Company: ELV
Filing Date: 2025-04-22
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001156039-25-000057
Chunk: 35

Company: Elevance Health, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-22
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 35
---
 on our financial position. However, unanticipated outcomes do sometimes occur, which could result in liabilities in excess of our accruals and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.In addition to the lawsuits described below, we are also involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to our business and are from time to time involved as a party in various governmental investigations, audits, reviews and administrative proceedings (“government actions”). These government actions include routine and special inquiries by and disclosures to state insurance departments, state attorneys general, U.S. Regulatory Agencies, the U.S. Attorney General and subcommittees of the U.S. Congress. Such government actions could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, other sanctions and additional rules, regulations or other restrictions on our business operations. Any liability that may result from any one of these government actions individually, or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust LitigationWe are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA and Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees (the “Blue plans”) across the country. Cases filed in twenty-eight states were consolidated into a single, multi-district proceeding captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the “Court”). Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan, restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard® and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which agreement required the Court’s approval to become effective. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to make a monetary settlement payment and contains certain terms imposing non-monetary obligations including (i) eliminating the “national best efforts” rule in the BCBSA license agreements (which rule limits the percentage of non-Blue revenue permitted for each Blue plan) and (ii) allowing for some large national employers with self-funded benefit plans to request a bid for insurance coverage from a second Blue plan in addition to the local Blue