COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase Obligations We have agreements to purchase services, primarily information technology related services, or to make improvements to real estate, in each case that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum levels of service to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the appropriate timing of the transaction. We have purchase obligation commitments of $647 million in 2025, $469 million in 2026, $342 million in 2027, $234 million in 2028, and $205 million in 2029. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancellable without penalty. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements As part of our ongoing business, we do not participate or knowingly seek to participate in transactions that generate relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, or SPEs, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. As of December 31, 2024, we were not involved in any SPE transactions. Guarantees and Indemnifications Through indemnity agreements approved by the state regulatory authorities, certain of our regulated subsidiaries generally are guaranteed by Humana Inc., our parent company, in the event of insolvency for (1) member coverage for which premium payment has been made prior to insolvency; (2) benefits for members then hospitalized until discharged; and (3) payment to providers for services rendered prior to insolvency. Our parent also has guaranteed the obligations of certain of our non-regulated subsidiaries and funding to maintain required statutory capital levels of certain regulated subsidiaries. In the ordinary course of business, we enter into contractual arrangements under which we may agree to indemnify a third-party to such arrangement from any losses incurred relating to the services they perform on behalf of us, or for losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims relating to past performance. Such indemnification obligations may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial. Government Contracts Our Medicare products, which accounted for approximately 85% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, primarily consisted of products covered under the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan contracts with the federal government. These contracts are renewed generally for a calendar year term unless CMS notifies us of its decision not to renew by May 1 of the calendar year in which the contract would end, or we notify CMS of our decision not to renew by the first Monday in June of the calendar year in which the contract would end. All material contracts between Humana and CMS relating to our Medicare products have been renewed for 2025, and all of our product offerings filed with CMS for 2025 have been approved. CMS uses a risk-adjustment model which adjusts premiums paid to Medicare Advantage, or MA, plans according to health status of covered members. The risk-adjustment model, which CMS implemented pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), generally pays more where a plan's membership has higher expected costs. Under this model, rates paid to MA plans are based on actuarially determined bids, which include a process whereby our prospective payments are based on our estimated cost of providing standard Medicare-covered benefits to an enrollee with a "national average risk profile." That baseline payment amount is adjusted to account for certain demographic characteristics and health status of our enrolled members. Under the risk-adjustment methodology, all MA plans must collect from providers and submit the necessary diagnosis code information to CMS within prescribed deadlines. The CMS risk-adjustment model uses the diagnosis data, collected from providers, to calculate the health status-related risk-adjusted premium payment to MA plans, which CMS further adjusts for coding pattern differences between the health plans and the government fee-for-service (FFS) program. We generally rely on providers, including certain providers in our network who are our employees, to code their claim submissions with appropriate diagnoses, which we send to CMS as the basis for our health status-adjusted payment received from CMS under the actuarial risk-adjustment model. We also rely on these providers to document appropriately all medical data, including the diagnosis data submitted with claims. In addition, we conduct medical record reviews as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts, to more accurately reflect diagnosis conditions under the risk adjustment model. CMS and the Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services, or HHS-OIG, perform audits of various companies’ risk adjustment diagnosis data submissions. We refer to these audits as Risk-Adjustment Data Validation Audits, or RADV audits. RADV audits review medical records in an attempt to validate provider medical record documentation and coding practices that influence the calculation of health status-related premium payments to MA plans. In 2012, CMS released an MA contract-level RADV methodology that would extrapolate the results of each CMS RADV audit sample to the audited MA contract’s entire health status-related risk adjusted premium amount for the year under audit. In doing so, CMS recognized “that the documentation standard used in RADV audits to determine a contract’s payment error (medical records) is different from the documentation standard used to develop the Part C risk-adjustment model (FFS claims).” To correct for this difference, CMS stated that it would apply a “Fee-for-Service Adjuster (FFS Adjuster)” as “an offset to the preliminary recovery amount.” This adjuster would be “calculated by CMS based on a RADV-like review of records submitted to support FFS claims data.” CMS stated that this methodology would apply to audits beginning with PY 2011. Humana relied on CMS’s 2012 guidance in submitting MA bids to CMS. Humana also launched a “Self-Audits” program in 2013 that applied CMS’s 2012 RADV audit methodology and included an estimated FFS Adjuster. Humana completed Self-Audits for PYs 2011-2016 and reported results to CMS. In October 2018, however, CMS issued a proposed rule announcing possible changes to the RADV audit methodology, including elimination of the FFS Adjuster. CMS proposed applying its revised methodology, including extrapolated recoveries without application of a FFS Adjuster, to RADV audits dating back to PY 2011. On January 30, 2023, CMS published a final rule related to the RADV audit methodology (Final RADV Rule). The Final RADV Rule confirmed CMS’s decision to eliminate the FFS Adjuster. The Final RADV Rule states CMS’s intention to extrapolate results from CMS and HHS-OIG RADV audits beginning with PY 2018, rather than PY 2011 as proposed. However, CMS’s Final RADV Rule does not adopt a specific sampling, extrapolation or audit methodology. CMS instead stated its general plan to rely on “any statistically valid method . . . that is determined to be well-suited to a particular audit.” We believe that the Final RADV Rule fails to address adequately the statutory requirement of actuarial equivalence and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). CMS failed to meet its legal obligations in the federal rulemaking process to give a reasoned justification for the rule or provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment. They also chose to apply the rule retroactively rather than prospectively, as required by law. Humana’s actuarially certified bids through PY 2023 preserved Humana’s position that CMS should apply an FFS Adjuster in any RADV audit that CMS intends to extrapolate. CMS confirmed its intent to apply the Final RADV Rule, including the first application of extrapolated audit results to determine audit settlements without the use of a FFS Adjuster, to CMS audits conducted for PY 2018 and subsequent years when it selected certain of Humana's MA contracts for PY 2018 RADV Audits. The Final RADV Rule, including the lack of a FFS Adjuster, and any related regulatory, industry or company reactions, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. On September 1, 2023, Humana Inc. and Humana Benefit Plan of Texas, Inc. filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division seeking a determination that the Final RADV Rule violates the APA and should be set aside. We remain committed to working alongside CMS to promote the integrity of the MA program as well as affordability and cost certainty for our members. It is critical that MA plans are paid accurately and that payment model principles, including the application of a FFS Adjuster, are in accordance with the requirements of the Social Security Act, which, if not implemented correctly could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. In addition, as part of our internal compliance efforts, we routinely perform ordinary course reviews of our internal business processes related to, among other things, our risk coding and data submissions in connection with the risk adjustment model. These reviews may also result in the identification of errors and the submission of corrections to CMS that may, either individually or in the aggregate, be material. As such, the result of these reviews may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Our state-based Medicaid business accounted for approximately 8% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024 primarily serving members enrolled in Medicaid, and in certain circumstances members who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare, under contracts with various states. Our military services business, which accounted for approximately 1% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, primarily consisted of the TRICARE T2017 East Region contract. We delivered services under the T2017 East Region contract from commencement on January 1, 2018 through expiration on December 31, 2024. The T2017 East Region contract comprised 32 states and approximately 6 million TRICARE beneficiaries. In December 2022, we were awarded the next generation of TRICARE Managed Care Support Contracts, or T-5, for the updated TRICARE East Region by the Defense Health Agency of the DoD. The T-5 East Region contract commenced on January 1, 2025 and comprises 24 states, and Washington D.C., and approximately 4.6 million beneficiaries. The transition period for the T-5 contract began in January 2024 and overlapped the final year of the T2017 contract. The length of the contract is one transition year followed by eight annual option periods, which, if all options are exercised, would result in a total contract length of nine years. The loss of any of the contracts above or significant changes in these programs as a result of legislative or regulatory action, including reductions in premium payments to us, regulatory restrictions on profitability, including reviews by regulatory bodies that may compare our Medicare Advantage profitability to our non-Medicare Advantage business profitability, or compare the profitability of various products within our Medicare Advantage business, and require that they remain within certain ranges of each other, or increases in member benefits or member eligibility criteria without corresponding increases in premium payments to us, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. Legal Proceedings and Certain Regulatory Matters From time to time, the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice has provided us with information requests, concerning our Medicare Part C risk adjustment practices. These requests relate to our oversight and submission of risk adjustment data generated by providers, as well as to our business and compliance practices related to risk adjustment data generated by our providers and by our Medicare Advantage Organizations. We continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice on these requests. On January 19, 2016, an individual filed a qui tam suit captioned United States of America ex rel. Steven Scott v. Humana Inc in United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville division. As previously disclosed, during 2023, we accrued certain anticipated expenses in connection with this matter. On August 15, 2024, Humana settled the claims in this suit, and paid the United States $90 million. On September 1, 2023, Humana Inc. and Humana Benefit Plan of Texas, Inc. filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division seeking a determination that the Final RADV Rule violates the APA and should be set aside. There is no assurance that we will prevail in the lawsuit. See “Government Contracts” in this Note 17 for additional information regarding this matter. In June 2024, a putative stockholder class action was filed against Humana Inc. and certain of our current and former executive officers under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, now captioned In re Humana Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges that between July 2022 and October 2024, Humana made false or misleading statements in its periodic SEC filings and statements to the financial markets about our financial performance and the medical costs and Star Ratings in our Medicare Advantage business. The action seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. Between July and November 2024, parallel stockholder derivative actions captioned Silva v. Broussard, Spikes v. Broussard, and Noble v. Broussard, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the same claimed acts and omissions underlying the federal securities law case also constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by certain of our current and former directors and executive officers. The actions seek, among other things, reforms to the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. We will vigorously defend against the allegations in all cases. On October 18, 2024, Humana Inc., along with co-plaintiff Americans for Beneficiary Choice, filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary, and Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in her official capacity as Administrator, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, seeking a determination that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act in administering the Medicare Advantage and Part D Star Ratings program. We seek to set aside and vacate Humana’s 2025 Star Ratings and remand the matter to CMS for recalculation and to declare that CMS’s policy refusing to disclose all relevant data and information is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. There is no assurance that we will prevail in the lawsuit. For additional information on this matter, refer to Part I, Item 1A, "Risk Factors" of this Form 10-K. Other Lawsuits and Regulatory Matters Our current and past business practices are subject to review or other investigations by various state insurance and health care regulatory authorities and other state and federal regulatory authorities. These authorities regularly scrutinize the business practices of health insurance, health care delivery and benefits companies. These reviews focus on numerous facets of our business, including claims payment practices, statutory capital requirements, provider and vendor contracting and oversight, risk adjustment, competitive practices, commission payments, marketing payments, privacy issues, utilization management practices, pharmacy benefits, access to care, sales practices, and provision of care by our healthcare services businesses, among others. Some of these reviews have historically resulted in fines imposed on us and some have required changes to some of our practices. We continue to be subject to these reviews, which could result in additional fines or other sanctions being imposed on us or additional changes in some of our practices. We also are involved in various other lawsuits that arise, for the most part, in the ordinary course of our business operations, certain of which may be styled as class-action lawsuits. Among other matters, this litigation may include employment matters, claims of medical malpractice, bad faith, personal injury, nonacceptance or termination of providers, anticompetitive practices, improper rate setting, provider contract rate and payment disputes, including disputes over reimbursement rates required by statute, disputes arising from competitive procurement process, general contractual matters, intellectual property matters, and challenges to subrogation practices. Under state guaranty assessment laws, including those related to state cooperative failures in the industry, we may be assessed (up to prescribed limits) for certain obligations to the policyholders and claimants of insolvent insurance companies that write the same line or lines of business as we do. As a government contractor, we may also be subject to false claims litigation, such as qui tam lawsuits brought by individuals who seek to sue on behalf of the government, alleging that the government contractor submitted false claims to the government or related overpayments from the government, including, among other allegations, those resulting from coding and review practices under the Medicare risk adjustment model. Qui tam litigation is filed under seal to allow the government an opportunity to investigate and to decide if it wishes to intervene and assume control of the litigation. If the government does not intervene, the individual may continue to prosecute the action on his or her own, on behalf of the government. We also are subject to other allegations of nonperformance of contractual obligations to providers, members, and others, including failure to properly pay claims, improper policy terminations, challenges to our implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and other litigation. A limited number of the claims asserted against us are subject to insurance coverage. Personal injury claims, claims for extra contractual damages, care delivery malpractice, and claims arising from medical benefit denials are covered by insurance from our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and excess carriers, except to the extent that claimants seek punitive damages, which may not be covered by insurance in certain states in which insurance coverage for punitive damages is not permitted. In addition, insurance coverage for all or certain forms of liability has become increasingly costly and may become unavailable or prohibitively expensive in the future. We record accruals for the contingencies discussed in the sections above to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, which also may be exacerbated by various factors, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting judgments, penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities or as a result of actions by third parties. Nevertheless, it is reasonably possible that any such outcome of litigation, judgments, penalties, fines or other sanctions could be substantial, and the outcome of these matters may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows, and may also affect our reputation.

We have agreements to purchase services, primarily information technology related services, or to make improvements to real estate, in each case that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum levels of service to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the appropriate timing of the transaction. We have purchase obligation commitments of $647 million in 2025, $469 million in 2026, $342 million in 2027, $234 million in 2028, and $205 million in 2029. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancellable without penalty.

As part of our ongoing business, we do not participate or knowingly seek to participate in transactions that generate relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, or SPEs, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. As of December 31, 2024, we were not involved in any SPE transactions.

Through indemnity agreements approved by the state regulatory authorities, certain of our regulated subsidiaries generally are guaranteed by Humana Inc., our parent company, in the event of insolvency for (1) member coverage for which premium payment has been made prior to insolvency; (2) benefits for members then hospitalized until discharged; and (3) payment to providers for services rendered prior to insolvency. Our parent also has guaranteed the obligations of certain of our non-regulated subsidiaries and funding to maintain required statutory capital levels of certain regulated subsidiaries.

In the ordinary course of business, we enter into contractual arrangements under which we may agree to indemnify a third-party to such arrangement from any losses incurred relating to the services they perform on behalf of us, or for losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims relating to past performance. Such indemnification obligations may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial.

Our Medicare products, which accounted for approximately 85% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, primarily consisted of products covered under the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan contracts with the federal government. These contracts are renewed generally for a calendar year term unless CMS notifies us of its decision not to renew by May 1 of the calendar year in which the contract would end, or we notify CMS of our decision not to renew by the first Monday in June of the calendar year in which the contract would end. All material contracts between Humana and CMS relating to our Medicare products have been renewed for 2025, and all of our product offerings filed with CMS for 2025 have been approved.

CMS uses a risk-adjustment model which adjusts premiums paid to Medicare Advantage, or MA, plans according to health status of covered members. The risk-adjustment model, which CMS implemented pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), generally pays more where a plan's membership has higher expected costs. Under this model, rates paid to MA plans are based on actuarially determined bids, which include a process whereby our prospective payments are based on our estimated cost of providing standard Medicare-covered benefits to an enrollee with a "national average risk profile." That baseline payment amount is adjusted to account for certain demographic characteristics and health status of our enrolled members. Under the risk-adjustment methodology, all MA plans must collect from providers and submit the necessary diagnosis code information to CMS within prescribed deadlines. The CMS risk-adjustment model uses the diagnosis data, collected from providers, to calculate the health status-related risk-adjusted premium payment to MA plans, which CMS further adjusts for coding pattern differences between the health plans and the government fee-for-service (FFS) program. We generally rely on providers, including certain providers in our network who are our employees, to code their claim submissions with appropriate diagnoses, which we send to CMS as the basis for our health status-adjusted payment received from CMS under the actuarial risk-adjustment model. We also rely on these providers to document appropriately all medical data, including the diagnosis data submitted with claims. In addition, we conduct medical record reviews as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts, to more accurately reflect diagnosis conditions under the risk adjustment model.

CMS and the Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services, or HHS-OIG, perform audits of various companies’ risk adjustment diagnosis data submissions. We refer to these audits as Risk-Adjustment Data Validation Audits, or RADV audits. RADV audits review medical records in an attempt to validate provider medical record documentation and coding practices that influence the calculation of health status-related premium payments to MA plans.

In 2012, CMS released an MA contract-level RADV methodology that would extrapolate the results of each CMS RADV audit sample to the audited MA contract’s entire health status-related risk adjusted premium amount for the year under audit. In doing so, CMS recognized “that the documentation standard used in RADV audits to determine a contract’s payment error (medical records) is different from the documentation standard used to develop the Part C risk-adjustment model (FFS claims).” To correct for this difference, CMS stated that it would apply a “Fee-for-Service Adjuster (FFS Adjuster)” as “an offset to the preliminary recovery amount.” This adjuster would be “calculated by CMS based on a RADV-like review of records submitted to support FFS claims data.” CMS stated that this methodology would apply to audits beginning with PY 2011. Humana relied on CMS’s 2012 guidance in submitting MA bids to CMS. Humana also launched a “Self-Audits” program in 2013 that applied CMS’s 2012 RADV audit methodology and included an estimated FFS Adjuster. Humana completed Self-Audits for PYs 2011-2016 and reported results to CMS.

In October 2018, however, CMS issued a proposed rule announcing possible changes to the RADV audit methodology, including elimination of the FFS Adjuster. CMS proposed applying its revised methodology, including extrapolated recoveries without application of a FFS Adjuster, to RADV audits dating back to PY 2011. On January 30, 2023, CMS published a final rule related to the RADV audit methodology (Final RADV Rule). The Final RADV Rule confirmed CMS’s decision to eliminate the FFS Adjuster. The Final RADV Rule states CMS’s intention to extrapolate results from CMS and HHS-OIG RADV audits beginning with PY 2018, rather than PY

We believe that the Final RADV Rule fails to address adequately the statutory requirement of actuarial equivalence and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). CMS failed to meet its legal obligations in the federal rulemaking process to give a reasoned justification for the rule or provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment. They also chose to apply the rule retroactively rather than prospectively, as required by law. Humana’s actuarially certified bids through PY 2023 preserved Humana’s position that CMS should apply an FFS Adjuster in any RADV audit that CMS intends to extrapolate. CMS confirmed its intent to apply the Final RADV Rule, including the first application of extrapolated audit results to determine audit settlements without the use of a FFS Adjuster, to CMS audits conducted for PY 2018 and subsequent years when it selected certain of Humana's MA contracts for PY 2018 RADV Audits. The Final RADV Rule, including the lack of a FFS Adjuster, and any related regulatory, industry or company reactions, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

On September 1, 2023, Humana Inc. and Humana Benefit Plan of Texas, Inc. filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division seeking a determination that the Final RADV Rule violates the APA and should be set aside. We remain committed to working alongside CMS to promote the integrity of the MA program as well as affordability and cost certainty for our members. It is critical that MA plans are paid accurately and that payment model principles, including the application of a FFS Adjuster, are in accordance with the requirements of the Social Security Act, which, if not implemented correctly could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

In addition, as part of our internal compliance efforts, we routinely perform ordinary course reviews of our internal business processes related to, among other things, our risk coding and data submissions in connection with the risk adjustment model. These reviews may also result in the identification of errors and the submission of corrections to CMS that may, either individually or in the aggregate, be material. As such, the result of these reviews may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Our military services business, which accounted for approximately 1% of our total premiums and services revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, primarily consisted of the TRICARE T2017 East Region contract. We delivered services under the T2017 East Region contract from commencement on January 1, 2018 through expiration on December 31, 2024. The T2017 East Region contract comprised 32 states and approximately 6 million TRICARE beneficiaries. In December 2022, we were awarded the next generation of TRICARE Managed Care Support Contracts, or T-5, for the updated TRICARE East Region by the Defense Health Agency of the DoD. The T-5 East Region contract commenced on January 1, 2025 and comprises 24 states, and Washington D.C., and approximately 4.6 million beneficiaries. The transition period for the T-5 contract began in January 2024 and overlapped the final year of the T2017 contract. The length of the contract is one transition year followed by eight annual option periods, which, if all options are exercised, would result in a total contract length of nine years.

The loss of any of the contracts above or significant changes in these programs as a result of legislative or regulatory action, including reductions in premium payments to us, regulatory restrictions on profitability, including reviews by regulatory bodies that may compare our Medicare Advantage profitability to our non-Medicare Advantage business profitability, or compare the profitability of various products within our Medicare Advantage business, and require that they remain within certain ranges of each other, or increases in member benefits or member eligibility criteria without corresponding increases in premium payments to us, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

From time to time, the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice has provided us with information requests, concerning our Medicare Part C risk adjustment practices. These requests relate to our oversight and submission of risk adjustment data generated by providers, as well as to our business and compliance practices related to risk adjustment data generated by our providers and by our Medicare Advantage Organizations. We continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice on these requests.

On January 19, 2016, an individual filed a qui tam suit captioned United States of America ex rel. Steven Scott v. Humana Inc in United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville division. As previously disclosed, during 2023, we accrued certain anticipated expenses in connection with this matter. On August 15, 2024, Humana settled the claims in this suit, and paid the United States $90 million.

In June 2024, a putative stockholder class action was filed against Humana Inc. and certain of our current and former executive officers under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, now captioned In re Humana Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges that between July 2022 and October 2024, Humana made false or misleading statements in its periodic SEC filings and statements to the financial markets about our financial performance and the medical costs and Star Ratings in our Medicare Advantage business. The action seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. Between July and November 2024, parallel stockholder derivative actions captioned Silva v. Broussard, Spikes v. Broussard, and Noble v. Broussard, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the same claimed acts and omissions underlying the federal securities law case also constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by certain of our current and former directors and executive officers. The actions seek, among other things, reforms to the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. We will vigorously defend against the allegations in all cases.

On October 18, 2024, Humana Inc., along with co-plaintiff Americans for Beneficiary Choice, filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary, and Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in her official capacity as Administrator, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, seeking a determination that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act in administering the Medicare Advantage and Part D Star Ratings program. We seek to set aside and vacate Humana’s 2025 Star Ratings and remand the matter to CMS for recalculation and to declare that CMS’s policy refusing to disclose all relevant data and information is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. There is no assurance that we will prevail in the lawsuit. For additional information on this matter, refer to Part I, Item 1A, "Risk Factors" of this Form 10-K.

Our current and past business practices are subject to review or other investigations by various state insurance and health care regulatory authorities and other state and federal regulatory authorities. These authorities regularly scrutinize the business practices of health insurance, health care delivery and benefits companies. These reviews focus on numerous facets of our business, including claims payment practices, statutory capital requirements, provider and vendor contracting and oversight, risk adjustment, competitive practices, commission payments, marketing payments, privacy issues, utilization management practices, pharmacy benefits, access to care, sales practices, and provision of care by our healthcare services businesses, among others. Some of these reviews have historically resulted in fines imposed on us and some have required changes to some of our practices. We continue to be subject to these reviews, which could result in additional fines or other sanctions being imposed on us or additional changes in some of our practices.

We also are involved in various other lawsuits that arise, for the most part, in the ordinary course of our business operations, certain of which may be styled as class-action lawsuits. Among other matters, this litigation may include employment matters, claims of medical malpractice, bad faith, personal injury, nonacceptance or termination of providers, anticompetitive practices, improper rate setting, provider contract rate and payment disputes, including disputes over reimbursement rates required by statute, disputes arising from competitive procurement process, general contractual matters, intellectual property matters, and challenges to subrogation practices. Under state guaranty assessment laws, including those related to state cooperative failures in the industry, we may be assessed (up to prescribed limits) for certain obligations to the policyholders and claimants of insolvent insurance companies that write the same line or lines of business as we do.

As a government contractor, we may also be subject to false claims litigation, such as qui tam lawsuits brought by individuals who seek to sue on behalf of the government, alleging that the government contractor submitted false claims to the government or related overpayments from the government, including, among other allegations, those resulting from coding and review practices under the Medicare risk adjustment model. Qui tam litigation is filed under seal to allow the government an opportunity to investigate and to decide if it wishes to intervene and assume control of the litigation. If the government does not intervene, the individual may continue to prosecute the action on his or her own, on behalf of the government. We also are subject to other allegations of nonperformance of contractual obligations to providers, members, and others, including failure to properly pay claims, improper policy terminations, challenges to our implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and other litigation.

A limited number of the claims asserted against us are subject to insurance coverage. Personal injury claims, claims for extra contractual damages, care delivery malpractice, and claims arising from medical benefit denials are covered by insurance from our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and excess carriers, except to the extent that claimants seek punitive damages, which may not be covered by insurance in certain states in which insurance coverage for punitive damages is not permitted. In addition, insurance coverage for all or certain forms of liability has become increasingly costly and may become unavailable or prohibitively expensive in the future.

We record accruals for the contingencies discussed in the sections above to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, which also may be exacerbated by various factors, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes.

The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting judgments, penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities or as a result of actions by third parties. Nevertheless, it is reasonably possible that any such outcome of litigation, judgments, penalties, fines or other sanctions could be substantial, and the outcome of these matters may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows, and may also affect our reputation.