Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Letter of Credit Effective July 1, 2012, the Company renewed a collateralized irrevocable standby letter of credit, initially issued on July 1, 2009, in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $17.4 million to meet certain obligations under its Medicaid contract in the state of Georgia through its Georgia health plan. The letter of credit is collateralized through cash and investments held by the Company’s Georgia health plan. Legal Proceedings Employment Litigation As previously reported in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, on November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York, LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Subsequently, another lawsuit, styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these consolidated cases alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“the FLSA”) and during the course of their employment should have received overtime and other compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007 until the entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law (“the NYLL”) from October 22, 2004 until the entry of judgment. The Complaint requested certification of the NYLL claims as a class action under Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA and the NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as well as costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and on April 20, 2012 the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement, which is reflected in the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011, did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A fairness hearing regarding the terms of the proposed settlement has been scheduled to occur on August 6, 2012. The terms of the final settlement are subject to final court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve such settlement. Louisiana On July 25, 2011, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (“LA DHH”) announced that the Company was one of five managed care organizations selected through a competitive procurement to offer health care coverage to Medicaid recipients in Louisiana. Two managed care organizations that bid in the procurement, but were not selected, have protested the award of the contract to the Company and the other successful bidders and have instituted legal proceedings regarding the contract awards. The Company has intervened in the legal proceedings instituted by the two managed care organizations that are protesting the awards, styled Coventry Health Care of Louisiana, Inc. v. Bruce D. Greenstein, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Louisiana which was filed on or about September 9, 2011 and Aetna Better Health, Inc. v. Bruce D. Greenstein, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Louisiana which was filed on February 2, 2012 (collectively, the “LA Cases”). The LA Cases are currently pending in the 19^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. The plaintiffs have alleged, inter alia, that their respective administrative appeals of the contract awards should have been upheld and that the state erred in awarding the subject contracts. The LA Cases seek, inter alia, the entry of an order granting injunctive relief to prohibit the state from implementing the contract awards, canceling the contract awards, and granting such other legal and equitable relief as the nature of the cases permit. The Company has intervened in the LA Cases as a defendant in support of LA DHH’s positions. While the Company believes that the award of the contract was proper, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the LA Cases and can give no assurances that the award will be upheld or that the impact to the Company’s operations in Louisiana will not be significant if it is not upheld. Ohio Medicaid Managed Care Plan Request for Applications On April 6, 2012, the Company received notification from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) that the Company's Ohio health plan was not selected to participate as a provider of managed health care services for the contract period that was initially scheduled to begin on January 1, 2013, under the Ohio Medicaid Managed Care Plan Request for Applications (“RFA”) issued on January 11, 2012. The Company believes it has identified a number of process and scoring deficiencies in the state's evaluation of the responses to the terms of the RFA and filed a formal protest with ODJFS requesting that ODJFS cancel the current awards and reissue the RFA. Although ODJFS provided new scores to the applicants after receiving numerous protests from various applicants, the Company's Ohio health plan was not selected for an award. On June 27, 2012, the Company's Ohio health plan instituted legal proceedings against ODJFS in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio in connection with the RFA award by filing a Motion to Intervene and a Complaint in the case styled Aetna Better Health, Inc. v. Michael B. Colbert, et al. On July 9, 2012, the court granted the Motion to Intervene as to the Company's Ohio health plan as well as a number of other intervenors. The Company's Ohio health plan's Complaint requested, inter alia, a judicial determination that the RFA be rescored, that the Company's Ohio health plan be awarded a contract pursuant to the RFA, or that the court require ODJFS to issue a revised RFA. On July 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Company's Ohio health plan in response to motions to dismiss that had been filed in the case. The Company is currently evaluating its appeal rights and further course of action. The Company's current contract with the state has been extended through June 30, 2013 and states that membership is expected to transfer to the recipients of the new contracts between January 1, 2013 and April 2013. If the RFA is not reissued, or if the Company is not awarded a contract under a reissued RFA or pursuant to the judicial relief it has requested, the Company's existing contract with the state will expire without renewal and the Company will be required to account for the impact of the discontinuation of operations of its Ohio subsidiary, including the evaluation of the recoverability of the carrying value of assets related to the Ohio contract. The Company can make no assurances as to the outcome of its legal proceedings or to the impact of discontinuation of its operations in Ohio at this time. Premium revenue from the Company's existing contract with the state represented less than 2.0% and 3.0%, respectively, of consolidated premium revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012. Other Litigation The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings in the normal course of business. Based upon its evaluation of the information currently available, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Letter of Credit

Effective July 1, 2012, the Company renewed a collateralized irrevocable standby letter of credit, initially issued on July 1, 2009, in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $17.4 million to meet certain obligations under its Medicaid contract in the state of Georgia through its Georgia health plan. The letter of credit is collateralized through cash and investments held by the Company’s Georgia health plan.

Legal Proceedings

Employment Litigation

As previously reported in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, on November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York, LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Subsequently, another lawsuit, styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these consolidated cases alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“the FLSA”) and during the course of their employment should have received overtime and other compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007 until the entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law (“the NYLL”) from October 22, 2004 until the entry of judgment. The Complaint requested certification of the NYLL claims as a class action under Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA and the NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as well as costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and on April 20, 2012 the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement, which is reflected in the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011, did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A fairness hearing regarding the terms of the proposed settlement has been scheduled to occur on August 6, 2012. The terms of the final settlement are subject to final court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve such settlement.

Louisiana

On July 25, 2011, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (“LA DHH”) announced that the Company was one of five managed care organizations selected through a competitive procurement to offer health care coverage to Medicaid recipients in Louisiana. Two managed care organizations that bid in the procurement, but were not selected, have protested the award of the contract to the Company and the other successful bidders and have instituted legal proceedings regarding the contract awards. The Company has intervened in the legal proceedings instituted by the two managed care organizations that are protesting the awards, styled Coventry Health Care of Louisiana, Inc. v. Bruce D. Greenstein, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Louisiana which was filed on or about September 9, 2011 and Aetna Better Health, Inc. v. Bruce D. Greenstein, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Louisiana which was filed on February 2, 2012 (collectively, the “LA Cases”). The LA Cases are currently pending in the 19^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. The plaintiffs have alleged, inter alia, that their respective administrative appeals of the contract awards should have been upheld and that the state erred in awarding the subject contracts. The LA Cases seek, inter alia, the entry of an order granting injunctive relief to prohibit the state from implementing the contract awards, canceling the contract awards, and granting such other legal and equitable relief as the nature of the cases permit.

The Company has intervened in the LA Cases as a defendant in support of LA DHH’s positions. While the Company believes that the award of the contract was proper, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the LA Cases and can give no assurances that the award will be upheld or that the impact to the Company’s operations in Louisiana will not be significant if it is not upheld.

Ohio Medicaid Managed Care Plan Request for Applications

On April 6, 2012, the Company received notification from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) that the Company's Ohio health plan was not selected to participate as a provider of managed health care services for the contract period that was initially scheduled to begin on January 1, 2013, under the Ohio Medicaid Managed Care Plan Request for Applications (“RFA”) issued on January 11, 2012. The Company believes it has identified a number of process and scoring deficiencies in the state's evaluation of the responses to the terms of the RFA and filed a formal protest with ODJFS requesting that ODJFS cancel the current awards and reissue the RFA. Although ODJFS provided new scores to the applicants after receiving numerous protests from various applicants, the Company's Ohio health plan was not selected for an award.

On June 27, 2012, the Company's Ohio health plan instituted legal proceedings against ODJFS in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio in connection with the RFA award by filing a Motion to Intervene and a Complaint in the case styled Aetna Better Health, Inc. v. Michael B. Colbert, et al. On July 9, 2012, the court granted the Motion to Intervene as to the Company's Ohio health plan as well as a number of other intervenors. The Company's Ohio health plan's Complaint requested, inter alia, a judicial determination that the RFA be rescored, that the Company's Ohio health plan be awarded a contract pursuant to the RFA, or that the court require ODJFS to issue a revised RFA. On July 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Company's Ohio health plan in response to motions to dismiss that had been filed in the case. The Company is currently evaluating its appeal rights and further course of action.

The Company's current contract with the state has been extended through June 30, 2013 and states that membership is expected to transfer to the recipients of the new contracts between January 1, 2013 and April 2013. If the RFA is not reissued, or if the Company is not awarded a contract under a reissued RFA or pursuant to the judicial relief it has requested, the Company's existing contract with the state will expire without renewal and the Company will be required to account for the impact of the discontinuation of operations of its Ohio subsidiary, including the evaluation of the recoverability of the carrying value of assets related to the Ohio contract. The Company can make no assurances as to the outcome of its legal proceedings or to the impact of discontinuation of its operations in Ohio at this time. Premium revenue from the Company's existing contract with the state represented less than 2.0% and 3.0%, respectively, of consolidated premium revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012.

Other Litigation

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings in the normal course of business. Based upon its evaluation of the information currently available, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.