Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies 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, care providers, consumer advocacy organizations, customers and regulators, relating to the Company’s businesses, including management and administration of health benefit plans and other services. 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 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 California Claims Processing Matter. On January 25, 2008, the California Department of Insurance (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 related to an alleged failure to include certain language in standard claims correspondence, timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, interest payments, care provider contract implementation, care provider dispute resolution and other related matters. Although the Company believes that CDI has never issued a penalty in excess of $8 million, CDI has advocated a penalty of approximately $325 million in this matter. The matter has been the subject of an administrative hearing before a California administrative law judge since December 2009, and in August 2013, the administrative law judge issued a non-binding proposed decision recommending a penalty in an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. 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 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. Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada Litigation. In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. In September 2013, the trial court reduced the overall award to $366 million following post-trial motions. Company plans are party to 41 additional individual lawsuits and two class actions relating to the outbreak. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given the likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Government Investigations, Audits and Reviews The Company has been, or 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 the Inspector General, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Congressional committees, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the Brazilian securities regulator - Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, Internal Revenue Service, the Brazilian federal revenue service - the Secretaria da Receita Federal, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other governmental authorities. Certain of the Company’s businesses have been reviewed or are currently under review, including for, among other things, compliance with coding and other requirements under the Medicare risk-adjustment model. In February 2012, CMS announced a final Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audit and payment adjustment methodology and that it will conduct RADV audits beginning with the 2011 payment year. These audits involve a review of medical records maintained by care providers and may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. CMS has not communicated how the final payment adjustment under its methodology will be implemented. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from any material government investigations, audits and reviews in which it is currently involved given the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory action, fines and penalties, if any, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event of an adverse finding.

Commitments and Contingencies

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, care providers, consumer advocacy organizations, customers and regulators, relating to the Company’s businesses, including management and administration of health benefit plans and other services. 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 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

California Claims Processing Matter. On January 25, 2008, the California Department of Insurance (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 related to an alleged failure to include certain language in standard claims correspondence, timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, interest payments, care provider contract implementation, care provider dispute resolution and other related matters. Although the Company believes that CDI has never issued a penalty in excess of $8 million, CDI has advocated a penalty of approximately $325 million in this matter. The matter has been the subject of an administrative hearing before a California administrative law judge since December 2009, and in August 2013, the administrative law judge issued a non-binding proposed decision recommending a penalty in an amount that is not material to

the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. 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 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.

Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada Litigation. In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. In September 2013, the trial court reduced the overall award to $366 million following post-trial motions. Company plans are party to 41 additional individual lawsuits and two class actions relating to the outbreak. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given the likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.

Government Investigations, Audits and Reviews

The Company has been, or 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 the Inspector General, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Congressional committees, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the Brazilian securities regulator - Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, Internal Revenue Service, the Brazilian federal revenue service - the Secretaria da Receita Federal, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other governmental authorities. Certain of the Company’s businesses have been reviewed or are currently under review, including for, among other things, compliance with coding and other requirements under the Medicare risk-adjustment model.

In February 2012, CMS announced a final Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audit and payment adjustment methodology and that it will conduct RADV audits beginning with the 2011 payment year. These audits involve a review of medical records maintained by care providers and may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. CMS has not communicated how the final payment adjustment under its methodology will be implemented.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from any material government investigations, audits and reviews in which it is currently involved given the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory action, fines and penalties, if any, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event of an adverse finding.