Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases facilities and equipment under long-term operating leases that are non-cancelable and expire on various dates through 2028. Rent expense under all operating leases for 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $295 million, $297 million and $303 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2011, future minimum annual lease payments, net of sublease income, under all non-cancelable operating leases were as follows:



(in millions)	Future Minimum Lease Payments
2012	$	279
2013	243
2014	212
2015	174
2016	129
Thereafter	564

The Company provides guarantees related to its performance under certain contracts. If standards are not met, the Company may be financially at risk up to a stated percentage of the contracted fee or a stated dollar amount. Amounts accrued for performance guarantees were not material as of December 31, 2011 and 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company has outstanding, undrawn letters of credit with financial institutions of $72 million and surety bonds outstanding with insurance companies of $316 million, primarily to bond contractual performance.

Legal Matters

Because of the nature of its businesses, the Company is frequently made party to a variety of legal actions and regulatory inquiries, including class actions and suits brought by members, providers, customers and regulators, relating to the Company’s management and administration of health benefit plans. These matters include medical malpractice, employment, intellectual property, antitrust, privacy and contract claims, and claims related to health care benefits coverage and other business practices.

The Company records liabilities for its estimates of probable costs resulting from these matters where appropriate. Estimates of probable costs resulting from legal and regulatory matters involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly where the matters: involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; or could result in a change in business practices. Accordingly, the Company is often unable to estimate the losses or ranges of losses for those matters where there is a reasonable possibility or it is probable that a loss may be incurred.

Litigation Matters

Out-of-Network Reimbursement Litigation. In 2000, a group of plaintiffs including the American Medical Association filed a lawsuit against the Company asserting a variety of claims challenging the Company’s determination of reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based on the Company’s use of a database previously maintained by Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight). The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2009 and this class action lawsuit, along with a related industry-wide investigation by the New York Attorney General, is now resolved. The Company remains a party to a number of other lawsuits challenging the determination of out of network reimbursement amounts based on use of the same database, including putative class actions and multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of members of Aetna and WellPoint. The Company was dismissed as a party from a similar lawsuit involving Cigna and its members. These suits allege, among other things, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenix was flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies to underpay their members’ claims and seek unspecified damages and treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys fees. The Company is vigorously defending these suits. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters due to the procedural status of the cases, motions to dismiss that are pending in several of the cases, the absence of class certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement of other insurance companies as defendants.

California Claims Processing Matter. In 2007, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) examined the Company’s PacifiCare health insurance plan in California. The examination findings related to the timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, interest payments, provider contract implementation, provider dispute resolution and other related matters. On January 25, 2008, the CDI issued an Order to Show Cause to PacifiCare Life and Health Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Company, alleging violations of certain insurance statutes and regulations in connection with the CDI’s examination findings. On June 3, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Defense to the Order to Show Cause denying all material allegations and asserting certain defenses. The matter has been the subject of an administrative hearing before a California administrative law judge since December 2009. CDI amended its Order to Show Cause three times in 2010 to allege a total of 992,936 violations, the large majority of which relate to an alleged failure to include certain language in standard claims correspondence during a four month period in 2007. Although we believe that CDI has never issued an aggregate penalty in excess of $8 million, CDI has previously alleged in press reports and releases that the Company could theoretically be subject to penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. In October 2011, CDI stated that it is seeking an average penalty of approximately $326 per alleged violation. CDI has since reduced the number of alleged violations to 919,574 but has indicated that it is still seeking an aggregate penalty of approximately $325 million. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims in this matter and believes that the penalty requested by CDI is excessive and without merit. After the administrative law judge issues a ruling at the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, expected sometime in 2012, the California Insurance Commissioner may accept, reject or modify the administrative law judge's ruling, issue his own decision, and impose a fine or penalty. The Commissioner's decision is subject to challenge in court. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the procedural status of the dispute, the novel legal issues presented (including the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory fines and penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event a fine or penalty is assessed.

Government Regulation

The Company’s business is regulated at federal, state, local and international levels. The laws and rules governing the Company’s business and interpretations of those laws and rules are subject to frequent change. Broad latitude is given to the agencies administering those regulations. Further, the Company must obtain and maintain regulatory approvals to market and sell many of its products.

The Company has been and is currently involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by CMS, state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Congressional committees, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the IRS, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other governmental authorities. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2011, CMS conducted an audit of the Company's Medicare Advantage and Part D business. The Company is in the process of responding to preliminary findings. Other examples of audits include the risk adjustment data validation (RADV) audits discussed below and a review by the U.S. Department of Labor of the Company’s administration of applicable customer employee benefit plans with respect to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) compliance.

Government actions can result in assessment of damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions, including loss of licensure or exclusion from participation in government programs and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Risk Adjustment Data Validation Audits. CMS adjusts capitation payments to Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Part D plans according to the predicted health status of each beneficiary as supported by data from health care providers as well as, for Medicare Part D plans only, based on comparing costs predicted in the Company's annual bids to actual prescription drug costs. The Company collects claim and encounter data from providers, who the Company generally relies on to appropriately code their claim submissions and document their medical records. CMS then determines the risk score and payment amount for each enrolled member based on the health care data submitted and member demographic information.

In 2008, CMS announced that it would perform RADV audits of selected Medicare Advantage health plans each year to validate the coding practices of and supporting documentation maintained by health care providers. These audits involve a review of medical records maintained by providers and may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. Certain of the Company’s health plans have been selected for audit. These audits are focused on medical records supporting risk adjustment data for 2006 that were used to determine 2007 payment amounts. Although these audits are ongoing, the Company does not believe they will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

In December 2010, CMS published for public comment a new proposed RADV audit and payment adjustment methodology. The proposed methodology contains provisions allowing retroactive contract level payment adjustments for the year audited using an extrapolation of the “error rate” identified in audit samples. The Company has submitted comments to CMS regarding concerns the Company has with CMS’ proposed methodology. These concerns include, among others, the fact that the proposed methodology does not take into account the “error rate” in the original Medicare fee-for-service data that was used to develop the risk adjustment system. Additionally, payments received from CMS, as well as benefits offered and premiums charged to members, are based on actuarially certified bids that did not include any assumption of retroactive audit payment adjustments. The Company believes that applying retroactive audit and payment adjustments after CMS acceptance of bids undermines the actuarial soundness of the bids. On February 3, 2011, CMS notified the Company that CMS was evaluating all comments received on the proposed methodology and that it anticipated making changes to the draft, based on input CMS had received. As of the date of this filing, CMS has not published the revised methodology. Depending on the methodology utilized, potential payment adjustments could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

The Office of Inspector General for HHS has audited our risk adjustment data for two local plans and has initially communicated its findings. While the Company does not believe OIG has governing authority to directly impose payment adjustments for risk adjustment audits of Medicare health plans operated under the regulatory authority of CMS, the OIG can recommend to CMS a proposed payment adjustment, and the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this audit process.

Guaranty Fund Assessments. Under state guaranty assessment laws, certain insurance companies (and health maintenance organizations in some states), including those issuing health (which includes long-term care), life and accident insurance policies, doing business in those states can 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. Assessments are generally based on premiums in the state compared to the premiums of other insurers, and could be spread out over a period of years. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets.

The Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary (Penn Treaty), neither of which is affiliated with the Company, in rehabilitation, an intermediate action before insolvency, and has petitioned a state court for liquidation. If Penn Treaty is liquidated, the Company’s insurance entities and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of Penn Treaty’s policyholder claims through guaranty association assessments in future periods. The Company has estimated a potential assessment of $250 million to $350 million related to this matter, and the Company would accrue the assessment in operating costs if and when the state court renders such a decision. The timing, actual amount and impact, if any, of any guaranty fund assessments will depend on several factors, including if and when the court declares Penn Treaty insolvent, the amount of the insolvency, the availability and amount of any potential offsets, such as an offset of any premium taxes otherwise payable by the Company, and the impact of any such assessments on potential premium rebate payments under the Health Reform Legislation.