Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	6 Months Ended
Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	7. Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation Commitments Generic Sourcing Venture with CVS Health In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing venture with CVS Health for an initial term of 10 years. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of its participants. In August 2021, we amended our agreement to extend the term through June 2029. We are required to make quarterly payments to CVS Health for the term of the arrangement. Contingencies New York Opioid Stewardship Act In April 2018, the State of New York passed a budget which included the Opioid Stewardship Act (the "OSA"). The OSA created an aggregate $100 million annual assessment on all manufacturers and distributors that was assessed based on each manufacturer or distributor's share of the total morphine milligram equivalents sold or distributed in New York during the applicable calendar year, beginning in 2017. Subsequently, New York passed a new opioid excise tax and limited the OSA to two years (2017 and 2018). We accrue contingencies if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be estimated. Since fiscal 2021, we have made certain payments to New York State for our portion of the assessment in 2017 and 2018. However, we, and other distributors, challenged the OSA as unconstitutional. In May 2024, the New York Appellate Division held that the 2017 assessment was unconstitutionally retroactive, directing a refund of assessments paid for calendar year 2017, but upheld the 2018 assessment. Both parties have appealed the decision of the New York Appellate Division to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. We have not recorded a receivable for any possible recoveries related to these assessments. Legal Proceedings We become involved from time to time in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters. From time to time, we determine that products we distribute, source, manufacture or market do not meet our specifications, regulatory requirements, or published standards. When we or a regulatory agency identify a potential quality or regulatory issue, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions have led to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales, restrictions on importation, product liability claims and lawsuits and can lead to action by regulators. Even absent an identified regulatory or quality issue or product recall, we can become subject to product liability claims and lawsuits. From time to time, we become aware through employees, internal audits or other parties of possible compliance matters, such as complaints or concerns relating to accounting, internal accounting controls, financial reporting, auditing, or other ethical matters or relating to compliance with laws such as healthcare fraud and abuse, anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws. When we become aware of such possible compliance matters, we investigate internally and take appropriate corrective action. In addition, from time to time, we receive subpoenas or requests for information from various federal or state agencies relating to our business or to the business of a customer, supplier or other industry participants. Internal investigations, subpoenas or requests for information could directly or indirectly lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us or result in sanctions. We have been named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties. In such actions, the private parties purport to act on behalf of federal or state governments, allege that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if their claims are successful. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless attempt to continue to pursue the litigation on his or her own purporting to act on behalf of the government. We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. We recognize income from the favorable outcome of litigation when we receive the associated cash or assets. We recognize estimated loss contingencies for certain litigation and regulatory matters and income from favorable resolution of litigation in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings; however, losses and recoveries of lost profits from disputes that occur in the ordinary course of business are included within segment profit. Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations Cardinal Health, other pharmaceutical distributors, and other participants in the pharmaceutical supply chain have been named as defendants in lawsuits related to the distribution of opioid pain medications. These lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories, including various common law claims, such as public nuisance, negligence, unjust enrichment, personal injury, as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits include governmental entities as well as private parties, such as unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses and individuals. Additionally, we have received federal grand jury subpoenas issued in connection with investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). We have also received civil requests for information, subpoenas and other requests from other DOJ offices. These investigations concern operation of our anti-diversion program, our anti-diversion policies and procedures and distribution of certain controlled substances. We have and are cooperating with these investigations. We are unable to predict the outcomes of any of these investigations. In total, as of December 31, 2024, we have $4.9 billion accrued for these matters, of which $636 million is included in other accrued liabilities and the remainder is included in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. During fiscal 2024, we recognized expense of $340 million in connection with opioid-related matters, including agreements in principle with counsel representing nationwide classes of third-party payors and acute care hospitals, and settlements with the City of Baltimore and the State of Alabama. This expense was partially offset by a benefit of $105 million related to prepayments at a prenegotiated discount of certain future payments totaling $344 million. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether our accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from this accrual, whether as a result of settlement discussions, a judicial decision or verdict or otherwise, but we are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible additional losses for these matters. We continue to strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits and none of the agreements described below is an admission of liability or wrongdoing. Please see below for additional description of these matters. States & Political Subdivisions In February 2022, we along with two other national distributors (collectively, the "Distributors") independently approved a settlement agreement (the "National Opioid Settlement Agreement") to settle the vast majority of opioid lawsuits and claims brought by states and political subdivisions. This National Opioid Settlement Agreement became effective on April 2, 2022. In addition to the Distributors, parties to the National Opioid Settlement Agreement include 48 states, the District of Columbia and 5 U.S. territories. Over 99 percent of political subdivisions in settling states (by population as calculated under the National Opioid Settlement Agreement) that had brought opioid-related suits against us have chosen to join the National Opioid Settlement Agreement or have had their claims addressed by state legislation (together with settling states and territories, the "Settling Governmental Entities"). During fiscal 2024, we recognized a $22 million charge in litigation (recoveries)/charge, net in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings/(loss) related to an agreement with the Alabama Attorney General under which we agreed to pay approximately $123 million to the State of Alabama over a period of ten years to resolve opioid-related claims brought by the State and its political subdivisions (the "Alabama Settlement"). Including the National Opioid Settlement Agreement, the Alabama Settlement and a prior settlement with the State of West Virginia, we have now resolved the opioid-related claims of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, in August 2024, we entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Baltimore to resolve its opioid-related claims. Under this agreement, we agreed to pay $153 million. Under the National Opioid Settlement Agreement, through January 2025, we have paid the Settling Governmental Entities approximately $1.9 billion. We expect to pay Settling Governmental Entities additional amounts up to $4.4 billion through 2038. The National Opioid Settlement Agreement also includes injunctive relief terms related to Distributors' controlled substance anti-diversion programs. A monitor will oversee compliance with these provisions until 2027. In addition, the distributors have engaged a third-party vendor to act as a clearinghouse for data aggregation and reporting, which distributors will fund for 10 years. As a result of the National Opioid Settlement Agreement, the vast majority of lawsuits brought against us by political subdivisions have been dismissed. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against all remaining lawsuits. Other Settlements West Virginia subdivisions and Native American tribes were not a part of the National Opioid Settlement Agreement. In July 2022, a judgment in favor of the Distributors was entered in a bench trial before a federal judge in West Virginia in a case brought by Cabell County and City of Huntington. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2022, we entered into separate agreements to settle the opioid-related claims of the majority of the remaining West Virginia subdivisions and Native American Tribes for approximately $124 million over eleven years and $136 million over five years, respectively. Private Plaintiffs The National Opioid Settlement Agreement does not address claims by private parties, which includes unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses, and individuals alleging personal injury. There were approximately 285 lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs pending as of January 2025. Of these, 87 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. We are vigorously defending ourselves in all these matters. Following resolution discussions with certain private plaintiffs, during the six months ended December 31, 2024, distributors finalized agreements with classes of third-party payors and acute care hospitals. Our portion of these settlements totaled $213 million. The settlement with the classes of third-party payors was approved by the court in January 2025, and the settlement with acute care hospitals was preliminarily approved in October, 2024. Insurance Litigation We are involved in ongoing legal proceedings with insurers related to their obligations to reimburse us for defense and indemnity costs in connection with the lawsuits described above. During fiscal 2024, we received $34 million in insurance recoveries related to these matters and $16 million and $25 million during the three and six months ended December 31, 2024, respectively. We have not recorded a receivable for any additional recoveries related to these insurance litigation matters as of December 31, 2024. Certain recoveries from our insurers are recorded in the Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions segment. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand In November 2023, we received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Department of Justice focused on potential violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act in connection with a 2022 transaction in which we purchased a minority ownership interest in a rheumatology managed services organization and a group purchasing organization. We are cooperating with this investigation. Cordis IVC Filter Matters We have been named as a defendant in product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of inferior vena cava ("IVC") filter products. These lawsuits sought a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. The divestiture of the Cordis business did not include product liability related to the IVC filters in the U.S. and Canada, which we retained. In April 2023, we executed a settlement agreement that, if certain conditions are satisfied, will resolve 4,375 claims for $275 million. Between May and September 2023, we made settlement payments totaling $275 million into a qualified settlement fund. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the minimum required sign-on threshold was met, and beginning in January 2025, payments to qualified implantees are being made out of the qualified settlement fund. We expect continued payments out of the qualified settlement fund as additional plaintiffs meet the procedural requirements. In addition to the settlement discussed above, we also entered into other agreements to settle the vast majority of IVC filter product liability claims. These settlements will not resolve all IVC filter product liability claims, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in the remaining lawsuits. We recognized income of $103 million during fiscal 2023, primarily related to a reduction of the reserve for the estimated settlement and defense costs for these matters due to the execution of the settlements noted above. At December 31, 2024, we had a total of $286 million accrued for losses and legal defense costs, related to the IVC filter product liability lawsuits in our condensed consolidated balance sheets, which includes the $275 million in the qualified settlement fund. Other Civil Litigation Generic Pharmaceutical Pricing Antitrust Litigation In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including us were added as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail pharmacies. The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and improperly engaged in customer allocation. In May 2020, the court granted our motion to dismiss. In July 2022, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint and, in August 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We are vigorously defending ourselves in this matter which remains pending as of December 31, 2024. Antitrust Litigation Proceeds We recognized income for net recoveries in class action antitrust lawsuits in which we were a class member or plaintiff of $16 million and $59 million during the three and six months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, and $31 million and $71 million during the three and six months ended December 31, 2023, respectively.