15-cv-01048 (the Rodriquez Litigation), against Providence Community Corrections, Inc. (now known as Pathways Community Corrections, Inc., or PCC). Rutherford County, Tennessee formerly contracted with PCC for the administration of misdemeanor probation, which involved the collection of court costs and fees from probationers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PCC illegally assessed fees and surcharges against probationers and made improper threats of arrest and probation revocation if the probationers did not pay such amounts. The plaintiffs in the Rodriguez Litigation seek alleged compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, for alleged federal and state constitutional violations, as well as alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. PCC’s agreement with Rutherford County terminated effective March 31, 2016. On November 1, 2015, one month after the Rodriguez Litigation commenced, we acquired PCC from The Providence Service Corporation (Providence) pursuant to a membership interest purchase agreement. In September 2016, the parties to the Rodriguez Litigation accepted a mediation proposal for settlement pursuant to which PCC would pay the plaintiffs $14 million. The parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement agreement. We expect to recover the full amount of the settlement under the indemnification provisions of the membership interest purchase agreement with Providence. United States of America, ex rel., Anita Silingo v. Mobile Medical Examination Services, Inc., et al. On or around October 14, 2014, Molina Healthcare of California, Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc., Mobile Medical Examination Services, Inc. (MedXM), and other health plan defendants were served with a Complaint previously filed under seal in the Central District Court of California by Relator, Anita Silingo, Case No. SACV13-1348-FMO(SHx). The Complaint alleges that MedXM improperly modified medical records and otherwise took inappropriate steps to increase members’ risk adjustment scores, and that the defendants, including Molina Healthcare of California and Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc., purportedly turned a “blind eye” to these unlawful practices. On October 22, 2015, the Relator filed a third amended complaint, seeking general and compensatory damages, treble damages, civil penalties, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On July 11, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the third amended complaint, without leave to amend. On September 23, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff/appellant’s opening brief was filed March 6, 2017, and the defendant/appellee’s opening brief is due June 5, 2017. States’ Budgets From time to time the states in which our health plans operate may experience financial difficulties, which could lead to delays in premium payments. For example, the state of Illinois is operating without a budget for its current fiscal year. As of March 31, 2017, our Illinois health plan served approximately 194,000 members, and recognized premium revenue of approximately $161 million in the first quarter of 2017. As of April 28, 2017, the state of Illinois owed us approximately $80 million for certain January, February and March 2017 premiums. On May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board filed for a form of bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico under Title III of PROMESA. The Title III provision allows for a court debt restructuring process similar to U.S. bankruptcy protection. To the extent such bankruptcy results in our failure to receive payment of amounts due under our Medicaid contract with the Commonwealth or the inability of the Commonwealth to extend our Medicaid contract at the end of its current term, such bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. As of March 31, 2017, the plan served approximately 326,000 members and recorded premium revenue of approximately $183 million in the first quarter of 2017. As of April 28, 2017, the Commonwealth is current with its premium payments. Employment Agreements and Severance Payments We entered into amended and restated employment agreements with our former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in 2016. On May 2, 2017, their employment was terminated without cause. Under the amended and restated employment agreements, subject to such former executives signing a general waiver and release agreement, they are each entitled to receive 400% of their base salary, a prorated termination bonus (150% of base salary for the former CEO and 125% of base salary for the former CFO), full vesting of equity compensation, and a cash payment for health and welfare benefits.

Commitments and Contingencies

Regulatory Capital Requirements and Dividend Restrictions

Our health plans, which are operated by our respective wholly owned subsidiaries in those states, are subject to state laws and regulations that, among other things, require the maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, as defined by each state. Regulators in some states may also attempt to enforce capital requirements that require the retention of net worth in excess of amounts formally required by statute or regulation. Such statutes, regulations and informal capital requirements also restrict the timing, payment, and amount of dividends and other distributions that may be paid to us as the sole stockholder. To the extent our subsidiaries must comply with these regulations, they may not have the financial flexibility to transfer funds to us. Based on current statutes and regulations, the net assets in these subsidiaries (after intercompany eliminations) which may not be transferable to us in the form of loans, advances, or cash dividends was approximately $1,527 million at March 31, 2017, and $1,492 million at December 31, 2016. Because of the statutory restrictions that inhibit the ability of our health plans to transfer net assets to us, the amount of retained earnings readily available to pay dividends to our stockholders is generally limited to cash, cash equivalents and investments held by the parent company – Molina Healthcare, Inc. Such cash, cash equivalents and investments amounted to $273 million and $264 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted rules effective December 31, 1998, which, if implemented by the states, set minimum capitalization requirements for insurance companies, HMOs, and other entities bearing risk for health care coverage. The requirements take the form of risk-based capital (RBC) rules which may vary from state to state. All of the states in which our health plans operate, except California, Florida and New York, have adopted these rules. Such requirements, if adopted by California, Florida and New York, may increase the minimum capital required for those states.

As of March 31, 2017, our health plans had aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $1,722 million compared with the required minimum aggregate statutory capital and surplus of approximately $1,100 million. All of our health plans were in compliance with the minimum capital requirements at March 31, 2017. We have the ability, and have committed to provide, additional capital to each of our health plans as necessary to ensure compliance with statutory capital and surplus requirements.

Legal Proceedings

The health care and Medicaid-related business process outsourcing industries are subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments. Compliance with these laws and regulations can be subject to government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown and unasserted at this time. Penalties associated with violations of these laws and regulations include significant fines and penalties, exclusion from participating in publicly funded programs, and the repayment of previously billed and collected revenues.

We are involved in legal actions in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. We have accrued liabilities for certain matters for which we deem the loss to be both probable and estimable. Although we believe that our estimates of such losses are reasonable, these estimates could change as a result of further developments of these matters. The outcome of legal actions is inherently uncertain and such pending matters for which accruals have not been established have not progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Marketplace Risk Corridor Program. On January 19, 2017, we filed suit against the United States of America in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Case Number 1:55-cv-01000-UNJ, on behalf of our health plans seeking recovery from the federal government of approximately $52 million in Marketplace risk corridor payments for calendar year 2015. Based upon current estimates, we believe our health plans are also owed approximately $90 million in Marketplace risk corridor payments from the federal government for calendar year 2016, and a further nominal amount for calendar year 2014. Our lawsuit seeks recovery of all of these unpaid amounts. We have not recognized revenue, nor have we recorded a receivable, for any amount due from the federal government for unpaid Marketplace risk corridor payments as of March 31, 2017. We have fully recognized all liabilities due to the federal government that we have incurred under the Marketplace risk corridor program, and have paid all amounts due to the federal government as required.

Rodriguez v. Providence Community Corrections. On October 1, 2015, seven individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Case No. 3:15-cv-01048 (the Rodriquez Litigation), against Providence Community Corrections, Inc. (now known as Pathways Community Corrections, Inc., or PCC). Rutherford County, Tennessee formerly contracted with PCC for the administration of misdemeanor probation, which involved the collection of court costs and fees from probationers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PCC illegally assessed fees and surcharges against probationers and made improper threats of arrest and probation revocation if the probationers did not pay such amounts. The plaintiffs in the Rodriguez Litigation seek alleged compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, for alleged federal and state constitutional violations, as well as alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. PCC’s agreement with Rutherford County terminated effective March 31, 2016. On November 1, 2015, one month after the Rodriguez Litigation commenced, we acquired PCC from The Providence Service Corporation (Providence) pursuant to a membership interest purchase agreement. In September 2016, the parties to the Rodriguez Litigation accepted a mediation proposal for settlement pursuant to which PCC would pay the plaintiffs $14 million. The parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement agreement. We expect to recover the full amount of the settlement under the indemnification provisions of the membership interest purchase agreement with Providence.

United States of America, ex rel., Anita Silingo v. Mobile Medical Examination Services, Inc., et al. On or around October 14, 2014, Molina Healthcare of California, Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc., Mobile Medical Examination Services, Inc. (MedXM), and other health plan defendants were served with a Complaint previously filed under seal in the Central District Court of California by Relator, Anita Silingo, Case No. SACV13-1348-FMO(SHx). The Complaint alleges that MedXM improperly modified medical records and otherwise took inappropriate steps to increase members’ risk adjustment scores, and that the defendants, including Molina Healthcare of California and Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc., purportedly turned a “blind eye” to these unlawful practices. On October 22, 2015, the Relator filed a third amended complaint, seeking general and compensatory damages, treble damages, civil penalties, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On July 11, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the third amended complaint, without leave to amend. On September 23, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff/appellant’s opening brief was filed March 6, 2017, and the defendant/appellee’s opening brief is due June 5, 2017.

States’ Budgets

From time to time the states in which our health plans operate may experience financial difficulties, which could lead to delays in premium payments. For example, the state of Illinois is operating without a budget for its current fiscal year. As of March 31, 2017, our Illinois health plan served approximately 194,000 members, and recognized premium revenue of approximately $161 million in the first quarter of 2017. As of April 28, 2017, the state of Illinois owed us approximately $80 million for certain January, February and March 2017 premiums.

On May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board filed for a form of bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico under Title III of PROMESA. The Title III provision allows for a court debt restructuring process similar to U.S. bankruptcy protection. To the extent such bankruptcy results in our failure to receive payment of amounts due under our Medicaid contract with the Commonwealth or the inability of the Commonwealth to extend our Medicaid contract at the end of its current term, such bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. As of March 31, 2017, the plan served approximately 326,000 members and recorded premium revenue of approximately $183 million in the first quarter of 2017. As of April 28, 2017, the Commonwealth is current with its premium payments.

Employment Agreements and Severance Payments

We entered into amended and restated employment agreements with our former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in 2016. On May 2, 2017, their employment was terminated without cause. Under the amended and restated employment agreements, subject to such former executives signing a general waiver and release agreement, they are each entitled to receive 400% of their base salary, a prorated termination bonus (150% of base salary for the former CEO and 125% of base salary for the former CFO), full vesting of equity compensation, and a cash payment for health and welfare benefits.