|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2020
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
The Company is 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 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 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 (collectively, "Related Actions"). In March 2018, the Court overruled the Company's demurrer seeking to dismiss the complaint and denied the Company's motion to strike allegations seeking retroactive relief. In August 2018, the trial court stayed all the Related Actions pending determination of a writ of mandate by the California Court of Appeals in two of the Related Actions. In March 2019, the California Court of Appeals denied the writ of mandate. The defendants in those Related Actions sought review by the California Supreme Court, which declined to review the matter. Upon the return of the matter to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, motions for summary judgment were scheduled. Health Net California's motion for summary judgment was heard by the Court on March 4, 2020. On March 29, 2020, the Court granted Health Net California's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff may or may not appeal the Court's decision. The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense 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 the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Veterans Administration Matter
In October 2017, a Civil Investigative Demand (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 (VA) under a contract to provide healthcare coordination services for veterans. The contract began in late 2014 and ended September 30, 2018. 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 met 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. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants, abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant. In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation (Defendants), both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 8, 2020. The hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 12, 2020. 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 the Company's financial position and results of operations.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef