|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2018
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
The Company records reserves and accrues costs for certain legal proceedings and regulatory matters to the extent that it determines an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. While such reserves and accrued costs reflect the Company's best estimate of the probable loss for such matters, the recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of any such losses. In some cases, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal and regulatory proceedings, which may be exacerbated by various factors, including but not limited to, they may involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or legal uncertainties; involve disputed facts; represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of parties, claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; involve a number of separate proceedings and/or a wide range of potential outcomes; or result in a change of business practices.
As of the date of this report, amounts accrued for legal proceedings and regulatory matters were not material. However, it is possible that in a particular quarter or annual period the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or liquidity could be materially adversely affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of or development in legal and/or regulatory proceedings, including as described below. Except for the proceedings discussed below, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of any of the regulatory and legal proceedings that are currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on financial condition, results of operations, cash flow or liquidity.
On October 20, 2015, the Company's California subsidiary, Health Net of California, Inc. (Health Net California), was named as a defendant in a California taxpayer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, captioned as Michael D. Myers v. State Board of Equalization, Dave Jones, Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, Betty T. Yee, Controller of the State of California, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS158655. This action is brought under a California statute that permits an individual taxpayer to sue a governmental agency when the taxpayer believes the agency has failed to enforce governing law. Plaintiff contends that Health Net California, a California licensed Health Care Service Plan (HCSP), is an “insurer” for purposes of taxation despite acknowledging it is not an “insurer” under regulatory law. Under California law, “insurers” must pay a gross premiums tax (GPT), calculated as 2.35% on gross premiums. As a licensed HCSP, Health Net California has paid the California Corporate Franchise Tax (CFT), the tax generally paid by California businesses. Plaintiff contends that Health Net California must pay the GPT rather than the CFT. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate directing the California taxing agencies to collect the GPT, and seeks an order requiring Health Net California to pay GPT, interest and penalties for a period dating to eight years prior to the October 2015 filing of the complaint. This lawsuit is being coordinated with similar lawsuits filed against other entities. In September 2017, the Company filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to strike the allegations seeking retroactive relief. In March 2018, the Court overruled the Company's demurrer, denied the motion to strike, and set a status conference for May 2018. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims; however, this matter is subject to many uncertainties, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Federal Securities Class Action
On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September 2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling.
The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations.
Additionally, on January 24, 2018, a separate derivative action was filed by plaintiff Harkesh Parekh on behalf of Centene Corporation against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff purports to bring suit derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain officers and directors for violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The derivative complaint repeats many of the allegations in the federal securities class action described above and asserts that defendants made inaccurate or misleading statements, and/or failed to correct the alleged misstatements.
A second shareholder derivative action was filed on March 9, 2018, by plaintiffs Laura Wood and Peoria Police Pension Fund on behalf of Centene Corporation against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. This second derivative complaint repeats many of the allegations in the securities class action and the first derivative suit. The derivative suits are expected to be consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed for the litigation.
Medicare Parts C and D Matter
In December 2016, a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) was issued to Health Net by the United States Department of Justice regarding Health Net’s submission of risk adjustment claims to CMS under Parts C and D of Medicare. The CID may be related to a federal qui tam lawsuit filed under seal in 2011 naming more than a dozen health insurers including Health Net. The lawsuit was unsealed in February 2017 when the Department of Justice intervened in the case with respect to one of the insurers (not Health Net). In subsequent pleadings, both the Department of Justice and the Relator excluded Health Net from the lawsuit. The Company is complying with the CID and will vigorously defend any lawsuits. At this point, it is not possible to determine what level of liability, if any, the Company may face as a result of this matter.
Veterans Administrative Matter
In October 2017, a CID was issued to Health Net Federal Services, LLC (HNFS) by the United States Department of Justice. The CID seeks documents and interrogatory responses concerning whether HNFS submitted, or caused to be submitted, excessive, duplicative or otherwise improper claims to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under a contract to arrange health care services for veterans. The contract began in late 2014. In 2016, modifications to the contract were made to allow for possible duplicate billings with a reconciliation period at the end of the contract term. The Company is complying with the CID and believes it has been meeting its contractual obligations. At this point, it is not possible to determine what level of liability, if any, the Company may face as a result of this matter.
Ambetter Class Action
On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each defendant. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations.
Excluding the matters discussed above, the Company is also routinely subjected to legal and regulatory proceedings in the normal course of business. These matters can include, without limitation:
Among other things, these matters may result in awards of damages, fines or penalties, which could be substantial, and/or could require changes to the Company’s business. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the miscellaneous legal and regulatory proceedings to which it is currently a party; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties. In some of the cases pending against the Company, substantial non-economic or punitive damages are being sought.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef