Skip to content
← CORRIDEN

Sample report · illustrative data · watermarked

Get a report — $49Download PDF
Sample Broker PartnersConfidential

Health plan funding analysis

Acme Manufacturing Co.

87 employees · 179 covered members · manufacturing · OH / IN / KY

Prepared by Sample Broker Partners · plan year effective 2026-10-01

Contents

§1Executive summary — the verdict
§2Group profile
§3Expected claims projection
§4Funding arrangement comparison
§5Monte Carlo risk analysis
§6Indifference analysis
§7Cash flow & maximum exposure
§8Multi-year view
§9Plan design what-ifs
§10Assumptions, sources & limitations

Date

2026-07-01

Report

CR-2607-014

Engine

v0.1.0

Seed

8151

Every number in this report is reproducible from the report ID, engine version, and seed above. Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Powered by Corriden · corriden.com

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§1 — Executive summary

The verdict

$214,148

expected annual savings vs. the renewal

87.5%

of simulated years beat the renewal

$2.18M

contractual worst case under the quoted stop-loss terms

Exhibit 1.1Expected annual cost by funding arrangement

Expected annual cost per arrangement; the full outcome distributions are in §5.

Staying fully insured costs $1.98M at the quoted renewal; self-funding the same plan design is expected to cost $1.77M, with 9 of 10 simulated years landing between $1.55M and $2.05M. The +14.8% renewal increase clears this group’s break-even threshold of +2.4% — and the risk-adjusted threshold of +7.8% at the selected P75 tolerance. Sections 2–10 show every factor behind those statements.

Bottom line: self-funding is expected to save $214K/yr versus the renewal, with a 1-in-8 chance of costing more than the renewal in any given year. Over 3 years, the probability self-funding comes out ahead is 84%. The contractual worst case under the quoted stop-loss terms is $2.18M (§7).
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 2 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§2 — Group profile

Who this analysis is about

The projection is built from this census — not from a book average.

Exhibit 2.1Enrollment by tier

TierEmployeesMembersCurrent / moRenewal / mo
Employee4141$960$1,102
Employee + Spouse1530$1,960$2,250
Employee + Children1234$1,780$2,043
Family1974$2,830$3,249

Totals: 87 employees · 179 covered members. Premiums are per-employee tier rates.

47%Employee17%+Spouse14%+Children22%Family

Exhibit 2.2Age & gender distribution, all covered members

Average employee age 42.3 · average member age 31.5 · demographic factor 1.08× vs. book 1.00×

Exhibit 2.3Geography

StateEmployees
Ohio61
Indiana14
Kentucky12

The group runs slightly older than book average — the 1.08× demographic factor in §3 reflects exactly this census, and nothing else. Geography enters through state-level area factors, weighted by the employee counts at left.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 3 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§3 — Expected claims projection

The buildup, shown in full

Carriers black-box this arithmetic. Every factor below is printed with its public data source.

Exhibit 3.1Manual rate buildup (per member per month)

StepFactorRunning PMPMSource
Base cost — reference PMPM$612.00DS-3, DS-5
Age / gender factor — Group skews slightly older than book average.× 1.08$660.96DS-4
Area factor — OH/IN/KY blend, weighted by employees.× 0.96$634.52DS-4
Plan design (actuarial value) — Richer than reference design ($1,500 embedded deductible, 80% coinsurance).× 1.06$672.59DS-1
Trend to plan-year midpoint× 1.065$716.31DS-7

Sources are itemized in the §10 registry. Factors shown at display precision; the chain multiplies at full precision.

Exhibit 3.2Credibility blend

24 months of the group's own claims experience, weighted by limited-fluctuation credibility.

ComponentPMPMWeight
Group experience rate (trended)$923.90Z = 0.264
Manual rate (Exhibit 3.1)$716.311 − Z = 0.736
Blended projection$771.11

Z = √(174 life-years ÷ 2500 full-credibility standard). The Z is shown, not hidden — check the work.

Expected incurred claims, plan year: $1,656,344 = $771.11 PMPM × 179 members × 12 months

Why both rates matter: with 24 months of experience on 87 employees, the group’s own history is informative but noisy — the blend leans 74% on the manual rate built from public reference data, exactly as the credibility standard dictates.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 4 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§4 — Funding arrangement comparison

What each arrangement actually costs

Fixed vs. variable split shown line by line. Stop-loss figures are the quotes you supplied — Corriden never prices stop-loss.

Exhibit 4.1Fully-insured (renewal)

Line itemTypeAnnual
Renewal premium — carrier renewal quote (sample)Fixed$1,982,148
Expected annual cost$1,982,148

Exhibit 4.2Level-funded

Line itemTypeAnnual
Maximum claims fundingVariable$1,378,000
AdministrationFixed$156,000
Stop-loss (bundled) — carrier-quoted, bundled (sample)Fixed$356,000
Expected annual cost$1,890,000

Surplus refund in a good year: up to ~$180K of unspent claims funding, per carrier terms.

Exhibit 4.3Self-funded

Line itemTypeAnnual
Expected claims, net of specific reimbursements — blended projection (§3)Variable$1,656,344
TPA / administration — $42.00 per employee per monthFixed$43,848
Specific stop-loss premium — user-entered quote (sample) · $61.00/EE/mo · $75K specific deductibleFixed$63,684
Aggregate stop-loss premium — user-entered quote (sample) · $3.95/EE/mo · 125% corridorFixed$4,124
Expected annual cost$1,768,000

In a P25 year the plan spends ~$113K less than expected; the group keeps it.

The structural difference: fully insured, every dollar is fixed and none comes back. Level-funded caps the year and refunds part of a good one. Self-funded pays actual claims — the group keeps every dollar not spent, and stop-loss (on the quoted terms above) caps the bad years. §5 quantifies how often each case occurs.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 5 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§5 — Monte Carlo risk analysis

How wide the outcomes really are

10,000 simulated plan years. The dashed line is the quoted renewal — every band is judged against it.

Exhibit 5.1Year-1 cost distribution by arrangement

Outer band P5–P95 · inner band P25–P75 · tick = median · dot = mean · red = P95→P99 tail.

Exhibit 5.2Percentile outcomes, year 1

ArrangementP5P25P50P75P95P99
Fully-insured$1.98M$1.98M$1.98M$1.98M$1.98M$1.98M
Level-funded$1.75M$1.87M$1.89M$1.89M$1.89M$1.89M
Self-funded$1.55M$1.66M$1.74M$1.86M$2.05M$2.18M

Fully-insured: Premium is fixed regardless of claims. Level-funded: Outcomes capped at the funded maximum; low percentiles reflect surplus refunds.

The fully-insured premium never moves. The level-funded band is one-sided — capped at the funded maximum, refunding good years. Self-funding carries the widest band, and still beats the quoted renewal in 87.5% of simulated years.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 6 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§5 — Monte Carlo risk analysis

The headline risk statistics

The question is not whether a bad year is possible — it is whether the worst case is affordable and how often the good case pays for it.

87.5%

of simulated years beat the renewal

$214,148

expected annual savings vs. renewal

$2.12M

CTE95 — average of the worst 5% of years

$2.18M

maximum plan exposure (agg + fixed)

Exhibit 5.3Reading the statistics

StatisticValueReading
Probability self-funding beats the renewal, year 187.5%≈ 7 years in 8
Expected annual savings vs. renewal$214,148the expected-value case for self-funding
CTE95 — average of the worst 5% of years$2,120,000what a genuinely bad year looks like
Maximum plan exposure (agg attachment + fixed)$2,182,086the contractual worst case — see §7

Exhibit 5.4Where the risk statistics sit on the year-1 outcome scale

Self-funded band P5–P95 (inner P25–P75) with the renewal, CTE95, and the contractual maximum marked.

renewal $1.98MCTE95max exposuremedian$1.6M$1.8M$2.0M$2.2M

How to read this page with a CFO: a bad year is always possible. What matters is that the worst case is a known, affordable number — and that the ordinary case pays for the risk many times over. Both numbers are on this page, and §7 shows the contract term that caps the downside.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 7 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§6 — Indifference analysis

Where self-funding breaks even for this group

Year-1 basis, derived from the §5 cost distribution. Current premium $1,726,680. Multi-year probabilities appear in §8.

Exhibit 6.1The indifference scale

At any renewal increase above +2.4%, self-funding has positive expected value for this group. At your selected risk tolerance — still breaking even at the P75 outcome — the threshold is +7.8%. The quoted renewal of +14.8% clears both.

The inverse is the negotiation weapon: a fully-insured premium at parity with expected self-funded cost — $1,768,000 — would make staying fully insured rational on expected value. Carriers sharpen pencils when they know the math is being checked.

The indifference point: renewal above +2.4% → self-funding is expected to cost less. Renewal above +7.8% → it still costs less at the P75 outcome, a 1-in-4 bad year. This renewal: +14.8%.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 8 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§7 — Cash flow & maximum exposure

What the months actually look like

Self-funded outlay varies month to month; the premium does not. Volatility is the price of keeping good-year dollars.

Exhibit 7.1Monthly outlay vs. the flat premium

Exhibit 7.2The corridor, and the contractual worst case

Aggregate stop-loss (quoted terms) attaches at 125% of expected claims.

The #1 employer fear, answered with a contract term: even if claims blow through every projection, the plan’s contractual maximum under the quoted stop-loss terms is $2.18M — about 10% above the renewal premium.

Caveat12/12 contract basis (stop-loss pays only claims incurred and paid inside the plan year): a terminal liability of ≈ $248K accrues and is payable at termination. Budget for it from month one.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 9 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§8 — Multi-year view

What self-funding saves — and could cost — over five years

Cumulative savings vs. staying fully insured. Above the line, self-funding is ahead; the red whisker is the honest downside. Medians shown; the expected (mean) year-1 saving is the $214K in §1.

Exhibit 8.1Cumulative savings ranges

Exhibit 8.2Probability self-funding is ahead, cumulative cost basis

HorizonPr(SF ≤ FI)SF medianFI cumulative
1 year87.5%$1.74M$1.98M
3 years84%$5.57M$6.34M
5 years82%$9.92M$11.29M

Fully-insured renewals are assumed to grow with trend; actual renewals depend on carrier behavior and the group's experience.

CaveatMulti-year projections hold the census constant and model no lasering (carrier-imposed higher specific deductibles on named individuals) at stop-loss renewal — both simplifications favor stability. Level-funded surplus refund terms can also change at renewal and are not guaranteed. Re-run the analysis at each renewal with the actual census and quotes.

Trend uncertainty persists across years — a high-trend world stays expensive in every year — so the probabilities above do not assume independence.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 10 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§9 — Plan design what-ifs

Three levers, quantified

Actuarial-value deltas from published continuance tables; impact shown per funding arrangement.

Exhibit 9.1The three levers

ScenarioDesign changeAV ΔSF annual ΔFI premium-equiv. Δ
Raise the deductible$1,500 → $3,000 embedded deductible-0.021−$46,000−$52,000
Move to an HSA design$3,000 HDHP with a $750 employer seed-0.008−$18,000−$21,000
Trim coinsurance80% → 70% coinsurance after deductible-0.013−$29,000−$33,000

Negative deltas reduce plan richness and cost; member cost-sharing rises correspondingly. Level-funded impacts depend on carrier re-rating and are quoted on request.

Exhibit 9.2Annual savings per lever

Paired bars: self-funded impact and the fully-insured premium-equivalent.

Raise the deductible−$46,000 self-funded−$52,000 premium-equivalentMove to an HSA design−$18,000 self-funded−$21,000 premium-equivalentTrim coinsurance−$29,000 self-funded−$33,000 premium-equivalent

Plan design and funding arrangement are separate decisions, and this page keeps them separate: each scenario shows what the design change alone is worth under self-funding and what it would be worth as a fully-insured premium concession. Either lever can be pulled independently.

Scenarios are computed against this group’s continuance profile, not book averages. Additional scenarios are available on request.

≈ $260K

first-year impact of stacking the deductible move with self-funding ($46K on top of the $214K funding change)

Every lever on this page saves money — shown in teal above. The design question is how much cost-sharing the workforce should carry; the funding question stands on its own either way.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 11 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§10 — Assumptions & methodology

How the numbers were made

The full methodology is published at corriden.com — confidence through transparency.

Exhibit 10.1Complete factor table

FactorValueRunning PMPMSource
Base cost — reference PMPM$612.00DS-3, DS-5
Age / gender factor× 1.08$660.96DS-4
Area factor× 0.96$634.52DS-4
Plan design (actuarial value)× 1.06$672.59DS-1
Trend to plan-year midpoint× 1.065$716.31DS-7

Credibility: Z = 0.264 on 174 life-years (full credibility at 2500). Blended PMPM $771.11.

Expected claims

Manual rate built from public reference data (base PMPM × demographic × area × plan-design × trend), blended with the group's own experience by limited-fluctuation credibility. Every factor appears in §3 with its source.

Simulation

Claims are simulated as member-level frequency and severity draws across 10,000 plan years, with specific and aggregate stop-loss applied on the user-supplied quoted terms. Percentiles are empirical.

Trend uncertainty

Trend is drawn once per trial and persists across years within that trial — multi-year outcomes are correlated, which is why certainty does not automatically improve with horizon.

Indifference analysis

i* (expected value) is the renewal increase at which expected self-funded cost equals the fully-insured premium; i* (at the selected percentile) applies the same test at the chosen risk tolerance. Both are read from the simulated distribution.

Reproducibility

Every figure is reproducible from (inputs, engine version, seed) printed on each page. The same inputs and seed always produce the same report.

Key assumptions: trend 6.5% annual; risk-tolerance percentile P75; aggregate corridor 125% (per quoted terms); 12/12 contract basis with completion factor 0.85; severity capped at $5M per claimant.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 12 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§10 — Assumptions & methodology

Data source registry

Every input traces to a named public source. Nothing in this report relies on proprietary black-box data.

Exhibit 10.2The registry

IDSourceUsed for
DS‑1CMS Actuarial Value Calculator (current final workbook + methodology)Continuance tables; actuarial-value and plan-design factors
DS‑2SOA Group Medical Insurance Large Claims Database; SOA high-cost claimant studiesLarge-claim tail calibration
DS‑3KFF Employer Health Benefits Survey (latest annual)Base PMPM calibration; market context
DS‑4MEPS-IC premium tables by state; MEPS-HC consolidated microdataArea factors; age/sex curve
DS‑5CMS National Health Expenditure, private insurance per-enrolleeBase PMPM cross-check
DS‑6SOA “Health Care Costs — From Birth to Death” (Yamamoto)Age-curve shape validation
DS‑7PwC HRI medical cost trend; Segal Health Plan Cost Trend Survey (latest)Trend assumption
DS‑8Federal ACA standard age rating curveAge-factor validation bracket
DS‑9Published medical claim lag / completion patterns (public actuarial literature)Completion factors; monthly claim pattern

Exhibit 10.3Disclosures

This report is decision-support analysis prepared for discussion between the plan sponsor and its advisors. It is not an actuarial opinion, not insurance advice, not legal or tax advice, and not an offer of insurance or a quote.

Stop-loss premiums, deductibles, and corridors used in this analysis are the quoted terms supplied by the user, reproduced as entered. Corriden does not produce stop-loss figures of any kind; actual coverage is governed solely by the carrier’s contract wording.

Projections are estimates with stated uncertainty. Actual claims experience will differ, and can differ materially, from any projection in this report. Decisions about plan funding remain with the plan sponsor and its advisors.

Census data underlying this analysis is de-identified: ages rather than birthdates, no names, no identifier-style fields. This sample report uses a synthetic census.

CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 13 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

Sample Broker PartnersAcme Manufacturing Co. · Funding analysis · Confidential

§10 — Assumptions & methodology

Limitations register

What this model deliberately does not capture. Printed in every Corriden report.

Exhibit 10.4Ten things this model does not do

  1. 01Member claims are modeled as independent; correlated events (e.g., family accidents, epidemics) are not simulated.
  2. 02No lasering is modeled; stop-loss carriers may exclude or re-rate individual members at renewal.
  3. 03The census is held constant across multi-year horizons; hiring, terminations, and demographic drift are not modeled.
  4. 04Individual (embedded) accumulators only; aggregate family deductible mechanics are approximated.
  5. 05Simulated severity is capped at $5M per claimant; larger claims are possible.
  6. 06Area factors are state-level; intra-state cost variation is not captured.
  7. 07When only tier counts are provided, dependents are synthesized from book demographics.
  8. 08Copay plan designs are mapped to effective deductible/coinsurance parameters.
  9. 09Trend uncertainty is parameterized, not forecast; actual trend will differ.
  10. 10Level-funded and self-funded contract terms vary by carrier; the quote's actual wording governs.
A model that hides its limitations is asking for trust; one that prints them is earning it. Where any limitation matters materially for this group, discuss it with your advisor before deciding.
CR-2607-014 · engine v0.1.0 · seed 8151Page 14 of 14

Illustrative projection for discussion purposes. Not an actuarial opinion, insurance advice, or a quote. Outputs depend on user inputs and publicly available data.

This is the report your CFO sees — with your logo on the cover.

Get a report — $49
Sample Report — Acme Manufacturing Co. · Corriden