Choosing how to fund an employee health plan is an important part of an employer’s overall benefits strategy. For many organizations, the decision comes down to two common approaches: self-funded and fully insured health plans.
Both can provide employees with healthcare coverage, but they operate differently. Self-funding gives employers a more active role in how the plan is funded and managed, which can create more opportunities to control costs and shape the plan around the needs of the organization.
Understanding the difference can help brokers and employers determine which approach is the better fit.
With a self-funded plan, the employer funds employee healthcare claims directly rather than paying an insurance carrier to assume all claims risk.
Most employers work with a third-party administrator, or TPA, to manage claims administration and support ongoing plan operations. Stop-loss coverage is also commonly used to help protect the plan from unexpectedly high claims.
Self-funding may give employers more control over their benefits strategy and more access to information about how the plan is performing.
It may be a fit for organizations that want:
More flexibility in plan design
Greater visibility into claims and utilization
More opportunities to address specific healthcare cost drivers
Because claims can vary, employers also need to consider financial readiness and risk tolerance.
One of the most valuable differences in a self-funded arrangement is access to plan performance information. Rather than relying only on a renewal increase or a high-level carrier report, employers may have greater visibility into claims trends and utilization.
That information can help uncover opportunities within the plan. For example, an employer may identify rising prescription drug spend and evaluate a different pharmacy strategy. Another may discover that certain types of care are driving a significant portion of costs.
With stronger visibility, brokers and employers can make more informed decisions about where to focus their benefits strategy.
Fully insured employers generally select from plans offered by the carrier. Self-funded employers may have more flexibility to customize the plan around their workforce and business goals.
Depending on the arrangement, employers may be able to evaluate different approaches to:
Provider networks
Pharmacy management
Copays and deductibles
Cost management programs
Member support
This flexibility gives employers more room to respond to their own plan performance rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach.
Self-funding does not guarantee lower healthcare costs, but it can create additional opportunities to manage spend.
With a fully insured plan, the employer pays a fixed premium regardless of actual claims activity during the month. With a self-funded plan, costs are more closely tied to actual claims.
If claims perform favorably, the employer may benefit from that experience instead of the carrier retaining the difference. Employers can also use plan data to identify cost drivers and evaluate strategies that may support potential savings over time.
Higher-than-expected claims can increase costs, which is why financial planning and stop-loss protection remain important parts of a self-funded strategy.
With a fully insured plan, the employer pays a set premium to an insurance carrier. The carrier assumes responsibility for covered claims based on the terms of the policy.
This structure can make healthcare expenses more predictable because the employer knows its premium cost during the plan year.
A fully insured plan may make sense for organizations that:
Prioritize predictable premium payments
Prefer to transfer most claims risk to the carrier
Are comfortable choosing from carrier-provided plan options
The tradeoff is that employers may have less flexibility in how the plan is designed and less access to detailed claims information.
Employees may never think about whether their plan is self-funded or fully insured. They are more concerned with how the plan works when they need care.
Either funding structure can support a positive member experience. Strong plan design, communication, administration, and service remain important regardless of how the plan is funded.
For self-funded employers, added flexibility may also create more opportunities to design benefits around the needs of their workforce.
Self-funding may be worth exploring for employers that want more control over their benefits strategy and greater insight into plan performance.
Before making the move, brokers and employers should consider:
Claims history
Financial readiness
Risk tolerance
Stop-loss options
Business and workforce needs
Available administrative support
Group size can be part of the discussion, but it should not be the only deciding factor.
For employers considering self-funding, the partners supporting the plan can make a significant difference.
A strong TPA helps manage claims administration and ongoing plan service while providing information that can help employers better understand plan performance. Brokers can help employers compare funding options and determine which structure aligns with their goals.
90 Degree Benefits partners with brokers and employers to deliver customized self-funded and level-funded health plan solutions backed by national expertise and local service.
Self-funding can give employers more control over how their healthcare dollars are spent and more flexibility to respond to the needs of their organization.
It is not the right structure for every employer, but for organizations with the right financial readiness and support, it can create meaningful opportunities to manage costs and take a more active approach to their benefits strategy.
Ready to speak with an expert about your benefits strategy?