Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings 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. 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 is, in the aggregate, from $0 to approximately $250 at June 30, 2019. 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. 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, or Blue plans, across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, or 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, or Sherman Act, and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers, and actions filed in twenty-eight states have been consolidated into the multi-district proceeding. In response to cross motions for partial summary judgment by plaintiffs and defendants, the Court issued an order in April 2018 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. The Court also found that there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks. In June 2018, in response to a motion filed by the defendants, the Court certified its April order for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or the Eleventh Circuit. Also in June 2018, the defendants filed, with the Eleventh Circuit, a petition for permission to appeal the April order, which the plaintiffs opposed. In December 2018, the Eleventh Circuit denied the petition. No dates have been set for either the final pretrial conferences or trials in these actions. In March 2019, the Court issued a Fourth Amended Scheduling Order requiring that briefing on motions for class certification and related expert reports, merits and damages expert reports, and certain dispositive motions occur in 2019. In April 2019, plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification in conjunction with their supporting expert reports. Defendants filed their motions to exclude plaintiffs’ experts, as well as their opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, in July 2019. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Blue Cross of California Taxation Litigation In July 2013, our California affiliate Blue Cross of California (doing business as Anthem Blue Cross), or BCC, was named as a defendant in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned Michael D. Myers v. State Board of Equalization, et al. This action was brought under a California statute that permits an individual taxpayer to sue a governmental agency when the taxpayer believes the agency has failed to enforce governing law. Plaintiff contends that BCC, a licensed Health Care Service Plan, or HCSP, is an “insurer” for purposes of taxation despite acknowledging it is not an “insurer” under regulatory law. At the time, under California law, “insurers” were required to pay a gross premiums tax, or GPT, calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed HCSP, BCC has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax, or CFT, the tax paid by California businesses generally. Plaintiff contends that BCC must pay the GPT rather than the CFT, and seeks a writ of mandate directing the taxing agencies to collect the GPT and an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties for the eight-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. In March 2018, the Superior Court denied BCC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and similar motions brought by other entities. We filed a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal. Although the California Court of Appeal initially accepted our writ, it later indicated that it will not hear the issues raised by our writ until the case concludes in the Superior Court. The Superior Court has scheduled a trial setting conference for August 2019, at which time we anticipate a trial date in mid-to-late 2020 will be set. Because GPT is constitutionally imposed in lieu of certain other taxes, BCC has filed protective tax refund claims with the City of Los Angeles, the California Department of Health Care Services and the Franchise Tax Board to protect its rights to recover certain taxes previously paid should BCC eventually be determined to be subject to the GPT for the tax periods at issue in the litigation. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Express Scripts, Inc. Pharmacy Benefit Management Litigation In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, our vendor for pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover over $14,800 in damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing under the agreement between the parties, or ESI PBM Agreement, over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI PBM Agreement between the parties, including that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) is required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the ESI PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI PBM Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI PBM Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination. Express Scripts has disputed our contractual claims and is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the ESI PBM 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 PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675 at the time we entered into the ESI PBM Agreement. In March 2017, the 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. The only remaining claims are for breach of contract and declaratory relief. Discovery is scheduled to be completed in September 2019. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against any counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation We are a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that we breached our duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the best interests of our insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs and interest. In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against us, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in October 2018. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Cigna Corporation Merger Litigation In July 2015, we and Cigna Corporation, or Cigna, announced that we entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or Cigna Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we would acquire all outstanding shares of Cigna. In July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or District Court, seeking to block the merger. In February 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Cigna Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or Delaware Court, seeking damages, including the $1,850 termination fee pursuant to the terms of the Cigna Merger Agreement, and a declaratory judgment that its purported termination of the Cigna Merger Agreement was lawful, among other claims, which is captioned Cigna Corp. v. Anthem Inc. Also in February 2017, we initiated our own litigation against Cigna in the Delaware Court seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement, specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the Cigna Merger Agreement and damages, which is captioned Anthem Inc. v. Cigna Corp. In April 2017, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the ruling of the District Court, which blocked the merger. In May 2017, after the Delaware Court denied our motion to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement, we delivered to Cigna a notice terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement. In the Delaware Court litigation, trial commenced in late February 2019 and concluded in March 2019. The Delaware Court has set closing argument for September 11, 2019. We believe Cigna’s allegations are without merit and we intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against Cigna’s allegations; however, the ultimate outcome of our litigation with Cigna cannot be presently determined. In October 2018, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the State of Indiana Marion County Superior Court, captioned Henry Bittmann, Derivatively, et al. v. Joseph R Swedish, et al., purportedly on behalf of us and our shareholders against certain current and former directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and corporate waste associated with the Cigna Merger Agreement. This case has been stayed at the request of the parties pending the outcome of our litigation with Cigna in the Delaware Court. This lawsuit’s ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Investigative Demands Beginning in December 2016, the DOJ has issued civil investigative demands to us to discover information about our chart review and risk adjustment programs under Parts C and D of the Medicare Program. We understand the DOJ is investigating the programs of other Medicare Advantage health plans, along with providers and vendors. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and the ultimate outcome cannot presently be determined. Cyber Attack Regulatory Proceedings and Litigation In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birth dates, healthcare identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We have provided credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred. Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating, or have investigated, events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. The investigations have all been resolved with the exception of an ongoing investigation by a multi-state group of attorneys general, which remains outstanding. Although we are cooperating in this investigation, we may be subject to additional fines or other obligations. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining regulatory investigation; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature and will pursue coverage for all applicable losses; however, the ultimate outcome of our pursuit of insurance coverage 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 HMOs and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare 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 reimbursement 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. Contractual Obligations and Commitments Express Scripts, through our ESI PBM Agreement, is the provider of certain PBM services to our plans. In October 2017, we established a new pharmacy benefits manager, called IngenioRx, and entered into a five-year agreement with CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., or CVS Health, which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, to begin offering PBM solutions, or the CVS PBM Agreement. In January 2019, we exercised our contractual right to terminate the ESI PBM Agreement earlier than the original expiration date of December 31, 2019 due to the recent acquisition of Express Scripts by Cigna. As a result of exercising our early termination right, the ESI PBM Agreement terminated on March 1, 2019, and on March 2, 2019, the twelve-month transition period to migrate the services from Express Scripts began. CVS Health began providing certain PBM services to IngenioRx pursuant to the CVS PBM Agreement in the second quarter of 2019. Notwithstanding our termination of the ESI PBM Agreement, the litigation between us and Express Scripts regarding the ESI PBM Agreement continues. For additional information regarding this lawsuit, refer to the Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings-Express Scripts, Inc. Pharmacy Benefit Management Litigation section above. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under the ESI PBM Agreement as of June 30, 2019.

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.

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 is, in the aggregate, from $0 to approximately $250 at June 30, 2019. 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.

We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees, or Blue plans, across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, or 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, or Sherman Act, and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers, and actions filed in twenty-eight states have been consolidated into the multi-district proceeding.

In response to cross motions for partial summary judgment by plaintiffs and defendants, the Court issued an order in April 2018 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. The Court also found that there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants operate as a single entity with regard to the enforcement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield trademarks. In June 2018, in response to a motion filed by the defendants, the Court certified its April order for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or the Eleventh Circuit. Also in June 2018, the defendants filed, with the Eleventh Circuit, a petition for permission to appeal the April order, which the plaintiffs opposed. In December 2018, the Eleventh Circuit denied the petition. No dates have been set for either the final pretrial conferences or trials in these actions. In March 2019, the Court issued a Fourth Amended Scheduling Order requiring that briefing on motions for class certification and related expert reports, merits and damages expert reports, and certain dispositive motions occur in 2019. In April 2019, plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification in conjunction with their supporting expert reports. Defendants filed their motions to exclude plaintiffs’ experts, as well as their opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, in July 2019. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In July 2013, our California affiliate Blue Cross of California (doing business as Anthem Blue Cross), or BCC, was named as a defendant in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned Michael D. Myers v. State Board of Equalization, et al. This action was brought under a California statute that permits an individual taxpayer to sue a governmental agency when the taxpayer believes the agency has failed to enforce governing law. Plaintiff contends that BCC, a licensed Health Care Service Plan, or HCSP, is an “insurer” for purposes of taxation despite acknowledging it is not an “insurer” under regulatory law. At the time, under California law, “insurers” were required to pay a gross premiums tax, or GPT, calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed HCSP, BCC has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax, or CFT, the tax paid by California businesses generally. Plaintiff contends that BCC must pay the GPT rather than the CFT, and seeks a writ of mandate directing the taxing agencies to collect the GPT and an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties for the eight-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.

In March 2018, the Superior Court denied BCC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and similar motions brought by other entities. We filed a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal. Although the California Court of Appeal initially accepted our writ, it later indicated that it will not hear the issues raised by our writ until the case concludes in the Superior Court. The Superior Court has scheduled a trial setting conference for August 2019, at which time we anticipate a trial date in mid-to-late 2020 will be set. Because GPT is constitutionally imposed in lieu of certain other taxes, BCC has filed protective tax refund claims with the City of Los Angeles, the California Department of Health Care Services and the Franchise Tax Board to protect its rights to recover certain taxes previously paid should BCC eventually be determined to be subject to the GPT for the tax periods at issue in the litigation. BCC intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc., or Express Scripts, our vendor for pharmacy benefit management, or PBM, services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover over $14,800 in damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing under the agreement between the parties, or ESI PBM Agreement, over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI PBM Agreement between the parties, including that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) is required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the ESI PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the

Express Scripts has disputed our contractual claims and is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the ESI PBM 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 PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675 at the time we entered into the ESI PBM Agreement. In March 2017, the 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. The only remaining claims are for breach of contract and declaratory relief. Discovery is scheduled to be completed in September 2019. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims and defend against any counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

We are a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that we breached our duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the best interests of our insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against us, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in October 2018. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In July 2015, we and Cigna Corporation, or Cigna, announced that we entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or Cigna Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we would acquire all outstanding shares of Cigna. In July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, along with certain state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or District Court, seeking to block the merger. In February 2017, Cigna purported to terminate the Cigna Merger Agreement and commenced litigation against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or Delaware Court, seeking damages, including the $1,850 termination fee pursuant to the terms of the Cigna Merger Agreement, and a declaratory judgment that its purported termination of the Cigna Merger Agreement was lawful, among other claims, which is captioned Cigna Corp. v. Anthem Inc.

Also in February 2017, we initiated our own litigation against Cigna in the Delaware Court seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement, specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the Cigna Merger Agreement and damages, which is captioned Anthem Inc. v. Cigna Corp. In April 2017, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the ruling of the District Court, which blocked the merger. In May 2017, after the Delaware Court denied our motion to enjoin Cigna from terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement, we delivered to Cigna a notice terminating the Cigna Merger Agreement.

In October 2018, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the State of Indiana Marion County Superior Court, captioned Henry Bittmann, Derivatively, et al. v. Joseph R Swedish, et al., purportedly on behalf of us and our shareholders against certain current and former directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and corporate waste associated with the Cigna Merger Agreement. This case has been stayed at the request of the parties pending the outcome of our litigation with Cigna in the Delaware Court. This lawsuit’s ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Beginning in December 2016, the DOJ has issued civil investigative demands to us to discover information about our chart review and risk adjustment programs under Parts C and D of the Medicare Program. We understand the DOJ is investigating the programs of other Medicare Advantage health plans, along with providers and vendors. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and the ultimate outcome cannot presently be determined.

In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birth dates, healthcare identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained.

Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We have provided credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred.

Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating, or have investigated, events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. The investigations have all been resolved with the exception of an ongoing investigation by a multi-state group of attorneys general, which remains outstanding. Although we are cooperating in this investigation, we may be subject to additional fines or other obligations. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining regulatory investigation; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

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 healthcare 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 reimbursement 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.

Express Scripts, through our ESI PBM Agreement, is the provider of certain PBM services to our plans. In October 2017, we established a new pharmacy benefits manager, called IngenioRx, and entered into a five-year agreement with CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., or CVS Health, which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, to begin offering PBM solutions, or the CVS PBM Agreement. In January 2019, we exercised our contractual right to terminate the ESI PBM Agreement earlier than the original expiration date of December 31, 2019 due to the recent acquisition of Express Scripts by Cigna. As a result of exercising our early termination right, the ESI PBM Agreement terminated on March 1, 2019, and on March 2, 2019, the twelve-month transition period to migrate the services from Express Scripts began. CVS Health began providing certain PBM services to IngenioRx pursuant to the CVS PBM Agreement in the second quarter of 2019. Notwithstanding our termination of the ESI PBM Agreement, the litigation between us and Express Scripts regarding the ESI PBM Agreement continues. For additional information regarding this lawsuit, refer to the Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings-Express Scripts, Inc. Pharmacy Benefit Management Litigation section above. We believe we have appropriately recognized all rights and obligations under the ESI PBM Agreement as of June 30, 2019.