Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary course of business, 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. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter and believe we have meritorious defenses. We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI’s 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims on January 10, 2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on December 15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on October 16, 2014. The matter was taken under advisement by the Court, which has requested post-trial briefing. We expect the Court to issue its decision on liability sometime in 2015. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court’s decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013. The plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: (1) a subscriber ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of implied covenant class for all WellPoint states except California. We deposed all of the plaintiffs’ class certification experts. In March 2014, we filed a response in opposition to class certification, along with a supporting expert report, and motions to exclude the plaintiffs’ class certification experts. In September 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety and denied our motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ class certification experts as moot. Some of the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order denying class certification, while other plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the district court remand the individual cases to the district court in which they originated. We opposed that motion insofar as the consolidated pre-trial proceedings have yet to conclude. At a status conference in September 2014, the court ordered the parties to propose a scheduling order for filing motions for summary judgment. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs are paying the sanctions and have appealed the Florida Court’s sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument on that appeal occurred in October 2013 and the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in June 2014. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida Court’s injunction of the plaintiffs’ antitrust and RICO claims, but vacated the injunction as to the ERISA claims based on the denial or underpayment of benefits occurring after the effective date of the earlier releases. Based on this decision, the Florida Court vacated the sanctions. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on July 1, 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. In August 2014, subscriber plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. 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 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 loss or range of loss. With respect to many of the proceedings to which we are a party, we cannot provide an estimate of the possible losses, or the range of possible 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. For those legal proceedings where a loss is probable, or reasonably possible, and for which it is possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of losses, we currently believe that the range of possible losses, in excess of established reserves, for all of those proceedings is from $0.0 to approximately $250.0 at September 30, 2014. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information taking into account our best estimate of such losses for which such an estimate can be made. 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 HMOs and health insurers generally, exclude certain health care and other services from coverage under our HMO, PPO 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 settlements of coverage claims. In addition to the lawsuits described above, 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. These investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings include routine and special inquiries by state insurance departments, state attorneys general, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings 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 actions, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations, or NOLHGA, is a voluntary organization consisting of the state life and health insurance guaranty associations located throughout the U.S. State life and health insurance guaranty associations, working together with NOLHGA, provide a safety net for their state’s policyholders, ensuring that they continue to receive coverage, subject to state maximum limits, even if their insurer is declared insolvent. We are aware that the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, or Insurance Commissioner, has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company, or collectively Penn Treaty, in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency. The state court denied the Insurance Commissioner’s petition for the liquidation of Penn Treaty and ordered the Insurance Commissioner to file an updated plan of rehabilitation. An initial plan was filed on April 30, 2013. The Insurance Commissioner filed an amended plan on August 8, 2014 and a second amended plan on October 8, 2014. The state court is expected to set a schedule for a notice and comment period and order a hearing on the second amended plan but has not done so yet. The Insurance Commissioner has filed a Notice of Appeal asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse the order denying the liquidation petition. The Supreme Court held oral argument on the appeal on September 10, 2014. In the event rehabilitation of Penn Treaty is unsuccessful and Penn Treaty is declared insolvent and placed in liquidation, we and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. Given the uncertainty around whether Penn Treaty will ultimately be declared insolvent and, if so, the amount of the insolvency, the amount and timing of any associated future guaranty fund assessments and the availability and amount of any potential premium tax and other offsets, we currently cannot estimate our net exposure, if any, to this potential insolvency. We will continue to monitor the situation and may record a liability and expense in future reporting periods, which could be material to our cash flows and results of operations. Contractual Obligations and Commitments We are a party to an agreement with Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, to provide pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services for our plans, excluding Amerigroup and certain self-insured members, which have exclusive agreements with different PBM services providers; provided however that Amerigroup will be transitioning to the Express Scripts agreement during 2014 and 2015. The initial term of this agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, Express Scripts is the exclusive provider of certain specified PBM services, such as pharmacy network management, home delivery, pharmacy customer service, claims processing, rebate management, drug utilization and specialty pharmaceutical management services. Accordingly, the agreement contains certain financial and operational requirements obligating both Express Scripts and us. Express Scripts’ primary obligations relate to the performance of such services and meeting certain pricing guarantees and performance standards. Our primary obligations relate to oversight, provision of data, payment for services and certain minimum volume requirements. The failure by either party to meet the respective requirements could potentially serve as a basis for financial penalties or early termination of the contract. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this contract at September 30, 2014. During the first quarter of 2010, we entered into an agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. This agreement superseded certain prior agreements and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at September 30, 2014 was $107.4 through March 31, 2015. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. On March 31, 2009, we entered into an agreement with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. to provide certain print and mailroom services that were previously performed in-house. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at September 30, 2014 was $94.3 through March 31, 2016. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, 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. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter and believe we have meritorious defenses.

We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI’s 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims on January 10, 2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on December 15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on October 16, 2014. The matter was taken under advisement by the Court, which has requested post-trial briefing. We expect the Court to issue its decision on liability sometime in 2015. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court’s decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013. The plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: (1) a subscriber ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of implied covenant class for all WellPoint states except California. We deposed all of the plaintiffs’ class certification experts. In March 2014, we filed a response in opposition to class certification, along with a supporting expert report, and motions to exclude the plaintiffs’ class certification experts. In September 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety and denied our motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ class certification experts as moot. Some of the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order denying class certification, while other plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the district court remand the individual cases to the district court in which they originated. We opposed that motion insofar as the consolidated pre-trial proceedings have yet to conclude. At a status conference in September 2014, the court ordered the parties to propose a scheduling order for filing motions for summary judgment. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs are paying the sanctions and have appealed the Florida Court’s sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument on that appeal occurred in October 2013 and the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in June 2014. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida Court’s injunction of the plaintiffs’ antitrust and RICO claims, but vacated the injunction as to the ERISA claims based on the denial or underpayment of benefits occurring after the effective date of the earlier releases. Based on this decision, the Florida Court vacated the sanctions. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on July 1, 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. In August 2014, subscriber plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

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 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 loss or range of loss.

With respect to many of the proceedings to which we are a party, we cannot provide an estimate of the possible losses, or the range of possible 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. For those legal proceedings where a loss is probable, or reasonably possible, and for which it is possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of losses, we currently believe that the range of possible losses, in excess of established reserves, for all of those proceedings is from $0.0 to approximately $250.0 at September 30, 2014. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information taking into account our best estimate of such losses for which such an estimate can be made.

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 HMOs and health insurers generally, exclude certain health care and other services from coverage under our HMO, PPO 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 settlements of coverage claims.

In addition to the lawsuits described above, 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. These investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings include routine and special inquiries by state insurance departments, state attorneys general, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings 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 actions, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations, or NOLHGA, is a voluntary organization consisting of the state life and health insurance guaranty associations located throughout the U.S. State life and health insurance guaranty associations, working together with NOLHGA, provide a safety net for their state’s policyholders, ensuring that they continue to receive coverage, subject to state maximum limits, even if their insurer is declared insolvent. We are aware that the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, or Insurance Commissioner, has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company, or collectively Penn Treaty, in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency. The state court denied the Insurance Commissioner’s petition for the liquidation of Penn Treaty and ordered the Insurance Commissioner to file an updated plan of rehabilitation. An initial plan was filed on April 30, 2013. The Insurance Commissioner filed an amended plan on August 8, 2014 and a second amended plan on October 8, 2014. The state court is expected to set a schedule for a notice and comment period and order a hearing on the second amended plan but has not done so yet. The Insurance Commissioner has filed a Notice of Appeal asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse the order denying the liquidation petition. The Supreme Court held oral argument on the appeal on September 10, 2014. In the event rehabilitation of Penn Treaty is unsuccessful and Penn Treaty is declared insolvent and placed in liquidation, we and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of their policyholder claims through state guaranty association assessments in future periods. Given the uncertainty around whether Penn Treaty will ultimately be declared insolvent and, if so, the amount of the insolvency, the amount and timing of any associated future guaranty fund assessments and the availability and amount of any potential premium tax and other offsets, we currently cannot estimate our net exposure, if any, to this potential insolvency. We will continue to monitor the situation and may record a liability and expense in future reporting periods, which could be material to our cash flows and results of operations.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

We are a party to an agreement with Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, to provide pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services for our plans, excluding Amerigroup and certain self-insured members, which have exclusive agreements with different PBM services providers; provided however that Amerigroup will be transitioning to the Express Scripts agreement during 2014 and 2015. The initial term of this agreement expires on December 31, 2019. Under this agreement, Express Scripts is the exclusive provider of certain specified PBM services, such as pharmacy network management, home delivery, pharmacy customer service, claims processing, rebate management, drug utilization and specialty pharmaceutical management services. Accordingly, the agreement contains certain financial and operational requirements obligating both Express Scripts and us. Express Scripts’ primary obligations relate to the performance of such services and meeting certain pricing guarantees and performance standards. Our primary obligations relate to oversight, provision of data, payment for services and certain minimum volume requirements. The failure by either party to meet the respective requirements could potentially serve as a basis for financial penalties or early termination of the contract. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under this contract at September 30, 2014.

During the first quarter of 2010, we entered into an agreement with International Business Machines Corporation to provide information technology infrastructure services. This agreement superseded certain prior agreements and also includes provisions for additional services. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at September 30, 2014 was $107.4 through March 31, 2015. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

On March 31, 2009, we entered into an agreement with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. to provide certain print and mailroom services that were previously performed in-house. Our remaining commitment under this agreement at September 30, 2014 was $94.3 through March 31, 2016. We have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.