I used to sit on the carrier side of this exact situation, and I saw it constantly. A fully insured group with excellent claims gets hit with a big renewal. The advice they get is to shop more fully insured plans and pick the cheapest one. They move, and a year or two later I would see them requesting a quote again, because the new carrier hit them with another increase their loss ratio never justified.
Here's the big issue with that. Fully insured renewals are heavily skewed by a large, generally unhealthy risk pool. If you are a small group (in Texas, generally 2 to 50 employees), you are ACA community-rated, so the carrier cannot price you on your health at all. Great if your group is sicker than average. Not so great if you are a healthy group subsidizing everyone else.
Once you are a large group, your claims start to count, but only partly. The carrier blends your experience with a manual rate, and on a 75 life group the manual rate still drives a big piece of the price no matter how healthy you were. And if claims come in under what the carrier priced, the carrier keeps the difference. As a former underwriter, I can tell you that margin is built in on purpose.
What nobody explains is that you can often keep the same carrier and the same plan, change how it is funded on the back end, and get rated on a more favorable formula, with the surplus from good claims coming back to you instead of the carrier. Is the answer always that simple? Definitely not. But you would be surprised how often it is.
Questions to ask
- If our claims came in under what we paid last year, who kept the difference?
- How much credibility did the carrier give our own claims experience?
- What would our last three years have cost under level funding or self-funding?