Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANTHEM, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (317) 488-6000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes  x    No  ¨

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant (assuming solely for the purposes of this calculation that all Directors and executive officers of the Registrant are “affiliates”) as of June 28, 2002 was approximately $6,941,086,057.

As of February 24, 2003, 138,499,729 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the following document have been incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

Table of Contents

ANTHEM, INC.

Indianapolis, Indiana

Annual Report to Securities and Exchange Commission

December 31, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that reflect our views about future events and financial performance. When used in this report, the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “plan,” “believe,” “predict,” “potential,” “intend” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof. You are also urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us which attempt to advise interested parties of the factors which affect our business, including Exhibit 99 “Risk Factors” filed as an exhibit hereto and incorporated into this Form 10-K by reference and our reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time.

References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the term “Anthem Insurance” refer to Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., an Indiana insurance company. References to the term “Anthem” or “the Company” refer to Anthem Insurance and its direct and indirect subsidiaries before the demutualization, and to Anthem, Inc., an Indiana holding company, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Anthem Insurance, after the demutualization, as the context requires. References to the terms “we,” “our,” or “us,” refer to Anthem, before and after the demutualization. The demutualization was consummated on November 2, 2001.

3

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1.    BUSINESS.

General Description of Anthem’s Business

We are the fifth largest publicly traded health benefits company in the United States, serving approximately eleven million members, or customers, primarily in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. We own the exclusive right to market our products and services using the Blue Cross^® Blue Shield^®, or BCBS, names and marks in all nine states under license agreements with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent BCBS plans. We seek to be a leader in our industry by offering a broad selection of flexible and competitively priced health benefits products.

Our product portfolio includes a diversified mix of managed care products, including health maintenance organizations, or HMOs, preferred provider organizations, or PPOs, and point of service, or POS plans, as well as traditional indemnity products. We also offer a broad range of administrative and managed care services and partially insured products for employer self-funded plans. These services and products include claims processing, stop loss insurance, actuarial services, provider network access, medical cost management and other administrative services. In addition, we offer our customers several specialty products including group life and disability insurance benefits, pharmacy benefit management, dental, vision and behavioral health benefits services. Our products allow our customers to choose from a wide array of funding alternatives. For our insured products, we charge a premium and assume all or a majority of the health care risk. Under our self-funded and partially insured products, we charge a fee for services, and the employer or plan sponsor reimburses us for all or a majority of the health care costs. Our 2002 operating revenue was 91.9% derived from fully-insured products, while 8.1% was derived from administrative services and other revenues.

Our customer base primarily includes local large groups (51 or more employees), small groups (one to 50 employees) and individuals (includes individuals under age 65, Medicare Supplement and Medicare + Choice business) each of which accounted for 40.6%, 18.7% and 18.0% of our 2002 operating revenue, respectively. Other major customer categories include National accounts, Medicare recipients, federal employees and other federally funded programs. We principally market our products through an extensive network of independent agents and brokers who are compensated on a commission basis for new sales and retention of existing business.

Our managed care plans and products are designed to encourage providers and members to participate in quality, cost-effective health benefit plans by using the full range of our innovative medical management services, quality initiatives and financial incentives. Our leading market shares enable us to realize the long-term benefits of investing in preventive and early detection programs. Our ability to provide cost-effective health benefits products and services is enhanced through a disciplined approach to internal cost containment, prudent management of our risk exposure and successful integration of acquired businesses.

We intend to continue to expand through a combination of organic growth and strategic acquisitions in both existing and new markets. Our growth strategy is designed to enable us to take advantage of the additional economies of scale provided by increased overall membership. In addition, we believe geographic diversity reduces our exposure to local or regional economic, regulatory and competitive pressures and provides us with increased opportunities for expansion. While the majority of our growth has been the result of strategic mergers and acquisitions, we have also achieved growth in our existing markets by providing excellent service, offering competitively priced products and effectively capturing the brand strength of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield names and marks.

Anthem, Inc. is an Indiana corporation that was formed in July 2001 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem Insurance. Anthem, Inc. was formed in connection with the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a

4

Table of Contents

mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company in a process called demutualization. The demutualization was effective on November 2, 2001, and at that time Anthem Insurance was converted into a stock insurance company and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem, Inc., and Anthem, Inc. became a publicly held company. In addition, effective November 2, 2001, all statutory membership interests in Anthem Insurance were extinguished and Anthem Insurance’s eligible statutory members received shares of Anthem, Inc. common stock or cash, as consideration for the extinguishment of their statutory membership interests in Anthem Insurance.

Anthem, is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) and is required, pursuant to Item 101 of Regulation S-K, to provide certain information regarding its website and the availability of certain documents filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our website is www.anthem.com. We make available free of charge on or through our Internet website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with or furnish it to the SEC.

Industry Overview

The health benefits industry has experienced significant change in recent years. The increasing focus on health care costs by employers, the government and consumers has led to the growth of alternatives to traditional indemnity health insurance. HMO, PPO and hybrid plans, such as POS plans, incorporating features of each, are among the various forms of managed care products that have developed in recent years. Through these types of products, the cost of health care is contained by negotiating contracts with hospitals, physicians and other providers to deliver health care at favorable rates. These products also can feature medical management and other quality and cost optimization measures such as pre-admission review and approval for non-emergency hospital services, pre-authorization of outpatient surgical procedures, and network credentialing to determine that network doctors and hospitals have the required certifications and expertise. In addition, providers may share medical cost risk or have other incentives to deliver quality medical services in a cost-effective manner. HMO, PPO and POS members generally are charged periodic, pre-paid premiums, and pay co-payments or deductibles when they receive services. PPO and POS plans provide benefits for out-of-network usage, typically at higher out-of-pocket costs to members. HMO members generally select one of the network’s primary care physicians, who then assume responsibility for coordinating their health care services. Typically, there is no out-of-network benefit for HMO members. PPOs and other open access plans generally provide coverage when members select non-network providers without coordination through a primary care physician, but at a higher out-of-pocket cost. Hybrid plans, such as POS plans, typically involve the selection of primary care physicians similar to HMOs, but allow members to self refer or to choose non-network providers at higher out-of-pocket costs similar to those of PPOs.

Recently, economic factors and greater consumer awareness have resulted in the increasing popularity of products that offer larger, more extensive networks, more member choice related to coverage and the ability to self refer within those networks. There is also a growing preference for greater flexibility for customers to assume larger deductibles and co-payments in exchange for lower premiums. We believe we are well positioned in each of our regions to respond to these market preferences. Our PPO products, which contain most or all of the features noted above, have experienced significant growth over the past few years.

The BCBSA has also undergone significant change in recent years. Historically, most states had at least one Blue Cross (hospital coverage) and a separate Blue Shield (physician coverage) company. Prior to the mid 1980s there were more than 125 separate Blue Cross or Blue Shield companies. Many of these organizations have merged, reducing the number of independent licensees to 42 as of December 31, 2002. We expect this trend to continue, with BCBS companies merging or affiliating to address capital needs and other competitive pressures.

5

Table of Contents

Each of the BCBS companies work cooperatively in a number of ways that create significant market advantages, especially when competing for very large multi-state employer groups. As a result of this cooperation, each BCBS company is able to take advantage of other BCBS licensees’ substantial provider networks and discounts when any member from one state works or travels outside of the state in which the policy is written. This program is referred to as BlueCard^©, and we receive a substantial and growing source of revenue for providing member services in our states for individuals who are customers of other BCBS plans.

Our Operating Segments

Our reportable segments are strategic business units delineated by geographic areas within which we offer similar products and services, but manage with a local focus to address each geographic region’s unique market, regulatory and health care delivery characteristics. The regions are:

In addition to our four geographic regions, we have a Specialty reportable segment, which includes business units providing:

Various ancillary businesses (reported with the Other segment) include:

The Other segment also includes intersegment revenue and expense eliminations and corporate expenses not allocated to reportable segments.

Our Strategy

Our strategic objective is to be among the best and biggest in our industry with the size and scale to deliver the best product value with the best people.

To achieve these goals, we offer a broad selection of flexible and competitively priced products and seek to establish leading market positions. We believe that increased scale in each of our regional markets will provide us competitive advantages, cost efficiencies and greater opportunities to sustain profitable growth. The key to our ability to deliver this growth is our commitment to work with providers to optimize the cost and quality of care while improving the health of our members and improving the quality of our service.

6

Table of Contents

Promote Quality Care

We believe that our ability to help our members receive quality, cost-effective health care will be key to our success. We promote the health of our members through education and through products that cover prevention and early detection programs that help our members and their providers manage illness before higher cost intervention is required. To help develop those programs, we collaborate with the providers in our networks to promote improved quality of care for our members. The following policies and programs are key to improving the quality of care that our members receive:

Product Value

We work to create products that offer value to our customers. By offering a wide spectrum of products supported by broad provider networks, we seek to meet the differing needs of our various customers. The breadth and flexibility of our benefit plan options, coupled with quality care initiatives, are designed to appeal to a broad base of employer groups and individuals with differing product and service preferences. We use innovative product design, such as a three-tiered prescription management program that provides customer choices among generic, brand and formulary drugs at various out-of-pocket costs. Innovative product designs help us contain costs and allow our products to be competitively priced in the market.

Formulary drugs are prescription drugs that have been reviewed and selected by a committee of practicing doctors and clinical pharmacists for their quality and effectiveness. Use of medications from the formulary, which includes hundreds of brand name and generic medications, is encouraged through pharmacy benefit design. A three-tier pharmacy benefit and the use of formulary drugs allow members access to highly effective prescription medications, while also helping to control the cost of pharmacy benefits to employers. Members have the same access to medications but share a greater portion of the cost for brand name drugs through the co-payment structure. Under a three-tier program, the customer pays the lowest price for generic drugs, a higher price for formulary brand name drugs and the highest price for brand name drugs not included in the formulary.

7

Table of Contents

Operational Excellence

To provide cost-effective products, we continuously strive to improve operational efficiency. We actively benchmark our performance against other leading health benefits companies to identify opportunities to drive continuous performance improvement. Important performance measures we use include operating margin, administrative expense ratio, administrative expense per member per month, or PMPM, and return on equity. Current initiatives to drive operational efficiency include:

Technology

We continuously review opportunities to improve our interactions with customers, brokers and providers. By using technologies, we seek to make the interactions as simple, efficient and productive as possible. We monitor ourselves using industry standard customer service metrics, which measure, among other things, call center efficiency, claims paying accuracy and speed of enrollment. We ease the administrative burden of enrolling new accounts, processing claims and updating records for our brokers and providers by automating many of these processes. We also collect information that enables us to further improve customer service, product design and underwriting decisions.

Growth

We believe that profitable growth, both organic and through acquisitions, is an important part of our business. Increased scale allows us to increase customer convenience and improve operating margins, while keeping our products competitively priced. Expansion into new geographic markets enables us to reduce exposure to economic cycles and regulatory changes and provides options for business expansion. We plan to generate earnings growth first by increasing revenues through new enrollment, while maintaining pricing discipline. In addition, we plan to grow our specialty segment by increasing the penetration of specialty products to existing health members through cross selling and expansion into non-Anthem markets. These specialty products include prescription management, vision, dental, behavioral health benefits administration, group life and disability insurance. We also intend to make strategic acquisitions to augment our internal growth. We also intend to contain administrative expense costs by leveraging our technologies and by employing standard business practices throughout our business regions.

Our History

We were formed in 1944 under the name of Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., commonly known as Blue Cross of Indiana. In 1946, Mutual Medical Insurance Inc., also known as Blue Shield of Indiana, was incorporated as an Indiana mutual insurance company. In 1985, these two companies merged under the name Associated Insurance Companies, Inc. In 1993, Southeastern Mutual Insurance Company, a Kentucky-domiciled mutual insurance company doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky, merged with us. In 1995, Community Mutual Insurance Company, an Ohio-domiciled mutual insurance company doing business as Community Mutual Blue Cross and Blue Shield, also merged with us. We changed our name to Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. in 1996. In 1997, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., or BCBS-CT, a Connecticut-domiciled mutual insurance company, was merged with Anthem Insurance. During 1999, we completed our purchases of New Hampshire-Vermont Health Service, which did business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire, or BCBS-NH, and Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, which did

8

Table of Contents

business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada, or BCBS-CO/NV. In 2000, we completed our purchase of Associated Hospital Service of Maine, which did business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine, or BCBS-ME. In November 2001, we completed our demutualization and initial public offering, in which Anthem Insurance converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem, Inc., a publicly held holding company formed in connection with the demutualization. In July 2002, we completed our acquisition of Trigon Healthcare, Inc., or Trigon, which was Virginia’s BCBSA licensee and largest health benefits company.

Our Mergers and Acquisitions

Much of our recent growth in membership has resulted from strategic mergers and acquisitions, primarily with other Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees. These combinations, coupled with growth in existing markets, have enabled us to establish multi-regional centers of focus with a significant share of each region’s health benefits market. The following table sets forth our membership by state as of the dates indicated:

Membership

During the last four years, we have completed the following acquisitions:

When integrating new operations, we focus on improving customer service, underwriting, medical management and administrative operations. We improve operations by centralizing certain management and

9

Table of Contents

support functions across our organization, sharing best practices and consolidating information systems. We also improve underwriting practices by establishing discipline in our data analysis and product design.

Pending Acquisition of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas

On May 30, 2001, we signed a definitive agreement with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., or BCBS-KS, pursuant to which we agreed to acquire BCBS-KS, which would become our wholly owned subsidiary. On February 11, 2002, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner disapproved the proposed transaction, which had been previously approved by the BCBS-KS policyholders in January 2002. On February 19, 2002, the board of directors of BCBS-KS voted unanimously to appeal the Kansas Insurance Commissioner’s decision and BCBS-KS sought to have the decision overturned in Shawnee County District Court. The Company joined BCBS-KS in the appeal, which was filed on March 7, 2002. On June 7, 2002, the Shawnee County District Court ruled in favor of Anthem and BCBS-KS, vacating the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court’s order. On June 10, 2002, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner appealed the Court’s ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments of the parties to this case on March 5, 2003.

Under the proposed transaction, BCBS-KS would convert from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company through a process known as a sponsored demutualization. Under the agreement, BCBS-KS policyholders eligible to receive consideration in its demutualization would be entitled to receive $190.0 million, a portion of which totaling $48.0 million we would pay in cash to the escrow described below at the closing of the transaction. The portion of the $190.0 million not placed in escrow would be distributed directly to eligible BCBS-KS policyholders. The amount placed in the escrow account would be held in escrow pending the resolution of a matter involving a subpoena dated February 28, 2001, received by BCBS-KS from the Office of Inspector General, or OIG. The subpoena seeks documents related to an investigation of possible improper claims against Medicare. The amount held in escrow would be used to pay costs, expenses and liabilities related to the OIG investigation, and to pay costs and expenses of the escrow, with any remaining amount to be distributed to eligible BCBS-KS members following final resolution of the matter. In addition, at or prior to the closing, BCBS-KS would declare a special distribution payable after the closing to its eligible policyholders in an amount equal to the excess of BCBS-KS’ consolidated closing book value over $155.0 million.

Core Health Benefits Products and Services

We offer a diversified mix of managed care products, including HMO, PPO and POS plans, as well as traditional indemnity products. Our managed care products incorporate a broad range of options and financial incentives for both members and participating providers, including co-payments and provider risk pools. We also offer a broad range of administrative and managed care services and partially insured products for employer self-funded plans. These services and products include claims processing, stop loss insurance, actuarial services, network access, medical cost management, and other administrative services. We charge a premium for insured plans and typically assume all or a majority of the liability for the cost of health care. For self-funded or partially-insured products, we charge a fee for services while the employer assumes all or a majority of the risks. The fee is based upon the customer’s selection from our portfolio of services. We also provide specialty products including group life, disability, prescription management, dental, vision and behavioral health administration. Our principal health products, offered both on an insured and employer-funded basis, are described below. Some managed care and medical cost optimization features may be included in each of these products, such as inpatient pre-certification, benefits for preventive services and reimbursement at our maximum allowable amount with no additional billing to members.

Preferred Provider Organization, or PPO.    PPO products offer the member an option to select any health care provider, with benefits reimbursed by us at a higher level when care is received from a participating network provider. Coverage is subject to co-payments or deductibles and coinsurance, with member cost sharing limited by out-of-pocket maximums.

10

Table of Contents

Traditional Indemnity.    Indemnity products offer the member an option to select any health care provider for covered services. Coverage is subject to deductibles and coinsurance, with member cost sharing limited by out-of-pocket maximums.

Health Maintenance Organization, or HMO.    HMO products include comprehensive managed care benefits, generally through a participating network of physicians, hospitals and other providers. A member in one of our HMOs must typically select a primary care physician, or PCP, from our network. PCPs generally are family practitioners, internists or pediatricians who provide necessary preventive and primary medical care, and are generally responsible for coordinating other necessary health care. Preventive care services are emphasized in these plans. We offer HMO plans with varying levels of co-payments, which result in different levels of premium rates.

Point-of-Service, or POS.    POS products blend the characteristics of HMO and indemnity plans. Members can have comprehensive HMO-style benefits through participating network providers with minimum out-of-pocket expense (co-payments) and also can go directly, without a referral, to any provider they choose, subject to, among other things, certain deductibles and coinsurance. Member cost sharing is limited by out-of-pocket maximums.

BlueCard Plan.    BCBS plans across the United States share their local provider networks in a unique arrangement, where one plan’s enrolled members travel or live in another plan’s service area. The local or “host” plan is paid an administrative fee by the “home” or selling plan in exchange for providing claims and member services to home plan customers in the host plan’s service area. All claims are reimbursed by the home plan, which may have an insured or self-funded relationship with the member’s employer under any of the product designs discussed above. BlueCard membership is calculated based on the amount of BlueCard administrative fees we receive from the BlueCard members’ home plans. Generally, the administrative fees we receive are based on the number and type of claims processed and a portion of the network discount on those claims. The administrative fees are then divided by an assumed per member per month, or PMPM, factor in order to calculate the number of members. The assumed PMPM factor is based on an estimate of Anthem’s experience and BCBSA guidelines.

The following table sets forth our health benefits membership data by product:

Specialty Products and Services

Prescription Management Services.    We provide pharmacy network management, pharmacy benefits and mail-order prescription services through our subsidiary, Anthem Prescription Management, or APM, our pharmacy benefit manager. APM administers its programs primarily to customers who are also Anthem health plan members. Anthem Rx, our retail pharmacy network, provides members access to more than 48,000 chain and independent pharmacies across the United States, and Anthem Rx Direct, our mail service pharmacy, provides long-term therapy medications through convenient home delivery.

11

Table of Contents

Group Life and Disability.    We offer an array of competitive group life insurance and disability benefit products to both large and small group customers through our subsidiary Anthem Life Insurance Company. We have over $27.6 billion of life insurance in force, insuring over 37,000 groups with more than 800,000 employees. Our traditional group insurance products include term life, accidental death and dismemberment, short-term disability income and long-term disability income. In addition, we offer voluntary group life and disability products through employers which payroll-deduct premiums from their participating employees.

Vision and Dental Care Programs.    These programs are primarily for customers enrolled in our Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans. Vision and dental products available include both fully-insured and self-insured products. In addition, we provide dental third-party administration services through Health Management Systems, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary.

Behavioral Health Services.    We provide behavioral health benefits and employee assistance programs through our subsidiary, Anthem Behavioral Health, or ABH. ABH administers behavioral health benefits to customers enrolled in our Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans, as well as to customers of non-Anthem health plans. These customers have access to established provider networks within Anthem states. Anthem’s employee assistance programs, which includes an array of employee and family services, as well as employer services, are also offered to non-Anthem customers.

Other Products and Services

In addition to the above-described products and services, we provide services as a fiscal intermediary for the Medicare programs.

Marketing

We market our managed care and specialty products through four regional business units. Our health plans are generally marketed under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield brand, except for certain government programs. We organize our marketing efforts by customer segment and by region in order to maximize our ability to meet the specific needs of our customers. Marketing programs are developed by a cross-functional team including the actuarial, underwriting, sales, operations and finance departments to evaluate risk and pricing and to ensure adherence to established underwriting guidelines. We believe our reputation, financial stability, high quality customer service and exclusive BCBS license provide us with competitive advantages and allow us to gain share in our markets. We strive to develop solutions for our customers. Our keys to success include developing long-term relationships and providing stable pricing of our products. Most contracts are for one year, although we occasionally enter into multi-year arrangements.

We maintain the quality of our sales staff and independent brokers through regularly held training seminars and advisory groups, which familiarize them with evolving consumer preferences, as well as our products and current marketing strategies. In addition, we structure sales commissions to provide incentives to our sales staff and brokers to promote the full value of our products. Each region is responsible for enrolling, underwriting and servicing its respective businesses.

Customers

In each region, we balance the need to customize products with the efficiencies of product standardization. Overall, we seek to establish pricing and product designs to achieve an appropriate level of profitability for each of our customer categories. As of December 31, 2002, our customers include several distinguishable categories:

12

Table of Contents

The following chart shows our membership by customer segment:

Membership

13

Table of Contents

The Blue Cross Blue Shield License

We have the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross and Blue Shield names and marks for all of our health benefits products in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. We believe that the BCBS names and marks are valuable identifiers of our products and services in the marketplace. The license agreements, which have a perpetual term, contain certain requirements and restrictions regarding our operations and our use of the BCBS names and marks. Upon termination of the license agreements, we would cease to have the right to use the BCBS names and marks in one or more of Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia and the BCBSA could thereafter issue a license to use the BCBS names and marks in these states to another entity. Events that could cause the termination of a license agreement with the BCBSA include:

Pursuant to the rules and license standards of the BCBSA, we guarantee the contractual and financial obligations to respective customers of our subsidiaries that hold controlled affiliate licenses from the BCBSA. Those subsidiaries are: Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., Anthem Life Insurance Company, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., Community Insurance Company, Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire, Inc., Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., HMO Colorado, Inc., Matthew Thornton Health Plan, Inc., Maine Partners Health Plan, Inc., Health Management Systems, Inc., Anthem Benefit Administrators, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc., Healthkeepers, Inc., Peninsula Health Care, Inc. and Priority Health Care, Inc.

In addition, pursuant to the rules and license standards of the BCBSA, we have agreed to indemnify BCBSA against any claims asserted against it resulting from the contractual and financial obligations of AdminaStar Federal, our subsidiary which serves as a fiscal intermediary providing administrative services for Medicare Part A and B.

Each license requires an annual fee to be paid to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The fee is based upon enrollment and premium. BCBSA is a national trade association of Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees, the primary function of which is to promote and preserve the integrity of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield names and marks, as well as provide certain coordination among the member companies. Each BCBSA licensee is an independent legal organization and is not responsible for obligations of other BCBSA member organizations. We have no right to market products and services using the Blue Cross and Blue Shield names and marks outside of our nine core states.

Information Systems

Information systems have played and will continue to play a key role in our ongoing efforts to continuously improve quality, reduce our administrative expenses and increase benefit flexibility for our customers. Our analytical technologies are designed to support increasingly sophisticated methods of optimizing costs and monitoring quality of care, and we believe that our information systems are sufficient to meet current needs and future expansion plans.

We use a combination of custom developed and licensed systems throughout our regions. An overall systems architecture is maintained to promote consistency of data and reduce duplicative platforms. This

14

Table of Contents

architecture assumes single separate core systems supporting each of our operating regions with centralized systems for key company-wide functions such as financial services, human resources and servicing National accounts. Focus is placed on identifying and eliminating redundant or obsolete applications with an emphasis on increasing our capability to operate in an Internet-enabled environment. Regional administration systems serving unique products and markets feed data to a combination of regional and corporate decision support systems. These systems provide sources of information for all of our data reporting and analysis needs.

Our architecture calls for significant standardization of software, hardware and networking products. Enhancements are undertaken based on a defined information systems plan. This plan, which is developed collaboratively by our technical and operating leadership, is revalidated regularly and maps out business-driven technology requirements for the upcoming three-to-five year period.

We anticipate that consumer demand will cause an increasing need for more of our business to be conducted electronically. Toward that end we have developed several Internet-enabled initiatives focused on improving interactions with our customers, members, providers, brokers and associates. We also are improving communication and data collection through compliance with the provisions of the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA. See “Regulation—HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” below.

We are also developing and deploying a series of programs that deliver web-enabled services such as Internet self-service, on-line membership enrollment and on-line price quoting for brokers. Brokers will receive on-line quoting capabilities for life, dental and vision related products. For our members, we have on-line access to health information using carefully chosen content providers for consumer health information. Members and providers will also be able to inquire through the web and transact business electronically. All of our members with accessibility to the internet currently have on-line access to physician and hospital network directories for their specific health plan.

Collaborations

In addition to internal efforts to leverage technology, we are actively involved as leaders in collaborative technology initiatives. One example includes the Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, of which we are a founding member, and our CEO currently serves as chairman. This group, founded by 26 of the nation’s largest health benefits companies and associations, develops programs to improve access to quality health care coverage and to simplify plan administration.

Pricing and Underwriting of Our Products

We price our products based on our assessment of underwriting risk and competitive factors. We continually review our underwriting and pricing guidelines on a national and regional basis so that our products remain competitive and consistent with our marketing strategies and profitability goals.

We have focused our efforts to maintain consistent, competitive and strict underwriting standards. Our individual and group underwriting targets have been based on our proprietary accumulated actuarial data. Subject to applicable legal constraints, we have traditionally employed case specific underwriting procedures for small group products and traditional group underwriting procedures with respect to large group products. Also, we employ credit underwriting procedures with respect to our self-funded products.

In most circumstances, our pricing and underwriting decisions follow a prospective rating process. A fixed premium rate is determined at the beginning of the policy period. Unanticipated increases in medical costs may not be able to be recovered in that current policy year. However, prior experience, in the aggregate, is considered in determining premium rates for future periods.

For larger groups (over 300 persons) with PPO, POS or traditional benefit designs, we may employ retrospective rating reviews. In retrospective rating, a premium rate is determined at the beginning of the policy

15

Table of Contents

period. Once the policy period has ended, the actual experience is reviewed. If the experience is positive (i.e., actual claim costs and other expenses are less than those expected), then a refund may be credited to the policy. If the experience is negative, then the resulting deficit may either be recovered through contractual provisions or the deficit may be considered in setting future premium levels for the group.

We have contracts with the Federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS (formerly the Health Care Financial Administration, or HCFA), to provide HMO Medicare + Choice coverage to Medicare beneficiaries who choose health care coverage through one of our HMO programs. Under these annual contracts, CMS pays us a set rate based on membership that is adjusted for demographic factors. These rates are subject to annual unilateral revision by CMS. In addition to premiums received from CMS, most of the Medicare products offered by us require a supplemental premium to be paid by the member.

See “Regulation—Small Group Reform” below for a discussion of certain regulatory restrictions on our underwriting and pricing.

Liability for Unpaid Life, Accident and Health Claims

We establish and report liabilities or reserves on our balance sheet for unpaid life, accident and health claims by estimating the ultimate cost of incurred claims that have not yet been reported to us by members or providers and reported claims that we have not yet paid. These reserves represent our estimates and the process requires a high degree of judgment. Reserves are established according to Actuarial Standards of Practice and generally accepted actuarial principles and are based on a number of factors, including experience derived from historical claims payments and actuarial assumptions to arrive at loss development factors. Such assumptions and other factors include health care cost trends, the incidence of incurred claims, the extent to which all claims have been reported and internal claims processing expenses. Due to the variability inherent in these estimates, reserves are sensitive to changes in medical claims payment patterns and changes in medical cost trends. A worsening (or improvement) of the medical cost trend or changes in claims payment patterns from the trends and patterns assumed in estimating reserves would trigger a change. See Note 8 to our audited consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K for quantitative information on our reserves, including a progression of reserve balances for each of the last three years. Also see the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in Part II, Item 7, of this Form 10-K.

Medical Management Programs

Our medical management programs include a broad array of activities that facilitate improvements in the quality of care provided to our members and promote cost effective medical care. One of the goals of our medical management strategies is to assure that the care delivered to our members is supported by appropriate medical and scientific evidence.

Precertification.    A traditional medical management program involves assessment of the appropriateness of certain hospitalizations and other medical services. For example, precertification is used to determine whether a set of hospital and medical services is being appropriately applied to the member’s clinical condition, in accordance with criteria for medical necessity as that term is defined in the member’s benefits contract.

Concurrent review.    Another traditional medical management strategy we use is concurrent review, which is based on nationally recognized criteria developed for the industry. With concurrent review, the requirements and intensity of services during a patient’s hospital stay are reviewed, often by an onsite skilled nurse professional in collaboration with the hospital’s medical and nursing staff, in order to coordinate care and determine the most effective transition of care from the hospital setting.

16

Table of Contents

Disease management. More and more, health plans, including ours, are moving away from traditional medical management approaches to more sophisticated models built around disease management and advanced care management. These programs focus on those members who have chronic and/or complex illness and require the greatest amount of medical services. We provide important information to our physician providers and members to help them optimally manage the care of their specific conditions. For example, certain therapies and interventions for patients with diabetes help prevent some of the serious, long-term medical consequences of diabetes and reduce the risks of kidney, eye and heart disease. Our information systems can provide feedback to our physicians to enable them to improve the quality of care. For other prevalent medical conditions such as heart disease and asthma, our ability to correlate pharmacy data and medical management data allows us to provide important information to our members and providers which enables them to more effectively manage these conditions.

Formulary management. Anthem has developed a formulary, a selection of drugs based on clinical quality and effectiveness, which is used across all of our regions. A pharmacy and therapeutics committee uses scientific and clinical evidence to assure that our members have access to the best available therapies. This committee is comprised of 18 members, 13 of whom are academic and community physicians practicing in our markets. Our three-tiered co-pay strategy enables members to have access to all drugs that are not covered on formulary for an additional co-pay.

Medical policy. A medical policy group comprised of physician leaders from all Anthem regions, working in close cooperation with academic medical centers, practicing community physicians, and medical specialty organizations such as the American College of Radiology and national organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and the American Cancer Society determines Anthem’s national policy for the application of new technologies.

Advanced care management. A significant amount of health care expenditures are used by a small percent of our members who suffer from complex or chronic illnesses. We have developed a series of programs aimed at helping our network physicians better manage and improve the health of these members. Often, these programs provide benefits for home care services and other support to reduce the need for repeated, expensive hospitalizations.

Quality programs. We are actively engaged with our hospital networks to enable them to improve medical and surgical care and achieve better outcomes for our members. We endorse, encourage and incent hospitals to support national initiatives to improve clinical care, patient outcomes and reduce medication errors and hospital infections. We have been recognized as a national leader in developing hospital quality programs.

External review procedures. In light of increasing public concerns about health plans denying coverage of medical services, we work with outside experts through a process of external review to provide our members scientifically and clinically, evidenced-based medical care. When we receive member concerns, we have formal appeals procedures that ultimately allow coverage disputes related to medical necessity decisions under the benefits contract to be settled by independent expert physicians.

Service management. In HMO and POS networks, primary care physicians serve as the overall coordinators of members’ health care needs by providing an array of preventive health services and overseeing referrals to specialists for appropriate medical care. In PPO networks, patients have access to network physicians without a primary care physician serving as the coordinator of care.

Health Care Quality Initiatives

Increasingly, the health care industry is able to define quality health care based on preventive health measurements, outcomes of care and optimal care management for chronic disease. A key to our success has been our ability to work with our network physicians and hospitals to improve the quality and outcomes of the

17

Table of Contents

health care services provided to our members. Our ability to promote high quality medical care has been recognized by the National Committee on Quality Assurance, or NCQA, the largest and most respected national accreditation program for managed care health plans. All three of our HMO plans in the East region hold the highest NCQA rating of Excellent. During 2002, our HMO plan for Colorado also received the highest NCQA accreditation. In our Midwest region, our Ohio HMO and POS plans hold the highest NCQA rating. We expect to seek accreditation for our managed care plans in Indiana and Kentucky in 2003. Anthem Southeast’s HealthKeepers, Peninsula and Priority HMOs also hold the highest NCQA accreditation. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, formerly Trigon Insurance Company, holds the highest level of PPO accreditation from NCQA.

A range of quality health care measures, the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, or HEDIS, have been incorporated into the oversight certification by NCQA. These HEDIS measures range from preventive services, such as screening mammography and pediatric immunization, to elements of care, including decreasing the complications of diabetes and improving treatment for patients with heart disease. We are seeing continuous improvement, overall, in our HEDIS measurements, and a number of our state plans are among the best performers in the nation with respect to HEDIS. All three of our HMO plans in the East region are listed among the top fifteen plans which have the highest HEDIS scores in the nation.

In addition, we have initiated a broad array of quality programs, including those built around smoking cessation and transplant management, and increasingly effective hospital and physician quality initiatives centered on women’s health care, diabetes and patient safety.

Provider Arrangements

Our relationships with physicians, hospitals and professionals that provide health care services are guided by regional and national standards for network development, reimbursement and contract methodologies.

It is generally our philosophy not to delegate full financial responsibility to our physician providers in the form of capitation-based reimbursement. While capitation can be a useful method to lower costs and reduce underwriting risk, only highly integrated physician organizations have the information infrastructure to successfully manage these contracts.

We attempt to provide market-based hospital reimbursement along industry standards. We also seek to ensure physicians in our network are paid in a timely manner at appropriate rates. We use multi-year contracting strategies, including case or fixed rates, to limit our exposure to medical cost inflation and increase cost predictability. In all regions, we seek to maintain broad provider networks to ensure member choice while implementing programs designed to improve the quality of care received by our members.

Depending on the consolidation and integration of physician groups and hospitals, reimbursement strategies vary across markets. Fee for service is our predominant reimbursement methodology for physicians. We generally use a resource-based relative value system fee schedule to determine fee for service reimbursement. This structure was developed and is maintained by CMS and is used by the Medicare system and other major payers. This system is independent of submitted fees and therefore is not as vulnerable to inflation. In addition, physician incentive contracting is used to recognize clinical quality and performance.

Like our physician contracts, our hospital contracts provide for a variety of reimbursement arrangements depending on the network. Our hospital contracts recognize unique hospital attributes (e.g., academic medical centers or community hospitals) and the volume of care performed for our members. Many hospitals are reimbursed on a fixed allowance per day for covered services (per diem) or a case rate basis similar to Medicare (Diagnosis Related Groups). Other hospitals are reimbursed on a discount from approved charge basis for covered services. Hospital outpatient services are reimbursed based on fixed case rates, fee schedules or percent of charges. To improve predictability of expected cost, we frequently use a multi-year contracting approach which provides stability in our competitive position versus other health benefit plans in the market, and have

18

Table of Contents

been transitioning to case rate payment methodologies. Many of our renewing hospital contracts have reimbursement linked to improved clinical performance, patient safety and medical error reduction.

We believe our market share enables us to negotiate responsible provider reimbursement rates. In some markets, we have a “modified favored rate” provision in our hospital and ancillary contracts that guarantees contracted rates at least as favorable as those given to our competitors with an equal or smaller volume of business.

Behavioral Health and Other Provider Arrangements

We have a series of contracts with third party behavioral health networks and care managers who organize and provide for a continuum of behavioral health services focusing on access to appropriate providers and settings for behavioral health care. These contracts are generally multi-year capitation based arrangements. Substance abuse and alcohol dependency treatment programs are an integral part of these behavioral health programs.

In addition, a number of other ancillary service providers, including laboratory service providers, home health agency providers and intermediate and long term care providers, are contracted on a region-by-region basis to provide access to a wide range of services. These providers are normally paid on either a fee schedule, fixed-per-day or per case basis.

During 2002, we completed the acquisition of PRO Behavioral Health, a Denver, Colorado-based behavioral health care company. From this acquisition, we have created Anthem Behavioral Health, which, in addition to our third party behavioral health networks, is providing behavioral health benefits and employee assistance programs to our members and other non-Anthem health plans.

Competition

The managed care industry is highly competitive, both nationally and in our regional markets. Competition has intensified in recent years due to more aggressive marketing and pricing, a proliferation of new products and increased quality awareness and price sensitivity among customers. Significant consolidation within the industry has also added to competition. In addition, with the 1999 enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks and other financial institutions have the ability to affiliate with insurance companies, which may lead to new competitors in the insurance and health benefits fields.

Industry participants compete for customers mainly on the following factors:

We believe our exclusive right to market products under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand in our markets provides us with an advantage over our competition. In addition, our strong market share and existing provider networks in our Midwest, East and Southeast regions enable us to achieve cost-efficiencies and service levels that allow us to offer a broad range of health benefits to our customers on a more cost-effective basis than many of our competitors. In our West region, the marketplace is highly fragmented with no single player having a

19

Table of Contents

dominant market share. There, as in all regions, we strive to distinguish our products through excellent service, product value and brand recognition.

Competitors in our markets include local and regional managed care plans, and national health benefits companies. In our Midwest region, our largest competitors include UnitedHealthcare, Humana, Aetna and Medical Mutual of Ohio. In our East region, our main competitors are Aetna, Health Net, CIGNA, ConnectiCare and Harvard Pilgrim. In our West region, our principal competitors include Sierra Health, PacifiCare, UnitedHealthcare, Kaiser, Aetna and Hometown Health. In our Southeast region, our competitors include Aetna, CIGNA, Kaiser and UnitedHealthcare.

To build our provider networks, we also compete with other health benefits plans for contracts with hospitals, physicians and other providers. We believe that physicians and other providers primarily consider member volume, reimbursement rates, timeliness of reimbursement and administrative service capabilities along with the “non-hassle” factor or reduction of non-value added administrative tasks when deciding whether to contract with a health benefits plan. At the distribution level, we compete for qualified agents and brokers to distribute our products. Strong competition exists among insurance companies and health benefits plans for agents and brokers with demonstrated ability to secure new business and maintain existing accounts. The basis of competition for the services of such agents and brokers are:

We believe that we have good relationships with our agents and brokers, and that our products, support services and commission structure compare favorably to our competitors in all of our regions.

Financial Strength Ratings

Financial strength ratings are the opinions of the rating agencies regarding the financial ability of an insurance company to meet its obligations to its policyholders. Ratings provide both industry participants and insurance consumers with meaningful information on specific insurance companies and have become an increasingly important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Rating agencies continually review the financial performance and condition of insurers and higher ratings generally indicate financial stability and a strong ability to pay claims. The current financial strength ratings of Anthem Insurance and its consolidated subsidiaries are as follows:

20

Table of Contents

These financial strength ratings reflect each rating agency’s opinion as to our financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet our claim obligations to our policyholders. In May 2002, Best upgraded our rating to A. In August 2002, S&P reaffirmed it’s A rating and Fitch upgraded its rating to AA- and revised its outlook to stable. In January 2003, Moody’s reaffirmed its A2 rating and upgraded its outlook to positive. Each of the rating agencies reviews its ratings periodically and there can be no assurance that current ratings will be maintained in the future. We believe our strong ratings are an important factor in marketing our products to our customers, since ratings information is broadly disseminated and generally used throughout the industry. Our ratings reflect each rating agency’s opinion of our financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet our obligations to policyholders, and are not evaluations directed toward the protection of investors in our common stock or debt securities.

Investments

Our investment objective is to preserve our asset base and to achieve rates of return, which are consistent with our defined risk parameters, mix of products, liabilities and surplus. Our portfolio is structured to provide sufficient liquidity to meet general operating needs, special needs arising from changes in our financial position and changes in financial markets. As of December 31, 2002, fixed maturity securities accounted for 97% of total investments. Our fixed maturity portfolio consists exclusively of U.S. dollar-denominated assets, invested primarily in U.S. government securities, corporate bonds, asset-backed bonds and mortgage-related securities. As of December 31, 2002, our corporate fixed maturity portfolio (approximately 40% of the total fixed maturity portfolio as of December 31, 2002) had an average credit rating of approximately AA. We do not invest in derivatives or structured products that create leverage. We do however invest in structured products that have low volatility which are credit rated AA or better by Moody’s and/or S&P. An example of such an investment is mortgage backed securities.

Our portfolio is exposed to three primary sources of risk: credit quality risk, interest rate risk, and market valuation risk for equity holdings. Credit quality risk is defined as the risk of a credit downgrade to an individual fixed income security and the potential loss attributable to that downgrade. We manage this risk through our investment policy, which establishes credit quality limitations on the overall portfolio as well as dollar limits of our investment in securities of individual issuers. Interest rate risk is defined as the potential for economic losses on fixed-rate securities, due to an adverse change in market interest rates. We manage interest rate risk by maintaining a duration commensurate with our insurance liabilities and shareholders’ equity. Market valuation risk for the equity holdings is defined as the potential for economic losses due to an adverse change in equity prices. We manage these risks by investing in index mutual funds that replicate the risk and performance of the S&P 500 and S&P 400 indices, resulting in a diversified equity portfolio.

For additional information regarding Investments, refer to Note 4 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K. Also see the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in Part II, Item 7, of this Form 10-K.

Employees

As of December 31, 2002, we had approximately 19,500 full-time equivalent employees primarily located in Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Louisville, Kentucky; North Haven, Connecticut; Denver, Colorado; South Portland, Maine; Manchester, New Hampshire; and Richmond, Virginia. Employees were also located in various other cities within our regions, as well as in Illinois and New York. Our employees are an important asset, and we seek to develop them to their full potential. We believe that our relationships with our employees are good. No employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements.

21

Table of Contents

Regulation

General

Our operations are subject to comprehensive and detailed state and federal regulation throughout the United States in the jurisdictions in which we do business. Supervisory agencies, including state health, insurance and corporation departments, have broad authority to:

To carry out these tasks, these regulators periodically examine our operations and accounts.

Regulation of Insurance Company and HMO Business Activities

The federal government as well as the governments of the states in which we conduct our operations have adopted laws and regulations that govern our business activities in various ways. These laws and regulations may restrict how we conduct our businesses and may result in additional burdens and costs to us. Areas of governmental regulation include:

22

Table of Contents

These laws and regulations are subject to amendments and changing interpretations in each jurisdiction.

States generally require health insurers and HMOs to obtain a certificate of authority prior to commencing operations. If we were to establish a health insurance company or an HMO in any state where we do not presently operate, we generally would have to obtain such a certificate. The time necessary to obtain such a certificate varies from state to state. Each health insurer and HMO must file periodic financial and operating reports with the states in which it does business. In addition, health insurers and HMOs are subject to state examination and periodic license renewal.

There has been a recent trend of increased health care regulation at the federal and state levels. Proposed actions and legislation, regulation and initiatives relating to this trend include, among other things, the following:

23

Table of Contents

The health benefits business also may be adversely impacted by court and regulatory decisions that expand the interpretations of existing statutes and regulations. It is uncertain whether we can recoup, through higher premiums or other measures, the increased costs of mandated benefits or other increased costs caused by potential legislation or regulation.

Small Group Reform

All of the principal states in which we do business have enacted statutes that limit the flexibility of us and other health insurers relative to their small group underwriting and rating practices. Commonly referred to as “small group reform” statutes, these laws are generally consistent with model laws originally adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC.

In 1991, the NAIC adopted the Small Group Health Insurance Availability Model Act. This model law limits the differentials in rates carriers can charge between new business and health insurance renewal business, and with respect to small groups with similar demographic characteristics (commonly referred to as a “rating law”). It also requires that insurers disclose to customers the basis on which the insurer establishes new business and renewal rates, restricts the applicability of pre-existing condition exclusions and prohibits an insurer from terminating coverage of an employer group because of the adverse claims experience of that group. The model law requires that all small group insurers accept for coverage any employer group applying for a basic or standard plan of benefits (commonly known as a “guarantee issue law”), and provides for a voluntary reinsurance mechanism to spread the risk of high risk employees among all small group carriers participating in the reinsurance mechanism. Our representatives actively participated in the committees of the NAIC, which drafted and proposed this model law. NAIC model laws are not applicable to the industry until adopted by individual states, and there is significant variation in the degree to which states adopt and/or alter NAIC model laws. Some, if not all, of these rating and underwriting limitations are present in small group reform statutes currently adopted in all of the principal states in which we do business.

Underwriting Limitations.    In the past, insurance companies were free to select and reject risks based on a number of factors, including the medical condition of the person seeking to become insured. Small group health

24

Table of Contents

insurers were free to accept some employees and reject other employees for coverage within one employer group. An insurance company was also free to exclude from coverage medical conditions existing within a group which the insurance company believed represented an unacceptable risk level. Also, for the most part, insurance companies were free to cancel coverage of a group due to the medical conditions, which were present in that group. Additionally, a new employee seeking medical coverage under an existing group plan could be either accepted or rejected for coverage, or could have coverage excluded or delayed for existing medical conditions.

The small group health insurance reform laws limit or abolish a number of these commonly utilized practices to address a societal need to extend availability of insurance coverage more broadly to those who were previously not eligible for coverage. Reform laws have been adopted which at a minimum generally require that a group either be accepted or rejected for coverage as one unit. The law in all of the states in which we do business now prohibits the practice of terminating the coverage of an employer group based on the medical conditions existing within that group (Insurers may still cancel business for a limited number of other reasons.) These states also generally require “portability” of coverage, which means that an insurer cannot exclude coverage for a pre-existing condition of a new employee of an existing employer group if that person had previously satisfied a pre-existing condition limitation period with the prior insurer, and if that person maintained continuous coverage. Most state small group reform statutes also prohibit insurers from denying coverage to employer groups based upon industry classification.

All states in which we do business require the “guarantee issue” of small group policies, either through specific state law or the states’ requirement to enforce a federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, known as HIPAA. These laws require an insurer to issue coverage to any group that applies for coverage under any of the small group policies marketed by the insurer in that state, regardless of the medical risks presented by that group. The small group legislation also requires insurers to “guarantee renew” existing small group policies at the time of renewal.

Rating Limitations.    Prior to the adoption of state rate reform laws, there was very limited regulation of the rating practices used in the small group health insurance market. There was virtually no regulation of the amount by which one group’s rate could vary from that of a demographically similar group with different claims experience, and there was no statutorily placed limit on the extent and frequency of rate increases that could be applied to any one employer group.

Over the last nine years, all of the principal states in which we do business have enacted rating laws. These laws are designed to reduce the variation in rates charged to insured groups who have favorable and unfavorable claims experience. They also limit the extent and frequency of rate increases. They do not, however, establish an appropriate base or “manual” rate level for an insurer. The most stringent rate reform regulation would be a pure community rating requirement, pursuant to which all persons in a geographic region would receive the same rate for the same coverage as any other person, without consideration of demographic factors such as age, gender, geographic location, medical risk or occupation. Most existing rating laws also impose a limit on the extent and frequency of a group’s rate increases.

Small Group Statutory Reinsurance Mechanisms

At this time, our Connecticut and New Hampshire plans are subject to involuntary assessments from small group reinsurance mechanisms within these states. Our plan in New Hampshire is subject to two risk sharing mechanisms. One is an assessment to fund a newly created high risk pool in the individual market. Our New Hampshire plan is also subject to a soon to lapse assessment mechanism to contribute an amount sufficient to cover the expenses and losses of writers of individual products. These mechanisms are designed to provide risk-spreading mechanisms for insurers doing business in jurisdictions that mandate that health insurance be issued on a guarantee issue basis. Guarantee issue requirements increase underwriting risk for insurers by forcing them to accept higher-risk business than they would normally accept. This reinsurance mechanism allows the insurer to cede this high-risk business to the reinsurance facility, thus sharing the underwriting experience with all insurers

25

Table of Contents

in the state. Connecticut and New Hampshire statutes subject insurance companies doing business in those jurisdictions to assessments to fund losses from the reinsurance mechanisms. In addition, New Hampshire recently created a high risk pool in the individual market. Indiana, Ohio and Nevada statutes provide voluntary reinsurance mechanisms in which the assessment is against only those carriers electing to participate in the reinsurance mechanism. We have elected not to participate in these voluntary reinsurance mechanisms in Indiana and Ohio; however, Anthem does participate in Nevada. Kentucky, Colorado, Maine and Virginia do not have a small group reinsurance mechanism.

Recent Medicare Changes

In 1997, the federal government passed legislation related to Medicare that changed the method for determining premiums that the government pays to HMOs for Medicare members. In general, the new method has reduced the premiums payable to us compared to the old method, although the level and extent of the reductions varies by geographic market and depends on other factors. The legislation also requires us to pay a “user fee.” The changes began to be phased in on January 1, 1998 and will continue over five years. The federal government also announced in 1999 that it planned to begin to phase in risk adjustments to its premium payments over a five-year period commencing January 1, 2000. While we cannot predict exactly what effect these Medicare reforms will have on our results of operations, we anticipate that the net impact of the risk adjustments will be to reduce the premiums payable to us.

HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

HIPAA and its regulations impose obligations for issuers of health insurance coverage and health benefit plan sponsors. This law requires guaranteed health care coverage for small employers having 50 or fewer employees and for individuals who meet certain eligibility requirements. It also requires guaranteed renewability of health care coverage for most employers and individuals. The law limits exclusions based on preexisting conditions for individuals covered under group policies to the extent the individuals had prior creditable coverage, and the gap between the prior coverage and the new coverage cannot exceed certain time frames.

In addition, HIPAA authorized the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, known as HHS, to issue standards for administrative simplification, as well as privacy and security of medical records and other individually identifiable patient data. HIPAA requirements apply to plan sponsors, health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses as well as health care providers that transmit, maintain or have maintained health information electronically (collectively referred to as “Covered Entities”). Regulations adopted to implement HIPAA also require that business associates acting for or on behalf of these Covered Entities be contractually obligated to meet HIPAA standards.

Although HIPAA was intended ultimately to reduce administrative expenses and burdens faced within the health care industry, we believe the law will initially bring about significant and, in some cases, costly changes. HHS has released three rules to date mandating the use of new standards with respect to certain health care transactions, including health information. The first rule requires the use of uniform standards for common health care transactions, including health care claims information, plan eligibility, referral certification and authorization, claims status, plan enrollment and disenrollment, payment and remittance advice, plan premium payments and coordination of benefits, and it establishes standards for the use of electronic signatures. The new transaction standards became effective in October 2000. Originally, almost all Covered Entities were required to comply with these standards by October 16, 2002. However, legislation was enacted in December 2001 giving Covered Entities the option of extending their compliance date to October 16, 2003, provided that a filing is made with HHS prior to October 16, 2002. We took advantage of the extension and intend to be compliant by October 16, 2003.

Second, HHS has developed new standards relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health information. In general, these regulations restrict the use and disclosure of medical records and other individually

26

Table of Contents

identifiable health information held or disclosed by health plans and other affected entities in any form, whether communicated electronically, on paper or orally, subject only to limited exceptions. In addition, the regulations provide patients with significant new rights to understand and control how their health information is used. These regulations do not preempt more stringent state laws and regulations that may apply to us. The privacy standards became effective on April 14, 2001. We must comply with these privacy standards by April 14, 2003. On February 20, 2003, HHS published the final regulation addressing security requirements to be met regarding accessibility of personal health information. Health plans (other than small health plans) have until April 20, 2005 to comply with these new security standards. We are currently assessing the impact of this new regulation.

Other recent federal legislation includes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which generally required insurers to provide affected customers with notice regarding how their personal health and financial information is used and the opportunity to “opt out” of certain disclosures before the insurer shares non-public personal information with a non-affiliated third party. These requirements were to be implemented on a state-by-state basis by July 1, 2001. We have implemented and are complying with the new law. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also gives banks and other financial institutions the ability to affiliate with insurance companies, which may lead to new competitors in the insurance and health benefits fields.

Investment and Retirement Products and Services

We are subject to regulation by various government agencies where we conduct business, including the insurance departments of Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. Among other matters, these agencies may regulate premium rates, trade practices, agent licensing, policy forms, underwriting and claims practices, the maximum interest rates that can be charged on life insurance policy loans, and the minimum rates that must be provided for accumulation of surrender value.

ERISA

The provision of services to certain employee welfare benefit plans is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a complex set of laws and regulations subject to interpretation and enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor (“DOL”). ERISA regulates certain aspects of the relationships between us, the employers who maintain employee welfare benefit plans subject to ERISA and participants in such plans. Some of our administrative services and other activities may also be subject to regulation under ERISA. In addition, some states require licensure or registration of companies providing third party claims administration services for benefit plans. We provide a variety of products and services to employee welfare benefit plans that are covered by ERISA.

In December 1993, in a case involving an employee benefit plan and an insurance company, the United States Supreme Court ruled that assets in the insurance company’s general account that were attributable to a portion of a group pension contract issued to the plan that was not a “guaranteed benefit policy” were “plan assets” for purposes of ERISA and that the insurance company had fiduciary responsibility with respect to those assets. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court declined to follow a 1975 DOL interpretive bulletin that had suggested that insurance company general account assets were not plan assets.

The Small Business Job Protection Act (the “Act”) was signed into law in 1996. The Act created a framework for resolving potential issues raised by the Supreme Court decision. The Act provides that, absent criminal conduct, insurers generally will not have liability with respect to general account assets held under contracts that are not guaranteed benefit policies based on claims that those assets are plan assets. The relief afforded extends to conduct that occurs before the date that is 18 months after the DOL issues final regulations required by the Act, except as provided in the anti-avoidance portion of the regulations. The regulations, which were issued on January 5, 2000, address ERISA’s application to the general account assets of insurers attributable to contracts issued on or before December 31, 1998 that are not guaranteed benefit policies. The conference report relating to the Act states that policies issued after December 31, 1998 that are not guaranteed

27

Table of Contents

benefit policies will be subject to ERISA’s fiduciary obligations. We are not currently able to predict how these matters may ultimately affect our businesses.

The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case which held that health plans provided to employers under ERISA must still comply with state insurance laws which give patients the right to independent external review of medical coverage decisions.

In 2001, the DOL promulgated new regulations under ERISA setting out standards for claim payment and member appeals along with associated notice and disclosure requirements. These rules became effective for employers with plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2002 for disability plans and July 1, 2002 for health plans.

HMO and Insurance Holding Company Laws

We are regulated as an insurance holding company and are subject to the insurance holding company acts of the states in which our subsidiaries are domiciled. These acts contain certain reporting requirements as well as restrictions on transactions between an insurer or HMO and its affiliates. These holding company laws and regulations generally require insurance companies and HMOs within an insurance holding company system to register with the insurance department of each state where they are domiciled and to file with those states’ insurance departments certain reports describing capital structure, ownership, financial condition, certain intercompany transactions and general business operations. In addition, various notice and reporting requirements generally apply to transactions between insurance companies and HMOs and their affiliates within an insurance holding company system, depending on the size and nature of the transactions. Some insurance holding company laws and regulations require prior regulatory approval or, in certain circumstances, prior notice of certain material intercompany transfers of assets as well as certain transactions between insurance companies, HMOs, their parent holding companies and affiliates.

Additionally, the holding company acts for the states of domicile of our regulated subsidiaries restrict the ability of any person to obtain control of an insurance company or HMO without prior regulatory approval. Under those statutes, without such approval (or an exemption), no person may acquire any voting security of an insurance holding company which controls an insurance company or HMO, or merge with such a holding company, if as a result of such transaction such person would “control” the insurance holding company. “Control” is generally defined as the direct or indirect power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person and is presumed to exist if a person directly or indirectly owns or controls 10% or more of the voting securities of another person.

Guaranty Fund Assessments

Under insolvency or guaranty association laws in most states, insurance companies can be assessed for amounts paid by guaranty funds for policyholder losses incurred when an insurance company becomes insolvent. Most state insolvency or guaranty association laws currently provide for assessments based upon the amount of premiums received on insurance underwritten within such state (with a minimum amount payable even if no premium is received). Substantially all of our premiums are currently derived from insurance underwritten in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia.

Under many of these guaranty association laws, assessments against insurance companies that issue policies of accident or sickness insurance, such as Anthem, are made retrospectively and are based (up to prescribed percentage of premium limits) upon the ratio of (i) the insurance company’s premiums received in the applicable state over the previous three calendar years on accident and sickness insurance to (ii) the aggregate amount of premiums received by all assessed member insurance companies over such three calendar years on accident and sickness insurance. The guaranty fund assessments made under these acts are administered by the state’s guaranty association, which has its own board of directors selected by member insurers with the approval of the

28

Table of Contents

state insurance department. In general, an assessment may be abated or deferred by the guaranty association if, in the opinion of the board of the guaranty association, payment would endanger the ability of the member to fulfill its contractual obligations. The other member insurers, however, may be assessed for the amount of such abatement or deferral. All or a portion of such assessment paid by a member insurance company may be offset against its premium tax liability to the state in question over a multiple year period (generally five to 10 years) following the year in which the assessment was paid. The amount and timing of any future assessments, however, cannot be reasonably estimated and are beyond our control.

While the amount of any assessments applicable to life and health guaranty funds cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that future guaranty association assessments for insurer insolvencies will not have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and capital resources.

Risk-Based Capital Requirements

The states of domicile of our regulated subsidiaries have statutory risk-based capital, or RBC, requirements for health and other insurance companies based on the RBC Model Act. These RBC requirements are intended to assess the capital adequacy of life and health insurers, taking into account the risk characteristics of an insurer’s investments and products. The RBC Model Act sets forth the formula for calculating the RBC requirements which are designed to take into account asset risks, insurance risks, interest rate risks and other relevant risks with respect to an individual insurance company’s business. In general, under these laws, an insurance company must submit a report of its RBC level to the insurance department or insurance commissioner of its state of domicile for each calendar year.

The RBC Model Act provides for four different levels of regulatory attention depending on the ratio of a company’s total adjusted capital (defined as the total of its statutory capital, surplus and asset valuation reserve) to its risk-based capital. The “Company Action Level” is triggered if a company’s total adjusted capital is less than 200 percent but greater than or equal to 150 percent of its risk-based capital. At the “Company Action Level”, a company must submit a comprehensive plan to the regulatory authority which discusses proposed corrective actions to improve its capital position. A company whose total adjusted capital is between 250 percent and 200 percent of its risk-based capital is subject to a trend test. The trend test calculates the greater of any decrease in the margin (i.e., the amount in dollars by which a company’s adjusted capital exceeds its risk-based capital) between the current year and the prior year and between the current year and the average of the past three years, and assumes that the decrease could occur again in the coming year. If a similar decrease in margin in the coming year would result in a risk-based capital ratio of less than 190 percent, then “Company Action Level” regulatory action would be triggered. The “Regulatory Action Level” is triggered if a company’s total adjusted capital is less than 150 percent but greater than or equal to 100 percent of its risk-based capital. At the “Regulatory Action Level”, the regulatory authority will perform a special examination of the company and issue an order specifying corrective actions that must be followed. The “Authorized Control Level” is triggered if a company’s total adjusted capital is less than 100 percent but greater than or equal to 70 percent of its risk-based capital, at which level the regulatory authority may take any action it deems necessary, including placing the company under regulatory control. The “Mandatory Control Level” is triggered if a company’s total adjusted capital is less than 70 percent of its risk-based capital, at which level the regulatory authority is mandated to place the company under its control.

The law requires increasing degrees of regulatory oversight and intervention as an insurance company’s RBC declines. The level of regulatory oversight ranges from requiring the insurance company to inform and obtain approval from the domiciling insurance commissioner of a comprehensive financial plan for increasing its RBC, to mandatory regulatory intervention requiring an insurance company to be placed under regulatory control in a rehabilitation or liquidation proceeding. As of December 31, 2002, the RBC levels of our insurance subsidiaries exceeded all RBC thresholds.

29

Table of Contents

NAIC IRIS Ratios

In the 1970s, the NAIC developed a set of financial relationships or “tests” called the Insurance Regulatory Information System, or IRIS, that were designed for early identification of companies that may require special attention by insurance regulatory authorities. Insurance companies submit statutory financial data on an annual basis to the NAIC, which in turn analyzes the data using ratios covering eleven categories of data with defined “usual ranges” for each category. An insurance company may fall out of the usual range for one or more ratios because of specific transactions or events that are, in and of themselves, immaterial. Generally, an insurance company will become subject to regulatory scrutiny if its IRIS results fall outside of the usual ranges on four or more of the ratios. If a company is outside the ranges on four or more of the ratios, a written explanation is prepared and sent to regulators. None of our insurance subsidiaries is currently subject to regulatory scrutiny based on IRIS ratios.

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES.

Our principal executive offices are located at 120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana. In addition to this property, our principal operating facilities are located in Denver, Colorado; North Haven, Connecticut; Indianapolis, Indiana; Mason/Cincinnati, Ohio; Worthington/Columbus, Ohio; Manchester, New Hampshire; Louisville, Kentucky; South Portland, Maine and Richmond, Virginia. In total, we own approximately 17 facilities and lease approximately 67 facilities. These locations total 5.8 million square feet, of which we occupy 5.4 million square feet, and are located in 17 states. We believe that our properties are adequate and suitable for our business as presently conducted.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Litigation

A number of managed care organizations have been sued in class action lawsuits asserting various causes of action under federal and state law. These lawsuits typically allege that the defendant managed care organizations employ policies and procedures for providing health care benefits that are inconsistent with the terms of the coverage documents and other information provided to their members, and because of these misrepresentations and practices, a class of members has been injured in that they received benefits of lesser value than the benefits represented to and paid for by such members. Two such proceedings which allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) have been filed in Connecticut against the Company and/or our Connecticut subsidiary. One proceeding, The State of Connecticut v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., et al., No. 3:00 CV 1716 (AWT), filed on  September 7, 2000 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, was brought by the Connecticut Attorney General on behalf of a purported class of HMO and Point of Service members in Connecticut. No monetary damages are sought, although the suit does seek injunctive relief from the court to preclude the Company from allegedly utilizing arbitrary coverage guidelines, making late payments to providers or members, denying coverage for medically necessary prescription drugs and misrepresenting or failing to disclose essential information to enrollees. The complaint contends that these alleged policies and practices are a violation of ERISA. A second proceeding, William Strand v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., et al., No. 3:00 CV 2037 (SRU), filed on October 20, 2000 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, was brought on behalf of a purported class of HMO and Point of Service members in Connecticut and elsewhere, and seeks injunctive relief to preclude the Company from allegedly making coverage decisions relating to medical necessity without complying with the express terms of the policy documents, and unspecified monetary damages (both compensatory and punitive).

In addition, the Company’s Connecticut subsidiary is a defendant in three class action lawsuits brought on behalf of professional providers in Connecticut. Edward Collins, M.D., et al. v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., No. CV-99 0156198 S, was filed on December 14, 1999, in the Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut. Stephen R. Levinson, M.D., Karen Laugel, M.D. and J. Kevin Lynch, M.D. v. Anthem Health Plans,

30

Table of Contents

Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, No. 3:01 CV 426 (JBA), was filed on February 14, 2001 in the Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut. Connecticut State Medical Society v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., No. 3:01 CV 428 (JBA) was filed on February 14, 2001 in the Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut. The suits allege that the Connecticut subsidiary has breached its contracts by, among other things, allegedly failing to pay for services in accordance with the terms of the contracts. The suits also allege violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Collins and Levinson suits seek injunctive relief. Collins seeks an accounting under the terms of the provider agreements and injunctive relief prohibiting us from continuing the unfair actions alleged in the complaint and violating its agreements. Levinson seeks permanent injunctive relief prohibiting us from, among other things, utilizing methods to reduce reimbursement of claims, paying claims in an untimely fashion and providing inadequate communication with regards to denials and appeals. Both of the suits seek unspecified monetary damages (both compensatory and punitive). The third suit, brought by the Connecticut State Medical Society, seeks the same injunctive relief as the Levinson case, but no monetary damages.

On July 19, 2001, the court in the Collins suit certified a class as to three of the plaintiff’s fifteen allegations. The class is defined as those physicians who practice in Connecticut or group practices which are located in Connecticut that were parties to either a Participating Physician Agreement or a Participating Physicians Group Agreement with the Company and/or its Connecticut subsidiary during the period from 1993 to the present, excluding risk-sharing arrangements and certain other contracts. The claims which were certified as class claims are: the Company’s alleged failure to provide plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians with consistent medical utilization/quality management and administration of covered services by paying financial incentive and performance bonuses to providers and the Company’s staff members involved in making utilization management decisions; an alleged failure to maintain accurate books and records whereby improper payments to the plaintiffs were made based on claim codes submitted; and an alleged failure to provide senior personnel to work with plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians. The Company has appealed the class certification decision.

On September 26, 2002, the Judge in a Multi District Litigation (“MDL”) class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division captioned In re: Humana, Inc. Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334, granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the pleadings to add Anthem, Inc. as a defendant. Other defendants include Humana, Aetna, Cigna, Coventry, Health Net, PacifiCare, Prudential, United and WellPoint. The managed care litigation around the country has been consolidated to the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida under the MDL rules. The Court has split the cases into two groups, a “provider track” involving claims by doctors, osteopaths, and other professional providers, and a “subscriber track” involving claims by subscribers and members of the various health plan defendants. The provider track plaintiffs include individual doctors, as well as several medical societies. This suit has been pending for several years prior to the Company being added. The complaint against the Company and the other defendants alleges that the defendants do not properly pay claims, but instead “down-code” claims, improperly “bundle” claims, use erroneous or improper cost criteria to evaluate claims and delay paying proper claims. The suit also alleges that the defendants operate a common scheme and conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, treble damages under RICO and punitive damages. The Court certified a class in the provider track class action cases on September 26, 2002 but denied class certification of the subscriber track cases. Defendants in the provider track cases sought and on November 20, 2002 were granted an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Due to the Company’s late addition to the case, it was not included in the September 26, 2002 class certification order and is therefore not a party to the appeal; however, the Company may be affected by the outcome of the appeal.

On October 10, 2001, the Connecticut State Dental Association along with five dental providers filed suit against the Company’s Connecticut subsidiary. Connecticut State Dental Association, Dr. Martin Rutt, Dr. Michael Egan, Dr. Sheldon Natkin, Dr. Suzanna Nemeth, and Dr. Bruce Tandy v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut was filed in the Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford, Connecticut. On November 9, 2001, this suit was, with the consent of the parties, voluntarily

31

Table of Contents

withdrawn without prejudice. The claims were refiled on April 15, 2002. The suit alleged that the Company’s Connecticut subsidiary violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by allegedly unilaterally altering fee schedules without notice or a basis to do so, instituting unfair and deceptive cost containment measures and refusing to enroll new providers unless they agreed to participate in all available networks. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the practices alleged in the complaint constituted deceptive and unfair trade practices. A permanent injunction was also sought prohibiting us from, among other things, failing and refusing to inform network providers of the methodology supporting our fee schedules and substituting our medical judgment for that of dental providers.

On April 15, 2002, the Connecticut State Dental Association and two dental providers re-filed the claims as two separate suits. Connecticut State Dental Association v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut was filed in the Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut. Martin Rutt, D.D.S. and Michael Egan, D.D.S., et al., v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut was also filed in the Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut. The suits make many of the same allegations as the prior withdrawn suit. The Rutt suit is filed as a purported class action. Both suits seek injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages (both compensatory and punitive), along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all these proceedings, however, their ultimate outcomes cannot presently be determined.

On March 11, 1998, Anthem Insurance and its Ohio subsidiary, Community Insurance Company (“CIC”) were named as defendants in a lawsuit, Robert Lee Dardinger, Executor of the Estate of Esther Louise Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, et al., filed in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas in Newark, Ohio. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages in connection with claims alleging wrongful death, bad faith and negligence arising out of CIC’s denial of certain claims for medical treatment for Ms. Dardinger. On September 24, 1999, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding $1,350 (actual dollars) for compensatory damages, $2.5 million for bad faith in claims handling and appeals processing, $49.0 million for punitive damages and unspecified attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the court. The court later granted attorneys’ fees of $0.8 million. Both companies filed an appeal of the verdict on November 19, 1999. On May 22, 2001, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Fifth District) affirmed the jury award of $1,350 for breach of contract against CIC, affirmed the award of $2.5 million compensatory damages for bad faith in claims handling and appeals processing against CIC, but dismissed the claims and judgments against Anthem Insurance. The court also reversed the award of $49.0 million in punitive damages against both Anthem Insurance and CIC, and remanded the question of punitive damages against CIC to the trial court for a new trial. Anthem Insurance and CIC, as well as the plaintiff, appealed certain aspects of the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals. On October 10, 2001, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the plaintiff’s appeal, including the question of punitive damages, and denied the cross-appeals of Anthem and CIC. In December 2001, CIC paid the award of $2.5 million compensatory damages for bad faith and the award of $1,350 for breach of contract, plus accrued interest. On April 24, 2002 the Supreme Court of Ohio held oral arguments. On December 20, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled, reinstating the judgment against both Anthem Insurance and CIC, but remitted the punitive damages from $49.0 million to $30.0 million plus interest. The Court also ruled that the plaintiff would receive $10.0 million of the judgment, the plaintiff’s attorneys would receive their contingency fee on the $30.0 million plus interest and that the remainder of the award should be given to The Ohio State University Hospital for a charitable fund named after Esther Dardinger. The plaintiff filed motions in response to the remittitur. The Company has not decided whether to seek an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome cannot presently be determined.

The Company’s primary Ohio subsidiary and primary Kentucky subsidiary were sued on June 27, 2002, in their respective state courts. The suits were brought by the Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati, as well as individual physicians, and purport to be class action suits brought on behalf of all physicians practicing in the greater Cincinnati area and in the Northern Kentucky area, respectively. In addition to the Company’s subsidiaries, both suits name Aetna, United Healthcare and Humana as defendants. The first suit, captioned Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati and Luis Pagani, M.D. v. Aetna Health, Inc., Humana Health Plan of Ohio,

32

Table of Contents

Inc., Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and United Health Care of Ohio, Inc., No. A02004947 was filed on June 27, 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio. The second suit, captioned Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati and A. Lee Greiner,M.D., Victor Schmelzer, M.D., and Karl S. Ulicny, Jr., M.D. v. Aetna Health, Inc., Humana, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and United Health Care, Inc., No. 02-CI-903 was filed on June 27, 2002 in the Boone County, Kentucky Circuit Court.

Both suits allege that the four companies acted in combination and collusion with one another to reduce the reimbursement rates paid to physicians in the area. The suits allege that as a direct result of the defendants’ alleged anticompetitive actions, health care in the area has suffered, namely that: there are fewer hospitals; physicians are rapidly leaving the area; medical practices are unable to hire new physicians; and, from the perspective of the public, the availability of health care has been significantly reduced. Each suit alleges that these actions violate the respective state’s antitrust and unfair competition laws, and each suit seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief to prevent the alleged anti-competitive behavior against the class in the future. Motions to dismiss or to send the cases to binding arbitration per the provider contracts were filed with both courts. The Ohio court overruled the motions on January 21, 2003 and the Kentucky court overruled the motions on February 19, 2003. Defendants will appeal both rulings. These suits are in the preliminary stages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the suits and believes that any liability from these suits will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

On October 25, 1995, Anthem Insurance and two Indiana affiliates were named as defendants in a lawsuit titled Dr. William Lewis, et al. v. Associated Medical Networks, Ltd., et al., that was filed in the Superior Court of Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiffs are three related health care providers. The health care providers assert that the Company failed to honor contractual assignments of health insurance benefits and violated equitable liens held by the health care providers by not paying directly to them the health insurance benefits for medical treatment rendered to patients who had insurance with the Company. The Company paid its customers’ claims for the health care providers’ services by sending payments to its customers as called for by their insurance policies, and the health care providers assert that the patients failed to use the insurance benefits to pay for the health care providers’ services. The plaintiffs filed the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated health care providers and seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts for the insurance benefits not paid to the class members, plus prejudgment interest. The case was transferred to the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana, where it is now pending. On December 3, 2001, the Court entered summary judgment for the Company on the health care providers’ equitable lien claims. The Court also entered summary judgment for the Company on the health care providers’ contractual assignments claims to the extent that the health care providers do not hold effective assignments of insurance benefits from patients. On the same date, the Court certified the case as a class action. As limited by the summary judgment order, the class consists of health care providers in Indiana who (1) were not in one of the Company’s networks, (2) did not receive direct payment from the Company for services rendered to a patient covered by one of our insurance policies that is not subject to ERISA, (3) were not paid by the patient (or were otherwise damaged by the Company’s payment to its customer instead of to the health care provider), and (4) had an effective assignment of insurance benefits from the patient. The Company filed a motion seeking an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order in the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 20, 2002 the Indiana Court of Appeals granted the Company’s motion seeking an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. On February 26, 2003, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. Anthem will move for reconsideration of the order with the Indiana Court of Appeals. In any event, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and believes that any liability that may result from the case will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In addition to the lawsuits described above, the Company is involved in other pending and threatened litigation of the character incidental to its business or arising out of its insurance and investment operations, and is from time to time involved as a party in various governmental and administrative proceedings. The Company believes that any liability that may result from any one of these actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

33

Table of Contents

Other Contingencies

The Company, like a number of other Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies, serves as a fiscal intermediary for Medicare Parts A and B. The fiscal intermediaries for these programs receive reimbursement for certain costs and expenditures, which is subject to adjustment upon audit by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The laws and regulations governing fiscal intermediaries for the Medicare program are complex, subject to interpretation and can expose an intermediary to penalties for non-compliance. Fiscal intermediaries may be subject to criminal fines, civil penalties or other sanctions as a result of such audits or reviews. In recent years, at least eight Medicare fiscal intermediaries have made payments to settle issues raised by such audits and reviews. These payments have ranged from $0.7 million to $51.6 million, plus a payment by one company of $144.0 million. While the Company believes it is currently in compliance in all material respects with the regulations governing fiscal intermediaries, there are ongoing reviews by the federal government of the Company’s activities under certain of its Medicare fiscal intermediary contracts.

AdminaStar Federal, Inc., one of the Company’s subsidiaries, has received several subpoenas prior to May 2000 from the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, and the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking documents and information concerning its responsibilities as a Medicare Part B contractor in its Kentucky office, and requesting certain financial records from AdminaStar Federal, Inc. and from the Company related to Medicare fiscal intermediary Part A and Part B operations. The Company has made certain disclosures to the government relating to Medicare Part B operations in Kentucky. The Company was advised by the government that, in conjunction with its ongoing review of these matters, the government has also been reviewing separate allegations made by individuals against AdminaStar Federal, Inc., which are included within the same timeframe and involve issues arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the government’s ongoing review. The Company is not in a position to predict either the ultimate outcome of these reviews or the extent of any potential exposure should claims be made against the Company. However, the Company believes any fines or penalties that may arise from these reviews would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

As a BCBSA licensee, the Company participates in the Federal Employee Program (“FEP”), a nationwide contract with the Federal Office of Personnel Management to provide coverage to federal employees and their dependents in our core nine-state area. On July 11, 2001, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG, Office of Personnel Management, seeking certain financial documents and information, including information concerning intercompany transactions, related to the operations in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky under the FEP contract. The government has advised the Company that, in conjunction with its ongoing review, the government is also reviewing a separate allegation made by an individual against the Company’s FEP operations, which is included within the same timeframe and involves issues arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the government’s ongoing review. The Company is currently cooperating with the OIG and the U.S. Department of Justice on these matters. The ultimate outcome of these reviews cannot be determined at this time.

The Company guaranteed certain financial contingencies of its subsidiary, Anthem Alliance Health Insurance Company (“Anthem Alliance”), under a contract between Anthem Alliance and the United States Department of Defense. Under that contract, Anthem Alliance managed and administered the TRICARE Managed Care Support Program for military families from May 1, 1998 through May 31, 2001, at which time the TRICARE operations were sold. There was no call on the guarantee for the period from May 1, 1998 to May 31, 2001 (which period is now “closed”).

ITEM 4.    SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

The Company did not submit any matters to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2002.

34

Table of Contents

PART II

ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.

Market Prices

The Company’s Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, began trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “ATH” on October 30, 2001. On February 24, 2003, there were 263,989 shareholders of record of the Common Stock. The following table presents high and low sales prices for the Common Stock on the NYSE for the periods indicated.

Dividends

No cash dividends have been paid on our common stock and our board of directors does not presently intend to declare any such dividends. The declaration and payment of future dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and must comply with applicable law. Future dividend payments will depend upon our financial condition, results of operations, future liquidity needs, potential acquisitions, regulatory and capital requirements and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. In addition, we are a holding company whose primary assets are 100% of the capital stock of Anthem Insurance and Anthem Southeast, Inc. Our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, if authorized by our board of directors, is primarily dependent upon the receipt of dividends from these companies and their receipt of dividends from our other regulated insurance subsidiaries.

In addition, the indenture governing the terms of our 5.95% debentures issued as part of our 6.00% Equity Security Units prohibits, with certain limited exceptions, the payment of dividends on our common stock during a deferral of interest payments on the debentures or an event of default under the indenture. We also have the option to defer contract fee payments on the purchase contracts that are also a part of our Units. If we elect to defer contract fee payments, we cannot, with certain limited exceptions, pay dividends on our common stock during a deferral period.

35

Table of Contents

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans at December 31, 2002 are as follows:

See Note 10 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding our equity compensation plans.

36

Table of Contents

ITEM 6.    SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA.

The table below provides selected consolidated financial data of Anthem. The information has been derived from our consolidated financial statements for each of the years in the five year period ended December 31, 2002, which have been audited by Ernst & Young LLP. You should read this selected consolidated financial data in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

37

Table of Contents

For additional detail, see Note 3 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

ITEM 7.    MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

Introduction

We are one of the nation’s largest health benefits companies and we operate as an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA. We offer Blue Cross Blue Shield branded products to customers throughout Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.). As of December 31, 2002, we provided health benefit services to more than 11 million members of our health plans.

Our health business segments are strategic business units delineated by geographic areas within which we offer similar products and services. We manage our health business segments with a local focus to address each market’s unique competitive, regulatory and healthcare delivery characteristics. Our health business segments are: Midwest, which includes Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio; East, which includes Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maine; West, which includes Colorado and Nevada; and Southeast, which is Virginia, excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.

In addition to our four health business segments, our reportable segments include a Specialty segment that is comprised of business units providing group life and disability insurance benefits, pharmacy benefit management, dental and vision administration services and behavioral health benefits services. During the third quarter of 2002, we sold our third party occupational health services businesses, which were part of our Specialty segment. The results of these businesses were not material to earnings of this segment or our consolidated results.

Our Other segment is comprised of AdminaStar Federal, a subsidiary that administers Medicare programs in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky and Ohio; intersegment revenue and expense eliminations; and corporate expenses not

38

Table of Contents

allocated to our health or Specialty segments. In 2001, our Other segment also contained Anthem Alliance Health Insurance Company, or Anthem Alliance. Anthem Alliance primarily provided health care benefits and administration in nine states for the Department of Defense’s TRICARE Program for military families. We sold our TRICARE operations on May 31, 2001.

We offer a diversified mix of managed care products such as preferred provider organizations or PPOs, health maintenance organizations or HMOs, point of service or POS plans and traditional indemnity benefits to members of our fully-insured products. We also provide a broad array of managed care services to self-funded employers, including claims processing, underwriting, stop loss insurance, actuarial services, provider network access, medical cost management and other administrative services.

Our operating revenue consists of premiums, administrative fees and other revenue. The premiums come from fully-insured contracts where we indemnify our policyholders against costs for health benefits. Our administrative fees come from contracts where our customers are self-insured, from the administration of Medicare programs and from other health related businesses including disease management programs. Other revenue is principally generated from the mail-order sale of drugs by our pharmacy benefit management company.

Our benefit expense consists of costs of care for health services consumed by our members for outpatient care, inpatient care, professional services (primarily physician care) and pharmacy benefit costs. All four components are affected both by unit costs and utilization rates. Unit costs, for example, are the cost of outpatient medical procedures, inpatient hospital stays, physician fees for office visits and prescription drug prices. Utilization rates represent the volume of consumption of health services and vary with the age and health of our members and their social and lifestyle choices, along with clinical protocols and customs in each of our markets. A portion of benefit expense for each reporting period consists of actuarial estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported to us for reimbursement.

Our results of operations depend in large part on our ability to accurately predict and effectively manage health care costs through effective contracting with providers of care to our members. Several economic factors related to health care costs such as regulatory mandates for coverage and direct-to-consumer advertising by providers and pharmaceutical companies have a direct impact on the volume of care consumed by our members. The potential effect of escalating health care costs as well as any changes in our ability to negotiate competitive rates with our providers may impose further risks to our ability to profitably underwrite our business.

This management’s discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K.

Significant Transactions

On July 31, 2002, we completed the purchase of 100% of the outstanding stock of Trigon Healthcare, Inc., or Trigon, in accordance with an agreement and plan of merger announced April 29, 2002. Trigon was Virginia’s largest health benefits company and was the exclusive Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensee in Virginia, excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. The merger provides us with a new segment, our Southeast segment, with approximately 2.5 million members and a nearly forty percent share of the Virginia market. The Trigon merger allows us to further expand our licensed territory as a Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee. We believe the merger will enhance our earnings over time, as it will allow us opportunities to leverage our corporate and other fixed costs and to expand our specialty businesses.

Trigon’s shareholders each received thirty dollars in cash and 1.062 shares of Anthem common stock for each Trigon share outstanding. The purchase price was approximately $4,038.1 million, which included cash of approximately $1,104.3 million, the issuance of approximately 39.0 million shares of Anthem common stock, valued at approximately $2,708.1 million, Trigon stock options converted into Anthem stock options for

39

Table of Contents

approximately 3.9 million shares, valued at approximately $195.5 million and approximately $30.2 million of transaction costs. Refer to the Liquidity and Capital Resources section of this discussion for more information related to the sources of funds for this acquisition. See Notes 2 and 3 of our audited consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K for additional information concerning the pro forma impact of Trigon on our consolidated financial statements.

On May 31, 2001, we and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, or BCBS-KS, announced that we had signed a definitive agreement pursuant to which BCBS-KS would become our wholly owned subsidiary. Under the proposed transaction, BCBS-KS would demutualize and convert to a stock insurance company. The agreement calls for us to pay $190.0 million in exchange for all of the shares of BCBS-KS. On February 11, 2002, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner disapproved the proposed transaction, which had been previously approved by the BCBS-KS policyholders in January 2002. On February 19, 2002, the board of directors of BCBS-KS voted unanimously to appeal the Kansas Insurance Commissioner’s decision and BCBS-KS sought to have the Commissioner’s decision overturned in Shawnee County District Court. We joined BCBS-KS in the appeal, which was filed on March 7, 2002. On June 7, 2002, the Shawnee County District Court ruled on the BCBS-KS appeal in favor of us and BCBS-KS. The Shawnee County District Court directed the Commissioner to re-evaluate her decision in accordance with the Court’s very specific interpretation of the Kansas law. On June 10, 2002, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments of the parties to this case on March 5, 2003.

Membership—December 31, 2002 Compared to December 31, 2001

Our membership includes seven different customer types: Local Large Group, Small Group, Individual, National Accounts, Medicare + Choice, Federal Employee Program and Medicaid.

BlueCard membership, mentioned above as part of our National Accounts membership, is calculated based on the amount of BlueCard administrative fees we receive from the BlueCard members’ home plans. The administrative fees we receive are based on the number and type of claims we process, both institutional and professional, and a portion of the network discount on those claims from providers in our network who have provided service to BlueCard members. To calculate membership, administrative fees are divided by an average per member per month, or PMPM, factor. The average PMPM factor is determined using a historical average administrative fee per claim and an average number of claims per member per year based on our experience and BCBSA guidelines.

40

Table of Contents

In addition to reporting our membership by customer type, we report membership by funding arrangement according to the level of risk we assume in the product contract. Our two funding arrangement categories are fully-insured and self-funded. Self-funded products are offered to customers, generally larger employers, who elect to retain some or all of the financial risk associated with their employees’ health care costs. Some employers choose to purchase stop-loss coverage to limit their retained risk.

The renewal patterns of our fully-insured Local Large Group and Small Group business, including our Southeast segment, are as follows: approximately 35% of renewals occur during the first quarter, approximately 18% of renewals occur during the second quarter, approximately 31% of renewals occur during the third quarter and approximately 16% of renewals occur during the fourth quarter. These renewal patterns have remained consistent over the past year and allow us to adjust our pricing and benefit plan designs in response to market conditions throughout the year.

The following table presents our health membership count by segment, customer type and funding arrangement as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, comparing total and same-store membership respectively. We define same-store membership as our membership at a given period end in a segment or for a particular customer or funding type, after excluding the impact of members obtained through acquisitions or lost through dispositions during such period. We believe that same-store membership counts best capture the rate of organic growth of our operations period over period. The membership data presented is unaudited and in certain instances includes estimates of the number of members represented by each contract at the end of the period, rounded to the nearest thousand.