COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES Government Contracts Our Medicare products, which accounted for approximately 86% of our total premiums and services revenue for the three months ended March 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 2024, and all of our product offerings filed with CMS for 2024 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, or BBA, and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, or 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, or 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. We expect CMS to apply the Final RADV Rule, including the first application of extrapolated audit results to determine audit settlements without a FFS Adjuster, to CMS and HHS-OIG RADV audits conducted for PY 2018 and subsequent years. 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. 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. 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. Our state-based Medicaid business, which accounted for approximately 7% of our total premiums and services revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2024 primarily consisted of serving members enrolled in Medicaid, and in certain circumstances members who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare, under contracts with various states. At March 31, 2024, our Military services business, which accounted for approximately 1% of our total premiums and services revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2024, primarily consisted of the TRICARE T2017 East Region contract. The T2017 East Region contract comprises 32 states and approximately 6 million TRICARE beneficiaries, under which delivery of health care services commenced on January 1, 2018. The T2017 East Region contract, which was originally set to expire on December 31, 2022, was subsequently extended by the DoD and is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2024, unless further extended. 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 comprises 24 states, and Washington D.C., and covers approximately 4.6 million beneficiaries. The transition period for the T-5 contract began in January 2024 and will overlap 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 As previously disclosed, the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice provided us with an information request in December 2014, concerning our Medicare Part C risk adjustment practices. The request relates to our oversight and submission of risk adjustment data generated by providers in our Medicare Advantage network, as well as to our business and compliance practices related to risk adjustment data generated by our providers and by us, including medical record reviews conducted as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts, the use of health and well-being assessments, and our fraud detection efforts. We believe that this request for information is in connection with a wider review of Medicare Risk Adjustment generally that includes a number of Medicare Advantage plans, providers and vendors. We cooperated with the Department of Justice, and we have not heard from the Department of Justice on this matter since 2020. As previously disclosed, on January 19, 2016, an individual filed a qui tam suit captioned United States of America ex rel. Steven Scott v. Humana Inc., currently pending in United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville division. The complaint alleges certain civil violations by us in connection with the actuarial equivalence of the plan benefits under Humana’s Basic PDP plan, a prescription drug plan offered by us under Medicare Part D. The action seeks damages and penalties on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act. The court ordered the qui tam action unsealed on September 13, 2017, so that the relator could proceed, following notice from the U.S. Government that it was not intervening at that time. On March 31, 2022, the Court denied the parties' Motions for Summary Judgement. We take seriously our obligations to comply with applicable CMS requirements and actuarial standards of practice, and continue to vigorously defend against these allegations. During 2023, we accrued certain anticipated expenses in connection with this matter. 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 footnote to the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q for additional information regarding this matter. 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 contracting, risk adjustment, competitive practices, commission 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, 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.

Our Medicare products, which accounted for approximately 86% of our total premiums and services revenue for the three months ended March 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 2024, and all of our product offerings filed with CMS for 2024 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, or BBA, and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, or 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, or 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. We expect CMS to apply the Final RADV Rule, including the first application of extrapolated audit results to determine audit settlements without a FFS Adjuster, to CMS and HHS-OIG RADV audits conducted for PY 2018 and subsequent years. 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.

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.

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.

At March 31, 2024, our Military services business, which accounted for approximately 1% of our total premiums and services revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2024, primarily consisted of the TRICARE T2017 East Region contract. The T2017 East Region contract comprises 32 states and approximately 6 million TRICARE beneficiaries, under which delivery of health care services commenced on January 1, 2018. The T2017 East Region contract, which was originally set to expire on December 31, 2022, was subsequently extended by the DoD and is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2024, unless further extended.

contract comprises 24 states, and Washington D.C., and covers approximately 4.6 million beneficiaries. The transition period for the T-5 contract began in January 2024 and will overlap 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.

As previously disclosed, the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice provided us with an information request in December 2014, concerning our Medicare Part C risk adjustment practices. The request relates to our oversight and submission of risk adjustment data generated by providers in our Medicare Advantage network, as well as to our business and compliance practices related to risk adjustment data generated by our providers and by us, including medical record reviews conducted as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts, the use of health and well-being assessments, and our fraud detection efforts. We believe that this request for information is in connection with a wider review of Medicare Risk Adjustment generally that includes a number of Medicare Advantage plans, providers and vendors. We cooperated with the Department of Justice, and we have not heard from the Department of Justice on this matter since 2020.

As previously disclosed, on January 19, 2016, an individual filed a qui tam suit captioned United States of America ex rel. Steven Scott v. Humana Inc., currently pending in United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville division. The complaint alleges certain civil violations by us in connection with the actuarial equivalence of the plan benefits under Humana’s Basic PDP plan, a prescription drug plan offered by us under Medicare Part D. The action seeks damages and penalties on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act. The court ordered the qui tam action unsealed on September 13, 2017, so that the relator could proceed, following notice from the U.S. Government that it was not intervening at that time. On March 31, 2022, the Court denied the parties' Motions for Summary Judgement. We take seriously our obligations to comply with applicable CMS requirements and actuarial standards of practice, and continue to vigorously defend against these allegations. During 2023, we accrued certain anticipated expenses in connection with this matter.

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 footnote to the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q for additional information regarding this matter.

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 contracting, risk adjustment, competitive practices, commission 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, 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.