500 West Main Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(502) 580-1000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

     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, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ____

     Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock as of the latest practicable date.

2

3

4

5

(1)   Basis of Presentation

     The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the disclosures normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or those normally made in an Annual Report on Form 10-K. References throughout this document to "we," "us," "our," the "Company," and "Humana," mean Humana Inc. and all entities we own. For further information, the reader of this Form 10-Q should refer to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, on March 28, 2002, as well as the Form S-3 Registration Statement that we filed with the SEC on October 8, 2002.

     The preparation of our condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Although our estimates are based on knowledge of current events and anticipated future events, actual results may ultimately differ materially from those estimates.

     The financial information has been prepared in accordance with our customary accounting practices and has not been audited. In our opinion, the information presented reflects all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of interim results. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature. We have reclassified certain items in the prior year's condensed consolidated financial statements to conform with the current year presentation. These adjustments had no effect on previously reported consolidated net income or stockholders' equity.

     On January 1, 2002, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, or Statement 144. Statement 144 develops a single accounting model for long-lived assets to be disposed of by sale, addresses significant implementation issues related to previous guidance, and requires that long-lived assets to be disposed of by sale be measured at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell, whether reported in continuing operations or in discontinued operations. The adoption of Statement No. 144 did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     The Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, or Statement 146, Accounting for Exit or Disposal Activities. Statement 146 addresses the recognition, measurement, and reporting of costs that are associated with exit and disposal activities, including certain lease termination costs and severance-type costs under a one-time benefit arrangement rather than an ongoing benefit arrangement or an individual deferred-compensation contract. Statement 146 requires liabilities associated with exit and disposal activities to be expensed as incurred and will impact the timing of recognition for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002.

     In June 2001, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141, Business Combinations, or Statement 141, and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, or Statement 142. Statement 141 requires that all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 be accounted for using the purchase method. Use of the pooling-of-interest method is no longer permitted. Statement 142 requires that goodwill no longer be amortized to earnings, but instead be reviewed at least annually for impairment using a two-step process. The first step is a screen for potential impairment, and the second step measures the amount of impairment, if any. Impairment losses that arise from completing a transitional impairment test during 2002 are to be reported as the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle at the beginning of the year. Subsequent impairments, if any, would be classified as an operating expense . Statement 142 also specifies the types of acquired intangible assets that are required to be recognized and reported separately from goodwill.

6

     We ceased amortizing goodwill upon adopting Statement 142 on January 1, 2002. We completed the transitional goodwill impairment test, which did not result in an impairment loss. Subsequent impairment tests will be performed, at a minimum, in the fourth quarter of each year in connection with the annual planning process. We allocated goodwill of $633.2 million to the Commercial segment and $143.7 million to the Government segment for purposes of completing the impairment test.

     The following table adjusts net income and basic and diluted earnings per common share for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001 to reflect the non-amortization of goodwill assuming the non-amortization provisions of Statement 142 were adopted as of January 1, 2001:

      We amortize other intangible assets over their estimated useful lives ranging from 2 to 20 years, with a weighted average life of 8.6 years. Other intangible assets primarily relate to acquired subscriber, provider, and government contracts, and the cost of acquired licenses and are included with other long-term assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Amortization expense for other intangible assets was approximately $3.9 million and $11.8 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002, respectively, and $4.0 million and $9.4 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2001, respectively. The following table presents our estimate of amortization expense for all of 2002, and for each of the five succeeding fiscal years:

7

     The following table presents details of our other intangible assets at September 30, 2002 and December 31, 2001:

     The following table presents details supporting the computation of comprehensive income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001:

     We compute basic earnings per common share on the basis of the weighted average number of unrestricted common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per common share is computed on the basis of the weighted average number of unrestricted common shares outstanding plus the dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and restricted shares using the treasury stock method. There were no adjustments required to be made to net income for purposes of computing basic or diluted earnings per common share.

8

     The following table presents details supporting the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001:

     In July 2002, the Board of Directors authorized the use of up to $100 million in total for the repurchase of our common shares. The shares may be purchased from time to time at prevailing prices in the open-market, by block purchases, or in privately-negotiated transactions. As of November 11, 2002, we had purchased 4.1 million shares for an aggregate purchase price of $49.7 million, or $12.12 per share.

     Our Medicare+Choice contracts with the federal government are renewed for a one-year term each December 31 unless terminated 90 days prior thereto. Legislative proposals are being considered which may revise the Medicare+Choice program's current reimbursement rates. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proposals or the impact they may have on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

    We currently are in negotiations with the Department of Defense to extend for up to two years our TRICARE contracts that expire on June 30, 2003 for Regions 3 and 4 and April 30, 2003 for Regions 2 and 5. We believe we will be able to successfully extend our TRICARE contracts for at least one additional year under substantially the same terms.

    Furthermore, the Department of Defense recently announced a plan to consolidate the total number of prime contracts from seven to three under the new T-Nex (TRICARE Next Generation) program. It is our intent to submit a bid no later than January 15, 2003 to participate in at least one contract. The Department of Defense has stated that a bidder can be awarded only one prime contract, although a bidder would be allowed to secondarily participate in another contract. An announcement of the awards is expected in mid to late 2003 with transition to the new regions not expected until sometime in 2004. We believe that the size of our TRICARE business would not materially change if we are a successful bidder on one prime contract. At this time we are unable to predict whether we will be awarded a contract, the exact effective date of the contract, or the impact on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

9

     Effective July 1, 2002, we signed two contracts in Puerto Rico covering a combined, estimated 430,000 beneficiaries in two of the eight regions in Puerto Rico's Medicaid program. The term of each of these contracts is three years, subject to annual renewals with the Health Insurance Administration in Puerto Rico. Our Medicaid contracts in Florida and Illinois, representing 14% of total Medicaid membership as of September 30, 2002, generally are annual contracts.

     The loss of any of these government contracts or significant changes in these programs as a result of legislative action, including reductions in premium payments to us, or increases in member benefits without corresponding increases in premium payments to us, may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

     In late 1997, three purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by former stockholders of Physician Corporation of America, or PCA, and certain of its former directors and officers. We acquired PCA by a merger that became effective on September 8, 1997. The three actions were consolidated into a single action entitled In re Physician Corporation of America Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that PCA and the individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements in press releases and public filings with respect to the financial and regulatory difficulties of PCA's workers' compensation business. On May 5, 1999, plaintiffs moved for certification of the purported class, and on August 25, 2000, the defendants moved for summary judgment. On January 31, 2001, defendants were granted leave to file a third-party complaint for declaratory judgment on insurance coverage. The defendants seek a determination that the defense costs and liability, if any, resulting from the class action defense are covered by an insurance policy issued by one insurer and, in the alternative, declaring that there is coverage under policies issued by two other insurers. On April 25, 2002, the Court dismissed the third-party complaint without prejudice finding that it could be refiled in the future if the insurance claims are not otherwise resolved. On July 24, 2002, the Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and set the case on the Court's trial calendar for December 2, 2002. Both parties have asked the Court to postpone the trial.

     We are involved in several purported class action lawsuits that are part of a wave of generally similar actions that target the health care payor industry and particularly target managed care companies. As a result of action by the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation, most of the cases against us, as well as similar cases against other companies in the industry, have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Court, and are now styled In re Managed Care Litigation. The cases include separate suits against us and five other managed care companies that purport to have been brought on behalf of members, which are referred to as the subscriber track cases, and a single action against us and eight other companies that purports to have been brought on behalf of providers, which is referred to as the provider track case.

     In the subscriber track cases, the plaintiffs seek a recovery under RICO for all persons who are or were subscribers at any time during the four-year period prior to the filing of the complaints. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of policyholders who purchased insurance through their employers' health benefit plans governed by ERISA, and who are or were subscribers at any time during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaints. The complaints allege, among other things, that we intentionally concealed from members certain information concerning the way in which we conduct business, including the methods by which we pay providers. The plaintiffs do not allege that any of the purported practices resulted in denial of any claim for a particular benefit, but instead, claim that we provided the purported class with health insurance benefits of lesser value than promised. The complaints also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to engage in the various allege d improper practices.

10

     On February 20, 2002, the Court issued its ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint was filed on June 29, 2001, after the Court dismissed most of the claims in the original complaints, but granted leave to refile. In its February 20, 2002, ruling, the Court dismissed the RICO claims of ten of the sixteen named plaintiffs, including three of the four involving us, on the ground that the McCarran-Ferguson Act prohibited their claims because they interfered with the state regulatory processes in the states in which they resided (Florida, New Jersey, California and Virginia). With respect to ERISA, the Court dismissed the misrepresentation claims of current members, finding that they have adequate remedies under the law and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Claims for former members were not dismissed. The Court also refused to dismiss claims by all plaintiffs for breach of fid uciary duty arising from alleged interference with the doctor-patient relationship by the use of so-called "gag clauses" that assertedly prohibited doctors from freely communicating with members. On March 1, 2002, we and other defendants requested that the Court allow us to ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to review the Court's refusal to follow the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Maio v. Aetna that would have resulted in dismissal of the RICO claims. The Court granted the motion on March 25, 2002, and the defendants filed their request with the Eleventh Circuit on April 4, 2002. On May 10, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit declined to accept the matter for review. On July 30, 2002, the District Court directed that merits discovery could commence as of September 30, 2002. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all members of our medical plans, excluding Medicare and Medicaid plans, for the period from 1990 to 1999. On September 26 , 2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On October 10, 2002, the plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its ruling on that issue. The Court has not ruled on the reconsideration motion. The Court set a trial date on the individual named plaintiffs' claims for May 19, 2003.

     In the provider track case, the plaintiffs assert that we and other defendants improperly (i) paid providers' claims and (ii) "downcoded" their claims by paying lesser amounts than they submitted. The complaint alleges, among other things, multiple violations under RICO as well as various breaches of contract and violations of regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments. We moved to dismiss the provider track complaint on September 8, 2000, and the other defendants filed similar motions thereafter. On March 2, 2001, the Court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the defendants' several motions to dismiss. However, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to attempt to correct the deficiencies in their complaint with an amended pleading with respect to all of the allegations except the claim under the federal Medicare regulations, which was dismissed with prejudice. The Court also left undisturbed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract. On March 26 , 2001, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint which, among other things, added four state or county medical associations as additional plaintiffs. Two of those, the Denton County Medical Society and the Texas Medical Association, purport to bring their actions against us, as well as against several other defendant companies. The Medical Association of Georgia and the California Medical Association purport to bring their actions against various other defendant companies. The associations seek injunctive relief only. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 30, 2001.

     On September 26, 2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' request to file a second amended complaint, adding additional plaintiffs, including the Florida Medical Association, which purports to bring its action against all defendants. On October 21, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

     Also on September 26, 2002, the Court certified a global class consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to September 30, 2002. The class includes two subclasses. A national subclass consists of medical doctors who provided services to any person insured by a defendant when the doctor has a claim against such defendant and is not required to arbitrate that claim. A California subclass consists of medical doctors who provided services to any person insured in California by any defendant when the doctor was not bound to arbitrate the claim. On October 10, 2002, the defendants asked the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to review the class certification decision. The District Court has ruled that discovery can proceed during the pendency of the request to the Eleventh Circuit.

     The Court set a trial date of May 19, 2003.

     We intend to continue to defend these actions vigorously.

11

     In July 2000, the Office of the Florida Attorney General initiated an investigation, apparently relating to some of the same matters that are involved in the purported class action lawsuits described above. While the Attorney General has filed no action against us, he has indicated that he may do so in the future. On September 21, 2001, the Texas Attorney General initiated a similar investigation. These investigations are ongoing, and we have cooperated with the regulators in both states.

     On May 31, 2000, we entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement, or CIA, with the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the CIA, we are obligated to, among other things, provide training, conduct periodic audits and make periodic reports to the OIG.

     In addition, our business practices are subject to review by various state insurance and health care regulatory authorities and federal regulatory authorities. There has been increased scrutiny by these regulators of the managed health care companies' business practices, including claims payment practices and utilization management practices. We have been and continue to be subject to such reviews. Some of these have resulted in fines and could require changes in some of our practices and could also result in additional fines or other sanctions.

     We also are involved in other lawsuits that arise in the ordinary course of our business operations, including claims of medical malpractice (both for direct negligence and for vicarious liability for negligence of network providers), bad faith, nonacceptance or termination of providers, failure to disclose network discounts and various other provider arrangements, and challenges to subrogation practices. We also are subject to claims relating to performance of contractual obligations to providers and others, including failure to properly pay claims and challenges to the use of certain software products in processing claims. Recent court decisions and pending state and federal legislative activity may increase our exposure for any of these types of claims.

     Personal injury claims and claims for extracontractual damages arising from medical benefit denials are covered by insurance from our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and excess carriers, except to the extent that claimants seek punitive damages, which may not be covered by insurance in certain states in which insurance coverage for punitive damages is not permitted. In addition, insurance coverage for all or certain forms of liability has become increasingly costly and may become unavailable or prohibitively expensive in the future.

     We do not believe that any pending or threatened legal actions against us or audits by agencies will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the likelihood or outcome of current or future suits, like the purported class action lawsuits described above, or governmental investigations, cannot be accurately predicted with certainty. In addition, the increased litigation which has accompanied the negative publicity and public perception of our industry adds to this uncertainty. Therefore, such legal actions could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

12

     Our segment results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, including a reconciliation to "adjusted" results which assumes the adoption of the non-amortization provisions of Statement 142, as disclosed in Note 2, on January 1, 2001, are as follows:

13