| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | 12 Months Ended |
| Dec. 31, 2023 USD ($) $ / shares | Dec. 31, 2022 USD ($) $ / shares | Dec. 31, 2021 USD ($) $ / shares | Dec. 31, 2020 USD ($) $ / shares |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure, Table | Value of initial fixed $100 investment based on: Year 1 Summary Compensation Table Total for PEO 2 Compensation Actually Paid to PEO 3 Average Summary Compensation Table Total for Non-PEO NEOs 4 Average Compensation Actually Paid to Non-PEO NEOs 3 Total Shareholder Return 5 Peer Group Total Shareholder Return 5 Net Income ($ millions) Company Selected Measure (CSM) –Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS 6 2023 $26,565,732 $120,865,280 $7,836,611 7 $27,249,897 $470.13 $132.57 $5,240 $10.42 2022 $21,398,135 $64,088,705 $5,769,810 8 $13,893,269 $292.18 $133.61 $6,245 $8.84 2021 $21,509,985 $75,705,116 $4,730,690 9 $4,563,545 $217.66 $121.90 $5,582 $8.25 2020 $23,708,629 $51,253,831 $6,787,934 10 $10,732,708 $131.06 $102.07 $6,194 $6.89 | | | |
| Company Selected Measure Name | adjusted non-GAAP EPS | | | |
| Named Executive Officers, Footnote | Mr. Ricks was the PEO for each year represented in the table. The average CAP for 2023 comprised compensation for Ms. Ashkenazi, Dr. Skovronsky, Ms. Hakim and Mr. Van Naarden. The average CAP for 2022 comprised compensation for Ms. Ashkenazi, Dr. Skovronsky, Ms. Hakim and Mr. Jonsson. The average CAP for 2021 comprised compensation for Ms. Ashkenazi, Dr. Skovronsky, Mr. Van Naarden, Mr. Rau, and Mr. Smiley. The average CAP for 2020 comprised compensation for Mr. Smiley, Dr. Skovronsky, Ms. Hakim and Mr. Zulueta. | | | |
| Peer Group Issuers, Footnote | The peer group used for calculating Peer Group Total Shareholder Return for each applicable fiscal year is the same peer group that was used by the company for benchmarking compensation, setting the growth goals for the performance award and for determining relative total shareholder return performance for the relative value award for the 2023 fiscal year. | | | |
| PEO Total Compensation Amount | $ 26,565,732 | $ 21,398,135 | $ 21,509,985 | $ 23,708,629 |
| PEO Actually Paid Compensation Amount | $ 120,865,280 | 64,088,705 | 75,705,116 | 51,253,831 |
| Adjustment To PEO Compensation, Footnote | The PEO Summary Compensation Table (SCT) to compensation actually paid reconciliation is summarized in the following table. Year SCT Total Compensation for PEO SCT Change in Pension Value Pension Service Cost SCT Equity Value Change in Value: Equity Granted in Current Year Change in Value: Unvested Equity Final Value: Vested Equity Compensation Actually Paid to PEO a b c d e f g a-b+c-d+e+f+g 2023 $26,565,732 $1,439,822 $491,959 $18,840,250 $20,443,264 $36,659,046 $56,985,351 $120,865,280 2022 $21,398,135 $0 $623,346 $16,981,250 $10,443,998 $(2,718,134) $51,322,610 $64,088,705 2021 $21,509,985 $2,442,235 $680,872 $14,966,000 $3,627,520 $17,758,456 $49,536,518 $75,705,116 2020 $23,708,629 $5,883,924 $660,302 $13,587,500 $4,409,485 $(7,739,531) $49,686,370 $51,253,831 | | | |
| Non-PEO NEO Average Total Compensation Amount | $ 7,836,611 | 5,769,810 | 4,730,690 | 6,787,934 |
| Non-PEO NEO Average Compensation Actually Paid Amount | $ 27,249,897 | 13,893,269 | 4,563,545 | 10,732,708 |
| Adjustment to Non-PEO NEO Compensation Footnote | The Non-PEO NEO Summary Compensation Table (SCT) to compensation actually paid reconciliation is summarized in the following table, including the shift in pension from change in pension value to pension service cost, and the summary compensation table equity amount to the change in value for equity: Year Average SCT Total Compensation for Non-PEO NEOs Average SCT Change in Pension Value Average Pension Service Cost Average SCT Equity Value Average Change in Value: Equity Granted in Current Year Average Change in Value: Unvested Equity Average Final Value: Vested Equity Average Compensation Actually Paid to Non-PEO NEOs a b c d e f g a-b+c-d+e+f+g 2023 $7,836,611 $455,154 $159,626 $4,387,275 $5,693,252 $9,514,261 $8,888,576 $27,249,897 2022 $5,769,810 $93,171 $185,293 $3,553,000 $2,494,818 $1,188,603 $7,900,916 $13,893,269 2021 $4,730,690 $159,911 $135,445 $3,115,360 $1,276,786 $861,413 $834,482 $4,563,545 2020 $6,787,934 $1,448,154 $187,254 $3,665,898 $2,289,092 $(505,850) $7,088,331 $10,732,708 | | | |
| Equity Valuation Assumption Difference, Footnote | In calculating the ‘compensation actually paid’ amounts reflected in these columns, the fair value or change in fair value, as applicable, of the equity award adjustments included in such calculations was computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The assumptions used to calculate the fair values did not materially differ from what was used at the time of grant. | | | |
| Compensation Actually Paid vs. Total Shareholder Return | Lilly’s relative TSR outperformance was substantially attributable to strong developments in our product pipeline and launches of new products and indications. As reflected in the chart below, this outperformance was a significant contributor to the PEO and non-PEOs’ compensation over the four-year period. While the PEO CAP grew with each successive year of TSR outperformance, the highest growth occurred during 2023 when Lilly’s TSR was 61 percent compared to -1 percent for the peer group. Non-PEO average CAP was impacted by the shifting of non-PEO membership and the cancellation of compensation for the company's former CFO, who departed during the 2021 reporting year. | | | |
| Compensation Actually Paid vs. Net Income | Lilly does not currently utilize GAAP or non-GAAP net income as a metric in any of its incentive programs. Generally, CAP is not heavily correlated with GAAP net income because GAAP net income includes certain items that the Talent and Compensation Committee believes are not reflective of the underlying performance of the business. By excluding the impact of (i) amortization of intangible assets primarily associated with costs of marketed products acquired or licensed from third parties, (ii) net losses or gains on investments in equity securities, and (iii) other specified items that are not reflective of underlying business performance, the Talent and Compensation Committee believes non-GAAP net income better represents the operating performance of the company. For comparison purposes, the graph below reflects both GAAP net income and non-GAAP net income against PEO and average NEO CAP. The 2023 GAAP and non-GAAP net income results include significantly higher acquired IPR&D charges compared to prior years. While immediately expensed for accounting purposes, the company views investments in acquired IPR&D as important contributions to its pipeline of product candidates which is a key driver of the company’s future performance. For additional information on non-GAAP financial metrics, see Appendix A, “Summary of Adjustments Related to the Annual Cash Bonus and Performance Award .” * GAAP net income and non-GAAP net income are discrete outcomes. GAAP Net Income and non-GAAP Net Income figures shown in the graphic above both include acquired IPR&D charges, net of taxes, as follows: $680.3 million in 2020, $785.5 million in 2021, $813.2 million in 2022, and $3.70 billion in 2023. | | | |
| Compensation Actually Paid vs. Company Selected Measure | Lilly has chosen adjusted non-GAAP EPS as its most important CSM. Lilly leverages annual non-GAAP EPS derived from the board-approved business plan to set targets for the Lilly bonus. Additionally, Lilly uses a non-GAAP EPS derived from the median external analyst anticipated two-year non-GAAP EPS growth for our peer group to set our growth goal for our performance award. While these two approaches differ in performance period duration and source of performance comparison, significant sustained profitability growth can contribute to higher total CAP as seen in the graphic below. For additional information on non-GAAP financial metrics, see Appendix A, “Summary of Adjustments Related to the Annual Cash Bonus and Performance Award .” | | | |
| Total Shareholder Return Vs Peer Group | Over the immediately preceding four-year period, the company’s total shareholder return (TSR) significantly exceeded the peer group’s TSR. The company’s chosen peer group is the same as the group used for benchmarking compensation, setting growth goals for the performance award and for determining relative TSR performance for the relative value award. | | | |
| Tabular List, Table | Most Important Performance Measures Adjusted non-GAAP EPS 1 Total Shareholder Return Revenue | | | |
| Total Shareholder Return Amount | $ 470.13 | 292.18 | 217.66 | 131.06 |
| Peer Group Total Shareholder Return Amount | 132.57 | 133.61 | 121.90 | 102.07 |
| Net Income (Loss) | $ 5,240,000,000 | $ 6,245,000,000 | $ 5,582,000,000 | $ 6,194,000,000 |
| Company Selected Measure Amount | $ / shares | 10.42 | 8.84 | 8.25 | 6.89 |
| PEO Name | Mr. Ricks | | | |
| Additional 402(v) Disclosure | All calculations for the PEO Compensation Actually Paid (CAP) and for Average Non-PEO NEO CAP do not reflect the actual amount of compensation earned by or paid to our NEOs. The amounts are based on valuation assumptions required by the SEC under Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K. The value actually realized from unvested awards, if any, will be determined when the award fully vest and settle. The company’s TSR and the company’s peer group TSR reflected in these columns for each applicable fiscal year is calculated based on a fixed investment of $100 at the applicable measurement point on the same cumulative basis as is used in Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K. For pay versus performance analysis, adjusted non-GAAP EPS is consistent with the adjusted non-GAAP EPS values for performance awards in Appendix A, “Summary of Adjustments Related to the Annual Cash Bonus and Performance Award .” The Talent and Compensation Committee believes in pay for performance and has structured the Lilly compensation programs to reward leaders when the company is delivering strong results. Lilly has had strong cumulative TSR, EPS and revenue growth over the immediately preceding four-year period. As a result of this strong performance, shareholders have been rewarded with significant total stock returns and leadership has been rewarded with above target payouts from their incentive compensation programs. | | | |
| Measure:: 1 | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Name | Adjusted non-GAAP EPS | | | |
| Non-GAAP Measure Description | For pay versus performance analysis, adjusted non-GAAP EPS is consistent with the adjusted non-GAAP EPS values for performance awards in Appendix A, “Summary of Adjustments Related to the Annual Cash Bonus and Performance Award. ” | | | |
| Measure:: 2 | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Name | Total Shareholder Return | | | |
| Measure:: 3 | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Compensation Actually Paid vs. Other Measure | Lilly strives to make breakthrough medicines available to patients around the globe. Given a growing portfolio of new medicines, we motivate our entire workforce to reach as many patients as possible. The combination of a strong product portfolio and effective patient delivery yields higher sales volume and, generally, higher total revenue. A decline in product portfolio quality or effective launch execution reduces revenue. As such, revenue is one of our most important measures to ensure we are consistently growing the number of patients we serve. Our revenue curve over the preceding four-year period aligns with the growth in PEO and average non-PEO CAP. | | | |
| Name | Revenue | | | |
| PEO | Adjustment, Change In Pension Value [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | $ 1,439,822 | $ 0 | $ 2,442,235 | $ 5,883,924 |
| PEO | Adjustment, Pension Service Cost [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 491,959 | 623,346 | 680,872 | 660,302 |
| PEO | Adjustment, Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 18,840,250 | 16,981,250 | 14,966,000 | 13,587,500 |
| PEO | Adjustment, Change In Value, Equity Granted In Current Year [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 20,443,264 | 10,443,998 | 3,627,520 | 4,409,485 |
| PEO | Adjustment, Change In Value, Unvested Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 36,659,046 | (2,718,134) | 17,758,456 | (7,739,531) |
| PEO | Adjustment, Final Value, Vested Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | $ 56,985,351 | 51,322,610 | 49,536,518 | 49,686,370 |
| PEO | Ricks [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Incentive Pay Percent | 0.92 | | | |
| Non-PEO NEO | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Incentive Pay Percent | 0.83 | | | |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Change In Pension Value [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | $ 455,154 | 93,171 | 159,911 | 1,448,154 |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Pension Service Cost [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 159,626 | 185,293 | 135,445 | 187,254 |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 4,387,275 | 3,553,000 | 3,115,360 | 3,665,898 |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Change In Value, Equity Granted In Current Year [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 5,693,252 | 2,494,818 | 1,276,786 | 2,289,092 |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Change In Value, Unvested Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | 9,514,261 | 1,188,603 | 861,413 | (505,850) |
| Non-PEO NEO | Adjustment, Final Value, Vested Equity [Member] | | | | |
| Pay vs Performance Disclosure | | | | |
| Adjustment to Compensation, Amount | $ 8,888,576 | $ 7,900,916 | $ 834,482 | $ 7,088,331 |
