Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings We are defendants in, or parties to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings. To the extent a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the following cases have specified in their complaint or in other court filings the amount of damages being sought, we have noted those alleged damages in the descriptions below. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and we can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, we accrue the estimated loss by a charge to income. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where loss is possible or probable or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible or probable loss or range of losses in excess of the amount, if any, accrued, for various reasons, including but not limited to some or all of the following: (i) there are novel or unsettled legal issues presented, (ii) the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or decertified or the ultimate size and scope of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) in many cases, the plaintiffs have not specified damages in their complaint or in court filings. With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter, and we believe we have meritorious defenses. We do not believe the outcome of any known pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings will, in the aggregate, have a material impact on our financial position. However, unanticipated outcomes do sometimes occur, which could result in liabilities in excess of our accruals and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition to the lawsuits described below, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings (“government actions”). These government actions include routine and special inquiries by and disclosures to state insurance departments, state attorneys general, U.S. Regulatory Agencies, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such government actions could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these government actions individually, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation We have been a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees (the “Blue plans”) across the country. These cases were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Court”). Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan, restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard® and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which received final approval from the Court in September 2022. The ultimate amount paid by the Company under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement was $604, which was primarily accrued in 2020. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement and the defendants' payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement became effective in June 2024, with the request for second Blue plan bid provisions effective in September 2024. The funds held in escrow will be distributed to members of the subscriber class in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement. A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed and remain pending. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) (“Alaska Air”); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) (“Jet Blue”); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (dismissed without prejudice in June 2023); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 1:21-cv-23448 (S.D. Fla.).; and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.) (“VHS”). In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue. In September 2023, the California court presiding over the VHS case upheld its prior order granting in part defendants’ motion to strike based on the statute of limitations. On February 14, 2025, the VHS plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an additional plaintiff, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In the third quarter of 2024, the BCBSA, along with the individually named Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release (the “Provider Settlement Agreement”) with the provider plaintiffs. The Court granted preliminary approval of the provider settlement on December 4, 2024. A Final Fairness Hearing was held in July 2025, and a Final Order of Approval was issued in August 2025. As a result of the Final Order of Approval, the defendants were required to make a monetary settlement payment and certain non-monetary terms including (i) expansion of certain opportunities to contract with providers in contiguous service areas, (ii) certain prompt pay commitments, and (iii) various technological enhancements to the BlueCard program are now being implemented on a timeline set forth in the Provider Settlement Agreement. The effective date of the Provider Settlement Agreement was September 19, 2025. We recognized our payment obligation under the Provider Settlement Agreement of $666 in September 2024 as operating expense in the Corporate & Other segment (see Note 20, “Segment Information”). A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Provider Settlement Agreement have been filed and have been centralized in the BCBSA Litigation multi-district proceeding. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these provider follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Medicare Risk Adjustment Litigation In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) in a case captioned United States v. Anthem, Inc. The DOJ’s suit alleges, among other things, that we falsely certified the accuracy of the diagnosis data we submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for risk-adjustment purposes under Medicare Part C and knowingly failed to delete inaccurate diagnosis codes. The DOJ further alleges that, as a result of these purported acts, we caused CMS to calculate the risk-adjustment payments based on inaccurate diagnosis information, which enabled us to obtain unspecified amounts of payments in Medicare funds in violation of the False Claims Act. The DOJ filed an amended complaint in July 2020, alleging the same causes of action but revising some of its factual allegations. In September 2020, we filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the Southern District of Ohio, a motion to dismiss part of the lawsuit, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint, all of which the District Court denied in October 2022. In November 2022, we filed an answer. In March 2023, discovery commenced. Fact and expert discovery are ongoing with current completion deadlines of June 30, 2026 and March 8, 2027, respectively. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Other Contingencies From time to time, we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, many of which involve claims for coverage encountered in the ordinary course of business. We, like Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations and other plans. We are, in the ordinary course of business, subject to the claims of our enrollees arising out of decisions to restrict or deny reimbursement for uncovered services. The loss of even one such claim, if it results in a significant punitive damage award, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the risk of potential liability under punitive damage theories may increase significantly the difficulty of obtaining reasonable reimbursement of coverage claims. Contractual Obligations and Commitments In September 2024, we extended our agreement with a vendor for information technology infrastructure and related management and support services through June 2029. Our remaining commitment under this agreement is approximately $1,634. We have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees. CarelonRx markets and offers pharmacy services to our affiliated health plan customers throughout the country, as well as to customers outside of the health plans we own. The comprehensive pharmacy services portfolio includes all core pharmacy services, such as home delivery and specialty pharmacies, claims adjudication, formulary management, pharmacy networks, rebate administration, a prescription drug database and member services. CarelonRx delegates certain core pharmacy services to CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. (“CVS”), which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, pursuant to an agreement (“CVS Agreement”), with the current contractual term extending through December 31, 2027. We can elect to have CVS continue to provide services to us for a three-year extension period on the same terms and conditions as in the current CVS Agreement in the event of a termination or non-renewal by either party. We have financial guarantees related to standby letters of credit and surety bonds related to certain contractual commitments, which totaled $819 as of December 31, 2025. We do not believe such obligations will materially affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We have unfunded loan commitments to certain equity investees of $401 at December 31, 2025. We do not believe such obligations will materially affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Vulnerability Concentrations Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, investment securities, premium receivables and instruments held through hedging activities. All investment securities are managed by professional investment managers within policies authorized by our Board of Directors. Such policies limit the amounts that may be invested in any one issuer and prescribe certain investee company criteria. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to premium receivables are limited due to the large number of employer groups that constitute our customer base in the states in which we conduct business. As of December 31, 2025, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.

We are defendants in, or parties to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings. To the extent a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the following cases have specified in their complaint or in other court filings the amount of damages being sought, we have noted those alleged damages in the descriptions below.

Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and we can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, we accrue the estimated loss by a charge to income. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where loss is possible or probable or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible or probable loss or range of losses in excess of the amount, if any, accrued, for various reasons, including but not limited to some or all of the following: (i) there are novel or unsettled legal issues presented, (ii) the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or decertified or the ultimate size and scope of the class, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) in many cases, the plaintiffs have not specified damages in their complaint or in court filings.

With respect to the cases described below, we contest liability and/or the amount of damages in each matter, and we believe we have meritorious defenses. We do not believe the outcome of any known pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings will, in the aggregate, have a material impact on our financial position. However, unanticipated outcomes do sometimes occur, which could result in liabilities in excess of our accruals and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In addition to the lawsuits described below, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings (“government actions”). These government actions include routine and special inquiries by and disclosures to state insurance departments, state attorneys general, U.S. Regulatory Agencies, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such government actions could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these government actions individually, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

We have been a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees (the “Blue plans”) across the country. These cases were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Court”). Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan, restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard® and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.

The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which received final approval from the Court in September 2022. The ultimate amount paid by the Company under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement was $604, which was primarily accrued in 2020. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement and the defendants' payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement became effective in June 2024, with the request for second Blue plan bid provisions effective in September 2024. The funds held in escrow will be distributed to members of the subscriber class in accordance with the Subscriber Settlement Agreement.

A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed and remain pending. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) (“Alaska Air”); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) (“Jet Blue”); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (dismissed without prejudice in June 2023); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No. 1:21-cv-23448 (S.D. Fla.).; and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.) (“VHS”). In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue. In September 2023, the California court presiding over the VHS case upheld its prior order granting in part defendants’ motion to strike based on the statute of limitations. On February 14, 2025, the VHS plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an additional plaintiff, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In the third quarter of 2024, the BCBSA, along with the individually named Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release (the “Provider Settlement Agreement”) with the provider plaintiffs. The Court granted preliminary approval of the provider settlement on December 4, 2024. A Final Fairness Hearing was held in July 2025, and a Final Order of Approval was issued in August 2025. As a result of the Final Order of Approval, the defendants were required to make a monetary settlement payment and certain non-monetary terms including (i) expansion of certain opportunities to contract with providers in contiguous service areas, (ii) certain prompt pay commitments, and (iii) various technological enhancements to the BlueCard program are now being implemented on a timeline set forth in the Provider Settlement Agreement. The effective date of the Provider Settlement Agreement was September 19, 2025. We recognized our payment obligation under the Provider Settlement Agreement of $666 in September 2024 as operating expense in the Corporate & Other segment (see Note 20, “Segment Information”).

A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Provider Settlement Agreement have been filed and have been centralized in the BCBSA Litigation multi-district proceeding. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these provider follow-on cases, which we believe are without merit; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) in a case captioned United States v. Anthem, Inc. The DOJ’s suit alleges, among other things, that we falsely certified the accuracy of the diagnosis data we submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for risk-adjustment purposes under Medicare Part C and knowingly failed to delete inaccurate diagnosis codes. The DOJ further alleges that, as a result of these purported acts, we caused CMS

to calculate the risk-adjustment payments based on inaccurate diagnosis information, which enabled us to obtain unspecified amounts of payments in Medicare funds in violation of the False Claims Act. The DOJ filed an amended complaint in July 2020, alleging the same causes of action but revising some of its factual allegations. In September 2020, we filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the Southern District of Ohio, a motion to dismiss part of the lawsuit, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint, all of which the District Court denied in October 2022. In November 2022, we filed an answer. In March 2023, discovery commenced. Fact and expert discovery are ongoing with current completion deadlines of June 30, 2026 and March 8, 2027, respectively. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this suit, which we believe is without merit; however, the 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 Health Maintenance Organizations (“HMOs”) and health insurers generally, exclude certain healthcare and other services from coverage under our HMO, Preferred Provider Organizations and other plans. We are, in the ordinary course of business, subject to the claims of our enrollees arising out of decisions to restrict or deny reimbursement for uncovered services. The loss of even one such claim, if it results in a significant punitive damage award, could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the risk of potential liability under punitive damage theories may increase significantly the difficulty of obtaining reasonable reimbursement of coverage claims.

In September 2024, we extended our agreement with a vendor for information technology infrastructure and related management and support services through June 2029. Our remaining commitment under this agreement is approximately $1,634. We have the ability to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, subject to early termination fees.

CarelonRx markets and offers pharmacy services to our affiliated health plan customers throughout the country, as well as to customers outside of the health plans we own. The comprehensive pharmacy services portfolio includes all core pharmacy services, such as home delivery and specialty pharmacies, claims adjudication, formulary management, pharmacy networks, rebate administration, a prescription drug database and member services. CarelonRx delegates certain core pharmacy services to CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. (“CVS”), which is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, pursuant to an agreement (“CVS Agreement”), with the current contractual term extending through December 31, 2027. We can elect to have CVS continue to provide services to us for a three-year extension period on the same terms and conditions as in the current CVS Agreement in the event of a termination or non-renewal by either party.

We have financial guarantees related to standby letters of credit and surety bonds related to certain contractual commitments, which totaled $819 as of December 31, 2025. We do not believe such obligations will materially affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, investment securities, premium receivables and instruments held through hedging activities. All investment securities are managed by professional investment managers within policies authorized by our Board of Directors. Such policies limit the amounts that may be invested in any one issuer and prescribe certain investee company criteria. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to premium receivables are limited due to the large number of employer groups that constitute our customer base in the states in which we conduct business. As of December 31, 2025, there were no significant concentrations of financial instruments in a single investee, industry or geographic location.