BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe



Pooling design aims to cut stop-loss costs

Captive owners changing collateral arrangements: Survey

Captives cover array of risk

Record number attend CICA

Pooling design aims to cut stop-loss costs

Setup helps groups leverage buying clout, eliminate fronts

by Dave Lenckus

Published March 26, 2007

TUCSON, Ariz.—Health plan sponsors that are having problems finding affordable medical stop-loss insurance should pool their plan funding and reinsurance risks through a newly designed arrangement that promises a plethora of cost-saving and plan flexibility advantages, a consultant says.

The arrangement would allow groups of plan sponsors or an association—on behalf of its members—to set up a risk retention group that would cover a portion of the sponsors' assets that are dedicated to paying health claims and then purchase commercial excess-of-loss reinsurance for the remainder, said Stace C. Bondar, managing member of Exlman Re L.L.C. of Baltimore.

Among other things, the pooling design would allow plan sponsors to leverage their large group buying power, eliminate fronting insurers, legally avoid state-mandated benefits and avoid having to obtain U.S. Department of Labor approval, Mr. Bondar said during a session at the Captive Insurance Cos. Assn.'s International Conference in Tucson, Ariz.

Mr. Bondar is seeking approval for the first two arrangements of this kind in Montana and the District of Columbia and is in the process of developing it for nine others in six domiciles. Montana regulators said the facility has been tentatively approved. The facility, AD-COMP MED RRG Inc., is owned by 271 automobile dealership franchises in California, Mr. Bondar said. He declined to identify the District of Columbia facility's owners.

Need for the arrangement has intensified significantly in the past five years, he said, during which U.S.-based medical reinsurance sources have dwindled from about 300 to fewer than 50.

Among remaining reinsurance markets, many have long "ineligible industry" lists, and others charge certain industries "significantly higher rates" than they charge others, he said. Industries having the most trouble finding coverage are hospitals, law firms and trucking companies, he said.

Under the arrangement that Mr. Bondar is seeking approval for in the District of Columbia, a group of self-funded health plan sponsors with core businesses in the same industry banded together to form a risk retention group without any involvement from an association.

Each sponsor designed its own plan, including its own benefit design and its own deductible or retention level. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, each self-funded plan is exempt from state laws relating to benefits, including mandated health benefits.

Still, in that kind of arrangement, each plan sponsor has a contractual obligation to participants to fund the plan with the sponsor's assets.

That is where the RRG comes in. The facility's members/owners determine how much of the aggregate retention the facility will accept.

The RRG then quotes, underwrites and issues to each of its members/owners a contractual liability policy that promises to cover or reinsure their contractual obligation to their health plan participants to fund the plan with their own assets.

The RRG then goes to the commercial market to buy reinsurance for the portion of the risk its members/owners decide to cede. The commercial policy responds when losses exceed a plan sponsor's per claim and aggregate retention levels.

So, for example, a group of plan sponsors with $1 million of total health plan risks decides to retain $250,000 of that risk in the aggregate, with each plan sponsor selecting a different retention level. The total risk is ceded to the plan sponsors' RRG, which retains $250,000 and cedes the remaining $750,000.

The key to this arrangement is that the policy does not cover a medical claim but instead covers a plan sponsor's assets against losses resulting from a large medical claim, Mr. Bondar said. "The key to success here is to pool at the reinsurance level, not the health plan level."

In Montana, the process for establishing a reinsurance mechanism for a group of health plan sponsors was more complex but demonstrates how an association can become the driving force behind one, Mr. Bondar said.

In that case, service vendors for a self-insured workers comp pool wanted to help pool members with their self-funded health plans.

The group of accountants, lawyers, bankers and other service providers formed an association and then sold shares in it. With that capital, the association formed a captive that issued a surplus note to the RRG that the workers comp pool members formed for their health plans. Since the RRG was not designed to insure the association and its members are not in the same industry as the plan sponsors, federal law precluded the association itself from forming the RRG.

The RRG also could cede part of its members/owners' retained risk to the association captive. Like the District of Columbia-domiciled RRG, the Montana facility would purchase excess-of-loss reinsurance for the part of the risk it and the association captive does not retain.

The surplus note, which the RRG has to pay back over time, was accepted by Montana regulators as appropriate capitalization as long as each RRG member/owner demonstrates it made a capital contribution to the facility, Mr. Bondar said.

To that end, Mr. Bondar negotiated an agreement under which each member/owner would have to make only a small capital contribution up front but would have to surrender all of its equity in the facility if the member/owner pulled out of RRG in less than three years.

After three years, the portion of the surplus note that would be repaid out of the facility's surplus would be considered an adequate capital contribution, he said.

A major advantage of either the District of Columbia- or Montana-domiciled RRG is that a fronting insurer is not necessary, since an RRG can issue its own policy, Mr. Bondar said. "Fronting carriers can charge as much as 10% of premiums paid in order for a program to use their paper," he said.

In addition, because a plan sponsor would not be in a single-parent captive, the sponsor would not have to obtain a prohibited transaction exemption from the Department of Labor.

The exemption would be necessary if a pure captive were used, because the DOL wants to ensure that the captive owner has not devised a system that provides it advantages to the detriment of plan participants, Mr. Bondar said. The exemption is not required when a plan sponsor participates in an RRG because the odds of pulling many plan sponsors into a scheme that could hurt their plan participants are considered very low, he said.

By pooling risks in an RRG, reinsurance availability increases and costs decrease because reinsurers see little risk of having to pay a claim above a retention that far exceeds those that an individual cedent would maintain, Mr. Bondar said.

Over time, RRG members/owners should be able to build surplus to gradually raise the retention level so the facility can reduce or even eliminate its reinsurance needs, he said.

He said the only similar arrangement in use today involves the interplay of voluntary employee beneficiary associations set up by seven highway contractors and the RRG the contractors have set up (BI, Sept. 11, 2006).

But Mr. Bondar said plan sponsors cannot pull their capital out of VEBAs unless they convert to a fully insured plan and that VEBA recertification costs are expensive. He asserted that his mechanism would be 25% to 30% less expensive.

Back to Top

Captive owners changing collateral arrangements: Survey


Published March 26, 2007

TUCSON, Ariz.—Captive owners are slowly moving to alternate forms of collateral for the fronting insurers and in many cases are providing greater collateral, according to a survey.

Captive owners also say their fronting and reinsurance costs have stabilized, according to the Captive Insurance Cos. Assn.’s 2007 Fronting Survey.

The survey, which was sponsored by Munich Re America and based on comments from 143 respondents, was released earlier this month at CICA’s International Conference in Tucson, Ariz.

Some 69.4% of the captives—nearly the identical percentage in last year’s survey—said they used fronting arrangements for their captives. Nearly all of those—94.7%, or slightly less than last year—said that they provide collateral to their fronting insurers.

Letters of credit remained the most popular of several vehicles through which captive owners provided that collateral. But the percentage using LOCs only dropped to 50.9% this year from 71.4% last year.

Meanwhile, 21.1% provided collateral through a combination of an LOC and a trust account, up slightly from 19% in 2006.

Just 8.8% provided collateral only through a trust account, but that compares with zero last year.

The greatest percentage of respondents, 27.8%, based collateral on loss reserves, down sharply from 43.9% last year.

The next largest group, 24.1%, based collateral on a combination of loss reserves and unearned premiums. That was up from 17.1% last year.

Meanwhile, some captive owners say they have had to post more collateral. An arrangement that has become more popular is basing collateral on 101% to 120% of loss reserves and unearned premiums. Some 20.4% of the respondents reported having that kind of arrangement last year vs. 5% in 2006. And 7.4% said their collateral was based on 121% to 150% of loss reserves and unearned premiums vs. 2.4% last year.

In general, the respondents reported stable fronting fees.

Some 60.3% said their fronting costs remained the same, 17.8% reported fronting costs had dropped and 21.9% said costs had increased, with most of those saying the increases were 5% or less.

Among all survey respondents, 38% said their fronting fees were $500,000 or more, up from 24.4% last year, while 31.4% said fronting fees were $500,000 or less, down from 44.8% in 2006.

The cost of fronting fees in comparison with a captive’s annual premiums did not change materially for the vast majority of survey respondents. Slightly fewer—43.7%—said their fees were less than 5% of annual premiums, and 36.8%—slightly more than last year—said their fees were 6% to 10% of annual premiums.

The biggest changes occurred among captives with a higher fee to premium ratio. Some 9.2% of respondents—compared with 5.6% last year—reported fees equaling 11% to 15% of premiums. And 4.6%—vs. 1.8% last year—reported fees representing 16% to 20% of premiums.

But those paying fees representing 20% or more of their premiums dropped by nearly half to 4.6%.

Two-thirds of respondents said the price of their fronting services is reasonable while 27% characterized them as expensive. But 48% said their fronting insurers do not provide a cost breakdown of the individual services they provide.

Survey respondents also reported stable reinsurance costs in general, but there was more fluctuation in those costs compared with fronting fees. Some 56.5% said they bought reinsurance, compared with 70.5% last year.Some 44.3% said their reinsurance costs this year were the same as last year, 19.7% said their costs increased 5% or less, 16.5% said reinsurance costs decreased, and 19.5% saw increases of more than 5%.

Nearly 61%—a slight increase from last year—reported paying more than $1 million for reinsurance.

More respondents—20.3% this year compared with 14.5% last year—reported paying between $500,000 and $1 million for reinsurance.

For many of the respondents, reinsurance costs ate up a bigger portion of their annual premiums—45.3%, compared with 35.5% last year, said reinsurance costs accounted for more than 20% of their annual premiums.

Some 57.4% considered their reinsurance costs a moderate value, compared with 61.3% last year, while 36.1%, vs. 32.3%, considered their program excellent value.

Back to Top

Captives cover array of risk

by Dave Lenckus

Published March 26, 2007

Respondents to the Captive Insurance Cos. Assn.’s 2007 Fronting Survey reported using their captives to write myriad coverages.

The three most common coverages—reported by between 50% and 56% of the respondents—were medical malpractice for varying groups of health care providers.

Ocean marine ranked fourth among respondents, with 53.5% using their captives to cover that risk. Workers compensation ranked fifth, with 52.8% covering the risk through their captives.

Some 40.8% reported using their facilities to write accident and health coverage, and 33% reported writing employee benefits coverage.

Just over 14% reported using their captives to write coverage for catastrophic terrorism losses, while 24.9% reported writing catastrophic wind coverage and 10.5% reported writing catastrophic earthquake coverage.

Among the survey’s 143 respondents, 60.8% were owners of single-parent captives, 15.4% participated in risk retention groups, 11.2% participated in segmented cell captives and 9.8% participated in association-sponsored captives. Owners of various other forms of captives made up the remainder of survey respondents

More than three-quarters—78%—of the respondents owned captives domiciled in the United States.

A plurality, 39.2%, of the captives have been in existence one to five years, though nearly an equal percentage—38.5%—have been operating more than 10 years. Among the remainder, 18.2% have been around six to 10 years, and 4.2% have been operating a year or less.

Back to Top

Record number attend CICA

by Dave Lenckus

Published March 26, 2007

TUCSON, Ariz.—Leonard D. Crouse, Vermont’s deputy commissioner of insurance and the state’s top captive regulator, received the 2007 Distinguished Service Award from the Captive Insurance Cos. Assn. at the organization’s International Conference this month.

In another honor, STICO Mutual Insurance Co., a Vermont-domiciled risk retention group for underground storage tank manufacturers that began as an association captive in 1988 but now is registered in all states, received CICA’s inaugural Outstanding Captive Award. Brian Donovan, president and chief executive officer of the facility, accepted the award at the conference.

The March 11-13 gathering in Tucson, Ariz., drew a record 500 attendees and exhibitors. CICA has scheduled its next International Conference at the Westin Kierland Resort & Spa in Scottsdale, Ariz., March 5-7, 2008.

More information about CICA is available at and by contacting the organization at 952-928-4655.

Back to Top