A (Brief) VCIA Session Recap

I had the pleasure of speaking at Vermont Captive Insurance Association (VCIA) Annual Conference last week, joined by two colleagues with impressive backgrounds. Jeff Caudill, Director of Risk Management at Haskell and a client of Spring’s, and Mary Ellen Moriarty, Vice President, Property & Casualty at College Insurance Company (EIIA) joined me to discuss different ways that captives can be used to tackle the hard market hurdles we’re currently facing in the insurance industry.

With myself as the moderator and consulting actuary, Jeff representing a brand new single parent captive, and Mary Ellen representing a veteran captive, it was a well-rounded panel that pulled in multiple perspectives.

The Clouds Behind the Hard Market

 

This visual does a great job at illustrating the many challenging atmospheric effects in the insurance air right now, particularly on the property & casualty (P&C) side of the fence (no pun intended). With Mary Ellen representing the higher education space, we felt it important to highlight unique risks that colleges and universities are grappling with, in addition to the other complicating factors (or clouds) we see here.

In my work I’ve seen that this climate has resulted in increased carrier profitability for certain lines over the last couple of years, such as auto liability, but decreased carrier profitability in others (such as cyber and commercial property).

In higher education, Mary Ellen explained there have been hard market consequences due to underwriter inability to achieve profitability, and as noted in the visual, they are dealing with risks many organizations don’t need to think about, like traumatic brain injuries, the general public accessing the property, and a different kind of medical malpractice. As a result, there are a limited number of carriers willing to provide coverage in this space. As a nod to captive advantages, EIIA was able to grow surplus from their captive prior to the hard market, from 2002 to 2022, which has been extremely helpful in this “stormy environment.”

This success story led us to a discussion around the business case for captives, a snapshot of which you can see here in this video.

Jeff then gave a bit of a play-by-play regarding the process, implementation, timelines and driving forces behind Haskell’s decision to switch from a group captive to a single parent captive (a synopsis of which you can find in this case study).

Looking Ahead

Both Jeff and Mary Ellen described some next steps for their captives, which may include writing in:

Food For Thought

Like most good things in life, you kind of had to be there to get the full experience and maximize your take-aways. So I don’t want to give it all away, but I will leave you with some food for thought that came out of the Q&A for the session. If you want to know the answers, please get in touch!

And last but perhaps most importantly:

As you can see, we can have some fun in the captive world, and much of it was had at VCIA! Before you leave, check out our captive business case video here, inspired by this presentation.

We are all feeling the impacts of inflation, and as the word “recession” continues to be a popular one among political, economic and social conversations, we thought we would sit down with our captive insurance experts (Karin Landry, Prabal Lakhanpal and Peter Johnson) to get their two cents on how a possible recession or economic downturn interplays with risk and financial management tactics, with a focus on captives. Here’s what they had to say.

1. What are some possible impacts of a recession on captive insurance companies?

Peter: Changes in risk profiles driven by economic changes (examples include commercial auto frequency moved down then up, cyber ransomware on the rise, healthcare workers’ compensation programs utilized, excess liability/umbrella rates increased substantially, etc.). This also impacted the commercial market and captives often stepped in to fill the gap.

Prabal: Changes in exposure units: a recession may lead to reduction in workforce and therefore a change in insurance spend. On the employee benefits side, during times of uncertainty we typically see an increase in disability claims as well as a spike in usage of health insurance. When taken together with the change in exposure units, benefits programs may see a reduction in performance.

Karin: A continued increase in captive interest. Clients are looking at different ways to save money during a recession. For those organizations that already have captives, risk managers will need to prove the value of the captive, as typically there are a lot of dollars funding reserves that management wants access to in order to improve cash flow during a period like a recession.

2. Are there steps captive owners can take to safeguard their captive against a recession? If so, at what point should they implement them?

Peter: We recommend having service provider and reinsurer relationships in place to be enable the ability to make quick changes and file a captive business plan change to adapt according to the market.

Prabal: For existing captives, we advise undertaking a captive optimization or “refeasibility study” every few years, and this will be especially important if we enter a recession. This process assesses captive performance against original goals, aims to realign the captive according to changes in corporate objectives or priorities, evaluates impacts from recent regulatory changes and/or market trends, considers additional lines, analyzes the domicile, and so forth. Captive optimization helps organizations understand the vulnerabilities of your captive and help you shore them up.

Further, have your actuaries undertake stress testing of the captive to ensure financial stability and consider getting rates as a captive, where appropriate. Then, implement a dividend return policy, which ensures that in the time of need, there is a clear outline of how the parent organization can access any surplus in the captive. Be careful here as you don’t want the parent entity drawing down the surplus so much that the captive loses financial strength.

Karin: Risk managers should determine whether or not their captives are optimally funded. They should calculate the value of the captive to the organization before it becomes a management issue. They should explore other lines of coverage to determine whether or not it will save money, improve investment income, and/or increase cash flow for the organization going forward.

3. How would a recession affect underwriting?

Prabal: Insurance companies have two main revenue streams: 1) underwriting income and 2) investment income. In a recession environment, investment income becomes less likely or harder to come by. Therefore, underwriters are laser-focused on ensuring underwriting income, resulting in tighter underwriting standards. For example:

Peter: Carriers often tighten underwriting standards and may refuse to underwrite certain risks and/or business types all together. We’ve seen this for certain casualty lines like cyber, GL, and excess liability. Carriers may also be forced to remove manual rate discounts and/or increase rates all together while narrowing coverage at the same time.  

Karin: Because underwriting practices may tighten, risk managers must understand their organization’s risks better than the marketplace.  You could find that your experience is better than the book of business at the carrier level. If this is the case, a captive may make sense.

4. What about reserving?

Peter: To the extent a carrier’s or a captive insurer’s reserves are in a strong position due to favorable experience, reserve releases can be expected and may offset some of the poor 2022 investment experience we’ve experienced. The opposite also holds for exposures with loss trend on the rise that are driving up overall loss costs.

Prabal: Actuarial stress testing of the captive also comes into play here to ensure stability and dividend return strategy so that there is a consistent approach.

Karin: For captives that book discounted reserves, changes in the discount rates will affect the level of reserves captives carry. For those lines of coverage that are sensitive to recessions like workers’ comp and disability, the impact of negative experience should be factored into the reserving process.

5. Could the economic environment cause changes in captive methodology or the lines placed within a captive?

Peter: We’ve seen captive owners become more interested in captive utilization particularly when they feel like carrier coverage and pricing is unjustified based on their own loss experience.

Prabal: Captive optimization helps with optimal capital utilization. In a recession where capital is scarce, companies benefit from being efficient with how they use it.  

6. What sort of pressures might captives face during a recession in terms of loan backs or dividends to the parents, or any impacts on capitalization?

Peter: We’ve certainly seen dividend policies put into place for certain clients that have been hit harder during the recession than others. Some have looked to access their captive capital that was built up to significant levels over the years.

Karin: As noted earlier, management may see the reserves of the captives as a pot of money to access; proving the value of the captive negates that issue.

7. The Great Recession around 2008 caused a stall in captive formations. Do we think that could happen again?

Peter: It seems fairly unlikely to have a similar scenario to 2008 since a portion of the collapse was driven by extremely poor mortgage underwriting standards in place. But anything is possible.

Prabal: Further, unlike in 2008, the commercial markets are still in a hard market cycle. This will likely be accentuated in a recession and therefore yield an increase in captive formations.

Karin: Because capital is scarce during a recession, this may spur the use of cell captive programs as opposed to pure captives to meet the needs that risk managers have to control costs and minimize price increases.

8. Anything else related to economic volatility that captive owners and risk managers should keep in mind?

Prabal: One thing would be the potential to free up captive capital by using loss portfolio transfers. The current interest rate environment is likely to create a preferential market for these opportunities.

Karin: Organizations’ hurdle rate might change as a result of the recession. This would necessitate looking at the opportunity costs associated with captives and their reserving process. Additionally, organizations should evaluate their insurance partners to make sure they are sound as they will be grappling with some of the same recession issues noted here. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the insurers experienced difficulties and either left the marketplace, contracted and changed the coverage levels that they offer, and/or focused in on certain risks while excluding other risks from their policies in accordance with market shifts.

A critical starting point in setting up a captive is the captive feasibility study. Captive feasibility studies come in many forms, and there are no industry standard report formats. As a result, many captive owners do not know what to expect as a final deliverable, and we see many feasibility reports that are severely lacking.

The feasibility study forms the cornerstone for the establishment of a captive and is usually one of the first documents that would be requested for in the event of an audit by the IRS.

Every captive actuarial study should include both qualitative and quantitative aspects. Not only should it clearly map out expected financial results, but it should also highlight important insurance considerations that ensure an appropriate and compliant captive structure.

To help provide a framework, here are five key questions that captive owners should be able to answer based on their captive feasibility study.

1. Do you have appropriate data?

As part of the captive feasibility study process, captive owners should work closely with their current insurance carriers to gather as much high-quality data as possible. The study should reflect at least the following for all proposed lines of coverage:

This data will be used to develop future loss estimates once the coverage is placed in the captive. All of it should be readily available, and organizations should be reviewing this data regularly, regardless of whether it is undertaking a captive feasibility study. 

2. Has an actuary reviewed your loss experience?

Once you’ve gathered the necessary experience data, it is important that an experienced actuary review it. All experience reports are different in layout and content, and an actuary will know best how to interpret the data, develop the best estimate of future losses, and ask the right questions of the carrier.  A captive feasibility study should always include a robust actuarial analysis.

A good actuary will ensure that plan changes, rate changes, and overall population changes have been properly reflected in the experience report.  If they aren’t, the actuary can make the necessary adjustments.

The actuary should also review the claim reserves that the carrier is reporting.  In our experience, carriers typically overstate reserves due to conservative assumptions, inflating the loss ratio. A good actuary will independently calculate reserves to compute a more accurate estimate of historical loss ratios and future losses.

3. Do you have a clear sense for the expected administrative expenses – at the start of the program and ongoing?

Administrative expenses related to operating an employee benefits captive include actuarial, captive management, legal, audit, letter of credit (if used for collateral), carrier fronting fees, premium taxes, captive domicile fees, taxes, and state procurement taxes (if domiciled outside of home state).

These fees play a large role in determining whether the captive will be profitable at fully-insured market rates.  If your captive charges rates higher than market rates to turn a profit, then the fees are too high. Carrier fronting fees are typically the largest expense and the most important to get right. Captive owners need to understand how these fees were determined in the captive feasibility study and if they are market competitive and realistic.

We always recommend that a company placing employee benefits in their captive conduct an RFP process to select vendors, and that includes competitive fee arrangements.

4. Is the party that conducted your feasibility study independent, or could there be a conflict of interest?

We have seen many captive feasibility studies completed by non-qualified entities or by organizations that have a vested interest. For instance, many insurance brokers will conduct a high-level analysis to conclude a captive program is not feasible. It is essential to understand the interests of all stakeholders and to work with organizations that have the appropriate credentials to help you make an informed decision.

Find an independent party who can provide an objective, transparent, and unbiased recommendation.

5. Will the coverage qualify as insurance?

Every captive feasibility study must comment in detail on the qualitative aspects of captive insurance including what it means to qualify as insurance. This is an important consideration from a captive owner’s perspective and must be fully understood. There are many case laws that have commented on the lack of understanding of insurance company operations.

For instance, an important aspect of any insurance transaction is that it must achieve risk transfer and risk distribution. There are a few industry-accepted risk transfer tests that will demonstrate that the coverage adequately transfers risk from the insured to the captive.  The “10-10 Test” is the most common, determining whether there is a 10% chance of a 10% loss.  Alternatively, there is the Expected Reinsurance Deficit (ERD) Test where the threshold is an ERD ratio of at least 1%.

Risk distribution requires that the captive distribute its risk among several insureds.  Typical risk distribution tests are meant to ensure that no more than 30%-50% of the risk is from the same insured, and if the captive is a brother-sister insurance company, there must be at least 12 participating entities, each having no more than 15% of the risk.

We also recommend the Coefficient of Variation test to better understand the impact of the law of large numbers.  As the number of independent exposures increases the less volatile actual loss experience will become and therefore more predictable.

Employee benefits or not, all captive feasibility studies should address whether there will be adequate risk transfer and risk distribution.

To summarize, a captive feasibility study is one of the most salient parts of placing employee benefits in a captive.  Captive owners should aim for feasibility or refeasibility studies that are transparent, objective, highly robust, and consider all aspects of the captive transactions.

In April of 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that inflation hit a staggering 8.5%. If current projections hold true, this year will have the highest inflation rate since 1981. COVID-19, supply chain problems, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, housing price increases, and more predictable market cycles are some of the driving forces behind such high inflation. In our line of work – insurance, risk management, and employee benefits – macroeconomic factors like these are seen in the challenges our clients face and the solutions they prioritize. To complicate things, the property and casualty realm is also subject to things like natural disasters, climate risk, changes in societal litigiousness, and ransomware/cyber risk. That said, we sat down with Peter Johnson, Spring’s Chief Property & Casualty Actuary, to discuss how this challenging environment interplays with his work in the captive insurance space.

Q: Is inflation having an impact on underwriting and pricing?


A: This is case-by-case between captives but as an overall average, yes. A captive in a strong surplus position and favorable historical loss experience will still be able to provide favorable pricing even when the industry is seeing high loss trend and rate increases. Higher frequency and/or severity trends are certainly still impacting pricing needs for certain lines, such as cyber and excess liability where experience isn’t frequent in nature and the credibility of a single company’s experience is low. Specifically for cyber, ransomware loss costs have grown exponentially over the last 3 years and rate increases are being observed by both commercial carriers and captives. Further for both cyber and excess liability where commercial market pricing issues exist capacity has also shrunk and captive are being looked to, to fill the gap.

Q: Is inflation currently impacting reserving and if not, do you think it will in the future?


A: In general, yes, for many casualty lines where loss trends are high or increasing, but this is also a case-by-case basis since captives with good data credibility and stable historical loss experience can respond to their actual loss development and may not have a need for much, if any, reserve increases due to inflation. Cyber liability, commercial auto liability and excess liability are three lines in the industry with increasing severity trends and captive reserving practices often consider industry trends when company experience isn’t fully credible by itself, so I would expect some reserve strengthening for these lines due to trend assumption increases. Supply chain issues have been an obvious issue in the used car market and depending on a captive’s auto exposure and experience, there may be both increasing auto rate levels and reserve levels for the captive.

Q: Some analysts have suggested that while commercial market insurers are concerned about inflation, the impact might be offset to some extent by the benefit of higher interest rates in their investment portfolios. Would you expect captives to realize a similar investment benefit? Would you expect it to be significant?


A: To the extent a captive’s investment portfolio is invested in higher yielding fixed income, securities or other investments that are inflation sensitive then yes, there would be some offset.

Q: Are there specific coverage lines in captives that will be more affected by inflation than others?


A: Cyber, excess liability/umbrella and auto liability have seen higher trends than workers’ comp. Geography is an important factor as well since certain areas have seen noticeably higher/lower trends than the industry average. For example, medical professional liability severity trends have increased, but this varies significantly by region. Some states are seeing double digit severity trends and rate increases while others are experiencing very modest increases. Difference in litigiousness and jury awards drive much of these state-by-state differences. Property is certainly impacted by inflation with increases in cost to build, but natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, wildfire and wind/hail have typically had more of an impact and to compound things the current supply chain and inflation issues immediately after a disaster can lead to even costlier natural disasters. According to NOAA National Center for Environmental Information 2021 came is second all-time with 2020 coming in first as far as the total number and total cost of these disasters.

Q: Would you anticipate any changes in captive strategies in response to inflation?


A: For captives with active investment advisors, I’d expect a response on the investment side depending on their current investment profile and the surplus and loss reserve position of the captive. There certainly could be a variety of responses on the insurance risk side, particularly if inflation is driving up claim severity and significantly changing the risk profile of a captive. Capitalization, limits, retentions, reinsurance, and pricing are all potentially impacted and would need to be considered.

Q: Is there any advice you’d offer captive owners regarding inflation strategy?


A: In general, it is important to sensitivity test your proforma projections every few years based on practical adverse loss outcomes and investment income scenarios. These financial projections can consider higher than anticipated inflation trends over a multi-year projection horizon. This will help determine appropriate captive capitalization levels, reinsurance, pricing, and risk margin to protect against possible adverse events.

Q: Any final thoughts on the subject?


A: Firstly, large jury awards remain top of mind for many company executives and boards. Although the impact on industry combined ratios is less obvious based on what I’ve seen, this continues to be a big concern and is part of the driving force behind pricing increases in the commercial market for certain liability lines.
Secondly, as carrier capacity presumably decreases and underwriting profit margins increase for certain carrier lines where rate level increases outpace loss trend, captives will continue to be utilized to insure more risk and recoup underwriting and investment income related profits otherwise going to commercial carriers.
There you have it. While there are many negatives that sprout from inflation, one positive is that it allows captives to continue to elevate their status as a strategic risk management and financial tactic for organizations of all kinds, and help companies better face the difficult economic climate.

In the United States, over 155 million people received medical and health-related benefits through some form of employer-sponsored program in 2021, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. As healthcare costs continue to increase year over year, it should not come as a surprise to learn that after compensation-related expenses, healthcare costs are usually the second highest expense for most employers.


Employers are beginning to ask important questions about the future of their health care offerings and turning over every stone in an effort to control these ever-increasing costs. For employers that are currently leveraging fully insured plans, a prime opportunity to lower the total cost of healthcare exists through self-funding. By transitioning to a self-funded program, employers can achieve savings of anywhere from 5% to 15% depending on their program design and cost structure.


Self-insurance has become the most prevalent way to fund for healthcare benefits. Of those employers offering employer-sponsored programs, 67% choose to do so through a self-funded program. [1]

What is Self-Insurance?


Self-insurance, also known as self-funding, is a strategy used by employers to gain control over healthcare costs. In addition to control, the significant savings achieved through self-insuring is exactly why so many are considering a transition, as a viable alternative to manage and lower costs.


Self-insurance is the process of unbundling a fully insured plan, where employers use a third-party administrator to operate the plan from a benefits and claims processing perspective. This ensures that employees are not impacted by the change. The most significant difference pertains to how the program is funded; instead of paying a fixed premium amount, employers take a portion of the financial risk associated with the claims of the program, in exchange for lower overall costs.


The incentive for incurring this additional risk directly relates to the hefty charge carriers typically add on to their fully insured premiums. By taking on this extra risk, employers strip away these insurance carrier profits and are able to reduce their healthcare spending. To protect against the catastrophic losses that may occur due to higher-than-expected claims frequency or severity, employers typically take advantage of medical stop-loss coverage.


Groups looking to move to self-insurance should focus on understanding the financial and qualitative impact of this move. For this reason, we usually recommend groups that are larger (over 100 enrolled lives) to contemplate this strategy. The reason for this threshold is that most states regulations allow companies with over 100 enrolled employees (50 enrolled employees in some states) can request the insurance carriers for their historic claims information. This can then be reviewed by actuaries to help understand and outline the financial implications of potentially taking on some of the risk associated with moving to self-insurance.

Managing Risk – Stop Loss Insurance


The largest concern when considering a self-funded program relates to the risk of the program being impacted by unexpectedly high claims – be it due to the volume of claims or due to the exposure to a handful of large loss claims. One very sick individual or a series of unanticipated smaller claims could lead to a higher-than-expected claims level in a self-insured plan. Stop-loss insurance minimizes or eliminates this risk as well as dramatic fluctuations in claim costs over time, creating a level of predictability.


Aggregate Stop-Loss

Provides employer protection for the risk of catastrophic loss by providing insurance coverage for total group claims over a certain dollar amount. Stop-loss carriers issue policies that pay when the aggregate claims amount exceed a pre-determined percentage of expected claims levels. Aggregate stop loss is usually expressed as percentage of expected claims like 125%.


Specific Stop-Loss

Provides employer protection for individual catastrophic claims. Similar to aggregate stop-loss, financial protection is provided when the claim exceeds the pre-determined deductible or attachment point. Specific stop loss is usually expressed as a deductible amount like $25,000 per individual. For both specific and aggregate stop-loss, all claims exceeding the attachment point are covered by the stop-loss carrier and not the responsibility of the employer.

Benefits


Additional benefits to self-funding include design flexibility, cost transparency, and increased savings. Further, increased insight into the actual cost of care, administrative costs, and any loaded fees or additional expenses to the plan allow for more informed decision making.


Full Transparency & Increased Access to Data


Many fully insured employers don’t understand the true cost of their program or areas of claims concentration, or using a broker or advisor, as commissions are often loaded into premium rates. Additionally, obtaining claim information in a fully insured environment is challenging. Increased transparency and data with self-funding allows employers to analyze cost drivers and implement targeted programs to lower utilization costs, while increasing employee health and satisfaction. In a self-insured plan this information is easily available on a timely basis, thereby allowing employers to better understand their programs and make changes to cater to their unique demographic of employees before their next renewal.

Program & Design Flexibility


Every state has a unique list of mandated coverages that can add significant costs for both employers and their employees. Because self-insured plans are governed by ERISA and generally pre-empt state law, employers avoid these additional costs by allowing them to design plans that meet both employer and employee needs, increasing satisfaction for all stakeholders.

Financial Control


Better-than-expected claims in one year can offset next year’s expenses or reduce program contribution levels. In addition, employers may choose to purchase medical stop-loss insurance or a level funding arrangement to provide additional security and create consistency from a cash flow perspective.


Cost Savings


Typically, premiums paid in fully insured programs include loaded fees and industry loss trends. In a self-funded program, employers not only minimize or avoid paying these additional charges, but their costs are directly correlated to their specific experience, and not that of their peers. Tools such as consumer-directed health care, price transparency tools, specialty networks, value-based plan designs, and wellness programs all can be built seamlessly into a self-funded plan and help drive down utilization costs and the total cost of healthcare.

Want to learn more?


Self-insurance remains a powerful tool in an HR team’s arsenal to control and potentially reduce the burgeoning healthcare costs, as well as provide benefits that are targeted to their population. Employers who make the change can reap immediate advantages and avoid, or at least slow down, inevitable cost increases. Our client, edHEALTH, is a prime example of self-insurance done right, where their members were able to gain savings, offer enhanced coverage, and take a more targeted approach to employee benefits. Our Consulting Team is made up of highly trained risk funding professionals with years of experience. We help employers navigate the self-funding waters and to develop the best funding strategy to meet their individual needs.

1. 2021 Employer Health Benefits Survey. kff.org. https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2021-section-1-cost-of-health-insurance/.

Our Chief Property & Casualty Actuary, Peter Johnson, is breaking down the most pressing topics in the captive insurance industry. Stay in the loop here.

A recap of a presentation by Peter Johnson of Spring, Deyna Feng of Cummins, and Melissa Updike of KMRRG at the VCIA 2021 annual conference.

Black Swan Events and Market Capacity


Over the last year and a half, the world as we know it has been flipped on its head. Not only did everyone’s day-to-day processes change completely, but the COVID-19 pandemic also stressed the insurance system significantly and resulted in a number of changes across various lines. “Black Swan” events are those that are unexpected, severe and affect a large number of companies and individuals which is exactly what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic. While the healthcare industry faced increasing premiums and alterations to mental health coverage, the property-casualty (P&C) market also was affected in an unpredictable way.


Rewinding back to prior to March 2020, the P&C market was experiencing an all-time high surplus, and was in a 10-year trend of suppressed rates. Therefore, when the “Black Swan” event of a pandemic hit, insurance companies were forced to significantly reduce capacity to mitigate social inflation and high-cost claim issues. In some cases this drop down insured limits by 75 percent or more of their prior year policy limits. This was evident particularly for cyber liability and umbrella coverage. Additionally, rates across lines were seeing double and triple previous years’ numbers.


On the other hand, some P&C lines actually saw improvement in their combined ratio during 2020. This means that where some lines saw increases in cost, other lines saw a drop in utilization, which “evened out” the overall market. This improvement can be seen in commercial and personal lines auto lines over the last year. The auto industry saw a dramatic downturn in utilization due to reoccurring “Stay at Home” executive orders hindering travel as well as other related changes to the industry.
Needless to say, this all yielded a difficult environment for employees and employers. In order to appropriately mitigate these new or changed risks, companies have been turning to policy exclusions as well as captive financing to better protect themselves and their employees from high-cost claims.

Policy Exclusions and How They Impact Your Business


During the pandemic, no insurance company or insured was truly prepared for the changes that were to come, and many insureds were faced with unexpected coverage exclusions and were left with potentially catastrophic payments. Some examples of policy exclusions include pandemic situations, interrupted business, long-term care, and others. However, employers who had a captive insurance company set up were sometimes safeguarded from policy exclusions, and companies without a captive increasingly flocked to establish one.


To illustrate the advantages, one captive held their policy exclusions to the standard of COVID-19 claims and were able to mitigate those costs through their reinsurance retention. As another example, the Kentuckiana Medical Reciprocal Risk Retention Group (KMRRG), a captive, was able to flip their exclusion around long-term care, a move which, although it was only a small component of their business, significantly minimized costly losses. The framing of this exclusion allows employers to wrap reinsurance around this risk, specifically if they utilize a captive funding vehicle.


Captives offer more flexibility around policy language and terms, which can be adjusted according to the specific risks of the parent company. It is generally the responsibility of the brokers to let their insureds know which reinsurance renewals were at risk during the pandemic. Most commonly these lines were workers compensation, healthcare programs, and other P&C lines, which can be written into a captive or an RRG solution. Note RRG’s cannot write workers’ comp and can only insure liability lines.

Maximizing Captive/RRG Solutions


Captive insurance is not a new concept; however, it is often overlooked as a method for employers to protect themselves against risk. Captives not only better reflect underwriting records but also allow insureds to recoup investment incomes that would normally have been lost to insurance companies.


Captives support the parent company’s risk management overall and provide financial protection and long-term savings, both necessary for any business in ordinary and extraordinary times. Generally, our team sees that, for every $1 of premium that a client converts from a commercial reinsurer to a captive, 10 percent to 40 percent of long-term savings in the form of investment income and underwriting profits are yielded.

A captive can step in to help when commercial market rates are unreasonable, such as the 200 percent to 300 percent rate increases, we have seen recently, which of course are impossible for CFOs to plan for. This happened with many insureds’ umbrella coverage. Many companies over the last 20 months were forced to significantly lower their limits and increase their retention levels simultaneously. With changing premiums (mainly increasing) on top of this reduced market capacity, more and more often companies are utilizing captives to get control over these types of high costs and expand coverage.

Additional benefits of a captive or RRG solution include transparency and improved claims management. For example, if COVID-19 claims do develop, with a captive you can react with a very specific claims management strategy instead of relying on a commercial carrier to do so. This allows you to hand select your partners such as attorneys and other advisors. You can also be sure that your discovery responses are consistent. Additionally, group aggregates have hardened even more in the market which has forced captive managers to become more creative than before. An illustration of that creativity can be seen in the example below.

Hospital Professional Liability in a Captive: Many entities were trying to get their mitigation placed, and by increasing primary levels they were able to provide some protection and increase their claims control.

Bracing for the Future

In order to be properly prepared for the next “Black Swan” event, employers and employees should consider the major lessons learned from the past year:

Risk Diversification

This is not unique to a pandemic situation. When leveraging a captive, it is imperative to have a wide range of exposures. Our actuaries know that, in line with the law of large numbers, the more risks and more exposures, adverse financial outcomes become less likely and more manageable. Considering the correlation between the risks is equally critical as one risk could lead to a domino effect of triggering another high-cost risk. A general rule of thumb for captives is adding low correlating risk to a captive will lead to more stable year-to-year financial results.

Speed to Market

What is your process to quickly adapt to changing market conditions?

Analyze Current Structure

Can you withstand another “black swan” event? What are the coverage improvements that can be made internally?

Financials

What is your cots of risk and risk tolerance? Do you need an improved insurance/reinsurance strategy?

Supply Chain

Has an appropriate strategy been considered?

Other

Do you have uninsured/underinsured risks? Is there sufficient market capacity for your exposure?

If there is a positive we can take from COVID-19, it should be that we learned important lessons and won’t be as blind sighted in the future. Looking ahead, companies should ascertain whether they have the right tools in place to better manage risk and financial losses. In addition to the risk structures and their advantages outlined above, considering cross exposures and diversified risks is the best and easiest way for companies to protect themselves and their employees in the event of another “Black Swan” event. Lastly, having an aggregate view of risks across the organization often leads to creating the most efficient and cost effective risk funding programs.

As seen in the Captive Review Group Captive Report, September 2021.

With the rapid spread of the Delta variant, the Covid-19 pandemic continues to leave employers with a series of unpredictable risks directly related to the pandemic. Among these risks is the potential higher cost of healthcare benefits offered to employees, a factor which must be built into any long-term risk management or cost-containment strategy. Covid-19’s impact on healthcare costs Based on tracking data across multiple employers, the future impact of Covid-19 on high cost claims will directly impact health insurance. Key factors include:

Direct costs related to Covid-19

Costs associated with testing, treatment and vaccines remain a primary source of plan costs. The most direct impact on captives is the high cost treatment tied to severe hospitalizations, particularly due to potent strains of Covid-19 like the Delta variant. There may also be ongoing health needs for members who recover from Covid-19 or are long-haulers.


Deferral of care

Plan members have chosen to defer elective treatments. While some of this care was eventually incurred over the course of the last year, many plan members continue to hold back on care, whether because of discomfort in a hospital setting or difficulty in finding care due to bandwidth issues. This influences future costs, particularly with unpredictable costly surgeries.

Missed preventative care

Client data across industries also showed a significant reduction in preventative care visits, and lower test numbers in areas such as labs, CT scans and MRIs. As a result, many employers are concerned because if certain health issues are not identified and treated early, the severity of the case and corresponding cost of care may be higher down the road.


Behavioral health

Covid-19 propelled behavioral health issues into crisis levels. While it may seem indirectly related to broader healthcare, consider this: the national Alliance on Mental Illness reports that cardiometabolic disease rates are twice as high in adults with serious mental illness, and that depression and anxiety disorders cost the global economy $1 trillion annually in lost productivity. We are sure to see the repercussions of this in claims costs to come.

Health insurer risk premium margins built into insurance pricing have been increasing in light of all this uncertainty, as well as broader trends such increased prevalence of high cost specialty drugs and increasing hospital costs. In fact, the most prevalent specialty medications are increasing in price at 10%-15% annually, further contributing to unpredictability of future claims.


Employer Considerations


During the pandemic, employers have needed to confront their organizational philosophy on the employee value proposition and balancing the investment in employee benefits with the impact on the company’s stakeholders. The impact of Covid-19 has made employers more acutely aware of the need for sufficient healthcare coverage for employees and their families.


In order to provide attractive benefits in an environment of rising costs and volatility, employers must rethink the programs they offer and how they are funded. Many organizations have also revisited benefit program governance structures, how decisions are made, and how programs are monitored.


Perhaps your remote workforce has different needs than they did in 2019, or the pandemic has triggered new problem areas that can be addressed through wellness solutions or advocacy tools.


No matter your path, employers seeking to ensure that they offer comprehensive healthcare benefits to employees at an affordable cost need to consider the financial management benefit of potential long-term cost savings and mitigation of volatility associated with captive structures.


Captive Arrangements for Employee Benefits


As employers look at the impact of the pandemic, organizational planning requires balancing the increasing cost of healthcare with the risk associated with solutions that reduce the total cost of the program. At its simplest form, health insurance can be expensive if a fully insured program is purchased, as organizations pay a risk margin, often 20% to 40%, for transfer of the risk to an insurer. Small to mid-sized organizations typically mitigate this cost by self-insuring a portion of their healthcare risk with medical stop-loss to cover higher cost claims. However, the higher risk premiums required by health insurance, including stop-loss insurance, lead to steep healthcare plan costs and/or, in some cases, being forced to take on higher-than-optimal risk.


A captive arrangement is a strategic way for employers to benefit from self-insurance while creating a sustainable solution to partner with commercial markets. Captives provide substantial competitive advantages over traditional self-insurance, such as:


Reduced total cost of insurance

Insurance carriers develop premiums by heavily weighing on industry averages, state rates and, to some degree, on an employer’s individual loss experience. This may lead to pricing that may not accurately reflect an organization’s actual loss experience. Insurance carriers usually price to include substantial overheads, including risk and profit margins. A captive provides employers an opportunity to recapture premiums from the commercial market and build a sustainable long-term model for their insurance needs.


Insulation from market fluctuations

Conventional commercial insurance is vulnerable to market fluctuations. This has never been more evident than today, with hard insurance markets and premiums that are increasing substantially with almost no change in coverage level. As a member in a captive program, employers are less susceptible to unpredictable rising costs imposed by conventional insurers every renewal season, as a balanced funding approach can smooth the cyclical volatility of the commercial insurance markets.


Protection from cashflow volatility

Leveraging a captive to fund medical stop loss can lower the cashflow volatility often faced by self-insured programs on a monthly basis. Having a captive cover claims at a substantially lower stop-loss level allows employers to smooth out plan funding and mitigate cashflow risk to the company.

For employers that may not have their own captive or the resources to form one, there are a variety of group captive solutions in the medical stop-loss space. These solutions are turnkey in nature and simple to implement. Most well-structured group captive programs aim for a seamless transition for employers where there is almost no disruption. In other words, from an employee’s perspective, the claims process is entirely the same. With group captives in particular, all the mechanical aspects are handled by the group captive management team, with minimal effort required for an employer.


There are several group captive arrangements that employers can tap into. In selecting the most appropriate arrangement, you need to consider factors such as the upfront cost of the program, the extent to which customization will be available, the flexibility you will have for your organization within the group captive model, and how renewals will work.


Looking Beyond the Pandemic


As we look forward beyond the pandemic, employers should consider ongoing healthcare program effectiveness. Healthcare costs will continue to increase and become a larger portion of organizational budgets, but it is not too late to start leveraging innovative solutions to mitigate these costs. You can proactively adjust your tactics today and be better prepared for tomorrow, and with a captive you are truly in the driver’s seat.

Check out Captive.com’s writeup of a panel Spring’s Peter Johnson moderated at the Vermont Captive Insurance Association (VCIA) 2021 Annual Conference.