Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings We are defendants in, or parties to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings. To the extent a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the following cases have specified in their complaint or in other court filings the amount of damages being sought, we have noted those alleged damages in the descriptions below. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and we can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, we accrue the estimated loss by a charge to income. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where loss is possible or probable or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible or probable loss or range of losses in excess of the amount, if any, accrued, for various reasons, including but not limited to some or all of the following: (i) there are novel or unsettled legal issues presented, (ii) the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or decertified or the ultimate size and scope of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) in many cases, the plaintiffs have not specified damages in their complaint or in court filings. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter, and we believe we have meritorious defenses. We do not believe the outcome of any known pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings will, in the aggregate, have a material impact on our financial position. However, unanticipated outcomes do sometimes occur, which could result in liabilities in excess of our accruals and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition to the lawsuits described below, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings (“government actions”). These government actions include routine and special inquiries by and disclosures to state insurance departments, state attorneys general, U.S. Regulatory Agencies, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such government actions could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these government actions, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees (the “Blue plans”) across the country. Cases filed in twenty-eight states were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Court”). Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan, restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard ® and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (“Sherman Act”) and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. In April 2018, the Court issued an order on the parties’ cross motions for partial summary judgment, determining that the defendants’ aggregation of geographic market allocations and output restrictions are to be analyzed under a per se standard of review, and the BlueCard ® program and other alleged Section 1 Sherman Act violations are to be analyzed under the rule of reason standard of review. With respect to whether the defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks, the Court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which defendants opposed. The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which agreement required the Court’s approval to become effective. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment and contains certain terms imposing non-monetary obligations including (i) eliminating the “national best efforts” rule in the BCBSA license agreements (which rule limits the percentage of non-Blue revenue permitted for each Blue plan) and (ii) allowing for some large national employers with self-funded benefit plans to request a bid for insurance coverage from a second Blue plan in addition to the local Blue plan. In November 2020, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, following which members of the subscriber class were provided notice of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to opt out of the class. A small number of subscribers submitted valid opt-outs by the opt-out deadline. In August 2022, the Court issued a final order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement (the “Final Approval Order”). The Court amended its Final Approval Order in September 2022, further clarifying the injunctive relief that may be available to subscribers who submitted valid opt-outs. In compliance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement, we paid $506 into an escrow account in September 2022, for an aggregate and full settlement payment by us of $596, which was accrued in 2020. Four notices of appeal of the Final Approval Order were heard by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in September 2023 (the “Eleventh Circuit”), and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s Final Approval Order approving the Subscriber Settlement Agreement in October 2023. Petitions for rehearing were filed by certain appellants in November 2023 and December 2023 and were denied in January 2024. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit issued a mandate terminating the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit in February 2024. In March 2024, Home Depot, one of the appellants, filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”). On the respondents' request, the Supreme Court granted an extension to respond until May 2024. In April 2024, David Behenna, another appellant, filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, and the defendants and the subscriber plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition in May 2024. In June 2024, the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, exhausting all appellate rights. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement became effective on June 24, 2024, and the defendants’ payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement and the funds held in escrow will be distributed in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement. In October 2020, after the Court lifted the stay as to the provider litigation, provider plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. In March 2021, the Court issued an order terminating the pending motion for class certification until the Court determined the standard of review applicable to the providers’ claims. In response to that order, the parties filed renewed standard of review motions in May 2021. In June 2021, the parties filed summary judgment motions not critically dependent on class certification. In February 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting certain defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment against the provider plaintiffs who had previously released claims against such defendants, and (ii) granting the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, determining that Ohio v. American Express Co . does not affect the standard of review in this case. In August 2022, the Court issued orders (i) granting in part the defendants’ motion regarding the antitrust standard of review, holding that for the period of time after the elimination of the “national best efforts” rule, the rule of reason applies to the provider plaintiffs’ market allocation conspiracy claims, and (ii) denying the provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the standard of review, reaffirming its prior holding that the provider groups’ boycott claims are subject to the rule of reason. In December 2023, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on providers’ damage claims as time-barred and speculative and provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the defendants’ single entity defense due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. In January 2024, the Court issued orders (i) denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on (a) all claims by certain hospital providers and (b) any claims based on the Blue system's rules other than exclusive serviced areas or BlueCard and (ii) denying provider plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on defendants’ common law trademark claims. Provider plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, filed in October 2020, remains pending. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the provider litigation, which we believe is without merit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) (“Alaska Air”) ; JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al. , No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) (“Jet Blue”) ; Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al. , No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (dismissed without prejudice in June 2023); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc. , No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al. , No. 2:22-cv-00261-RDP (N.D. Ala.); and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al. , No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.) (“VHS”) . In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue . In September 2023, the California court presiding over the VHS case upheld its prior order granting in part defendants’ motion to strike based on the statute of limitations. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Express Scripts, Inc. PBM Litigation In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc. (“Express Scripts”), our vendor at the time for pharmacy benefit management services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc. , in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”). The lawsuit sought to recover over $14,800 in damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing under the agreement between the parties (the “ESI Agreement”), over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI Agreement, including that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms (the “Pricing Claim”); (ii) was required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the ESI Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination. Express Scripts disputed our contractual claims and it sought declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the ESI Agreement, and (ii) that it has no obligation to ensure that we receive any specific level of pricing, that we have no contractual right to any change in pricing under the ESI Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith. In the alternative, Express Scripts claimed that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675 at the time we entered into the ESI Agreement. In March 2017, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss Express Scripts’ counterclaims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (ii) unjust enrichment with prejudice. After such ruling, Express Scripts’ only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q were (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts’ prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts’ counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI Agreement. Express Scripts filed a second motion for summary judgment in June 2022, challenging our remaining operational breach claims, which the District Court denied in March 2023. In November 2023, the District Court issued a final judgment ending the lawsuit in the District Court after the parties settled and stipulated to dismiss the only remaining claim that had not been disposed of by the court order or stipulation. In December 2023, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), regarding the Pricing Claim. Mediation ordered by the Second Circuit occurred in March 2024 and was unsuccessful. We submitted our appellant brief in April 2024. Briefing must be complete by August 2024. The ultimate outcome of this appeal cannot be presently determined. Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) in a case captioned United States v. Anthem, Inc. The DOJ’s suit alleges, among other things, that we falsely certified the accuracy of the diagnosis data we submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for risk-adjustment purposes under Medicare Part C and knowingly failed to delete inaccurate diagnosis codes. The DOJ further alleges that, as a result of these purported acts, we caused CMS to calculate the risk-adjustment payments based on inaccurate diagnosis information, which enabled us to obtain unspecified amounts of payments in Medicare funds in violation of the False Claims Act. The DOJ filed an amended complaint in July 2020, alleging the same causes of action but revising some of its factual allegations. In September 2020, we filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the Southern District of Ohio, a motion to dismiss part of the lawsuit, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint, all of which the New York District Court denied in October 2022. In November 2022, we filed an answer. In March 2023, discovery commenced, and an initial case management conference was held in April 2023. Fact discovery is ongoing, and the New York District Court will address deadlines to complete discovery at the next case management conference in July 2024. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Other Contingencies From time to time, we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, many of which involve claims for coverage encountered in the ordinary course of business. We, like Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations and other plans. We are, in the ordinary course of business, subject to the claims of our enrollees arising out of decisions to restrict or deny reimbursement for uncovered services. The loss of even one such claim, if it results in a significant punitive damage award, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the risk of potential liability under punitive damage theories may increase significantly the difficulty of obtaining reasonable reimbursement of coverage claims. Contractual Obligations and Commitments In March 2020, we entered into an agreement with a vendor for information technology infrastructure and related management and support services through June 2025. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at June 30, 2024 is approximately $356. We will have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. CarelonRx markets and offers pharmacy services to our affiliated health plan customers throughout the country, as well as to customers outside of the health plans we own. The comprehensive pharmacy services portfolio includes all core pharmacy services, such as home delivery and specialty pharmacies, claims adjudication, formulary management, pharmacy networks, rebate administration, a prescription drug database and member services, as well as infusion services and injectable therapies. CarelonRx delegates certain core pharmacy services to CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. (“CVS”), which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, pursuant to an agreement that is set to terminate on December 31, 2025. In the first quarter of 2024, CarelonRx began assuming responsibility from CVS for pharmacy mail order front-end intake. |