- Providing world class service and value for employee benefit group plans since 1987
The pitch for level-funded health plans is compelling on its face: pay a fixed monthly amount like a fully insured plan, but get access to your claims data, potentially share in the surplus if your employees stay healthy, and avoid the community-rated premium increases that punish well-managed groups on the fully insured market.
For the right employer, that pitch is accurate. For the wrong employer, it’s a way to take on self-funding risk without fully understanding what that risk means — and to discover the downside when a bad claims year arrives and the expected surplus turns into a deficit.
Level-funded plans have grown rapidly over the past several years, particularly among small and mid-size employers in the 25 to 300 employee range who are frustrated with fully insured renewal increases but aren’t ready for — or large enough to sustain — a traditional self-funded arrangement. The growth is justified. But so is the scrutiny. Level-funding is a genuinely useful tool for the employers it fits, and a poor fit for those it doesn’t. The difference between those two groups comes down to a set of specific, identifiable factors — none of which require a healthcare actuary to evaluate.
This article lays out how level-funded plans actually work, what distinguishes them from both fully insured and self-funded arrangements, and the decision framework employers should use to assess whether level-funding belongs in their benefits strategy.
Level-funding is a hybrid funding arrangement that sits structurally between fully insured and self-funded health plans. Understanding exactly where it sits — and why — is the foundation for evaluating whether it’s the right fit.
In a fully insured plan, the employer pays a fixed monthly premium to the insurance carrier. The carrier assumes all claims risk. If claims are low, the carrier keeps the surplus. If claims are catastrophic, the carrier absorbs the loss. The employer’s cost is fixed and predictable, but the employer has no upside from good claims experience and no visibility into what’s driving costs.
In a self-funded plan, the employer pays claims directly as they are incurred, typically through a trust or plan account administered by a third-party administrator (TPA). The employer retains all claims risk above the stop-loss deductible, has full access to claims data, and captures the full financial benefit of favorable claims experience. The employer’s monthly cost fluctuates with actual claims — predictability is lower, but control and data access are higher.
In a level-funded plan, the employer pays a fixed monthly amount — the “level” payment — to a carrier or TPA that bundles three components into a single invoice:
1. The claims fund contribution: The employer’s pro-rata monthly share of projected annual claims for the covered population. This is actuarially estimated based on the group’s demographics, prior claims experience, and industry factors. It goes into a claims account used to pay covered medical and pharmacy claims as they are incurred.
2. Stop-loss insurance premium: Embedded within the level payment is a premium for both specific stop-loss (covering individual catastrophic claims above a defined threshold) and aggregate stop-loss (covering total plan claims that exceed projected levels). This is the mechanism that makes the monthly payment “level” — the stop-loss coverage converts the variable claims risk into a defined maximum exposure.
3. Administrative fees: TPA administration fees, network access fees, care management fees, and the carrier’s profit margin are bundled into the monthly payment alongside the claims fund and stop-loss premium.
At the end of the plan year, the claims account is reconciled against actual claims paid. If actual claims are lower than the claims fund contributions — meaning the group had a better-than-projected claims year — the surplus is returned to the employer, credited toward future premiums, or split between the employer and carrier according to the contract terms. If actual claims exceed the claims fund but remain below the aggregate stop-loss attachment point, the employer may owe an additional contribution. If claims exceed the aggregate attachment point, the stop-loss carrier covers the excess.
This structure gives employers the monthly payment predictability of full insurance, access to their plan’s claims data (a key distinction from fully insured arrangements), and exposure to the financial upside of a healthy claims year — while stop-loss coverage caps the downside.
Level-funding is technically a form of self-funding — the employer, not the carrier, is legally responsible for paying covered claims. But there are meaningful practical differences between level-funded and traditional self-funded arrangements that affect who each model is appropriate for.
In a traditional self-funded plan, monthly claims costs fluctuate with actual utilization. A month with several hospital admissions hits the plan account hard; a slow month in January may cost a fraction of that. Level-funding smooths this variation — the employer pays the same amount every month regardless of actual claims timing, because the TPA or carrier manages claims from the pre-funded claims account. For smaller employers with tighter cash flow management, this predictability has real operational value.
Traditional self-funded plans require the employer to maintain a plan trust or bank account, manage cash flow against claims accruals, and engage directly with a TPA on administrative processes. Level-funded arrangements wrap this infrastructure into the vendor’s platform — the employer pays a single monthly invoice and the vendor manages the mechanics. This lower administrative burden makes level-funding accessible to employers who don’t have the internal infrastructure for a fully self-administered plan.
Traditional self-funded plans offer maximum flexibility — the employer can design virtually any benefit structure not prohibited by federal law, modify it mid-year if needed, and negotiate network, TPA, and PBM arrangements independently. Level-funded plans typically offer more flexibility than fully insured plans but less than traditional self-funded — benefit design options are usually constrained to the carrier or TPA’s available plan templates, and the network and pharmacy arrangements are bundled into the product.
Both level-funded and self-funded plans provide the employer with access to claims data. This is a critical distinction from fully insured arrangements, where the employer is a premium payer with limited visibility into utilization. The depth and usability of data access varies by vendor — evaluate this in the sales process rather than assuming it’s equivalent across products.
Like traditional self-funded plans, level-funded plans are generally governed by ERISA at the federal level rather than state insurance law. This exempts them from many state-mandated benefit requirements and state premium taxes — a meaningful cost advantage in states with broad mandate requirements. However, the embedded stop-loss component is a state-regulated insurance product, and some states have enacted regulations specifically targeting level-funded arrangements. Confirm the regulatory treatment in your state with your broker before assuming full ERISA preemption applies.
The following factors, taken together, form the basis for a well-grounded level-funding assessment. No single factor is determinative — the decision requires evaluating the full picture.
Level-funded plans are most commonly offered to groups in the 25 to 300 employee range, though some carriers extend the product to groups as small as 10 and as large as 500. The practical lower bound is set by statistical predictability — groups below 25 to 30 lives have insufficient claims volume to generate actuarially meaningful projections, making the claims fund contribution more of an estimate than a projection and the surplus/deficit outcome more random than performance-driven.
Groups above 300 employees typically have sufficient size and financial capacity for traditional self-funding, which offers more flexibility and control than most level-funded products at a comparable or lower total cost. The level-funded sweet spot is the mid-range employer that is too large to tolerate community-rated fully insured pricing but too small or too risk-averse to move to a traditional self-funded arrangement.
The financial case for level-funding is strongest when the employer has a reason to believe their group’s claims experience is better — or will be better — than the community-rated pool driving their fully insured renewal. This is the core hypothesis behind level-funding: if your group is healthier than average, you’re subsidizing sicker groups in the fully insured community pool, and escaping that pool through a self-insured arrangement captures the financial benefit of your group’s favorable experience.
Assessing this requires some visibility into your group’s health profile. Relevant indicators include workforce demographics (younger, healthier populations tend to have lower claims), prior claims experience if available, chronic condition prevalence, and utilization patterns. Employers with aging workforces, known high-cost chronic conditions in the employee population, or prior years with catastrophic claims should approach level-funding conservatively — the financial case is weaker when the group’s health risk profile is average or above average for the community pool.
Level-funded plans cap downside risk through aggregate stop-loss, but the maximum liability — the aggregate attachment point — is typically set at 110 to 125 percent of projected claims. For a group with $1.5 million in projected annual claims, the aggregate attachment point at 120 percent is $1.8 million. If the plan experiences a catastrophic year that pushes claims to the attachment point, the employer’s total claims fund contribution for the year is $300,000 above what a fully insured plan would have cost.
The employer needs to be able to absorb that scenario — not just theoretically, but operationally. Cash reserves, a line of credit, or the ability to adjust other operating costs in a bad claims year are the practical backstops. Employers who cannot financially weather a year at the aggregate attachment point are taking on level-funded risk they cannot actually afford.
Level-funding is not a standardized product. The structure, terms, data access, flexibility, stop-loss provisions, and surplus return mechanics vary significantly across carriers and TPAs offering level-funded arrangements. Two critical areas to evaluate beyond premium pricing:
Surplus return terms. Some level-funded products return 100 percent of unused claims fund surplus to the employer at year end. Others retain a percentage as a “contingency” or apply a minimum retention. Still others credit the surplus toward the following year’s rates rather than returning cash. The surplus return mechanism is a core component of the financial value proposition — confirm it explicitly rather than assuming it.
Specific stop-loss attachment point and lasering provisions. As discussed in the context of traditional stop-loss programs, the specific deductible embedded in the level-funded product determines the per-individual exposure retained by the plan. Confirm what the specific attachment point is, what the carrier’s lasering policy is at renewal, and whether the product includes any anti-laser protections. A level-funded plan with an unexpectedly high specific deductible or aggressive lasering at renewal is a different risk profile than the original pricing suggested.
Level-funded plans derive a significant portion of their cost advantage from ERISA preemption of state insurance mandates and premium taxes. In states that have enacted specific regulations targeting self-funded small group plans — requiring certain mandated benefits even for ERISA plans below a certain size threshold, or imposing state-level solvency requirements on self-insured arrangements — this advantage may be partially or fully eliminated.
A small number of states have also enacted regulations that characterize level-funded products as fully insured for state regulatory purposes, eliminating ERISA preemption entirely. Confirm your state’s regulatory treatment of level-funded arrangements before making plan comparisons that assume full ERISA preemption.
The Employer Profiles Where Level-Funding Makes the Most SenseSynthesizing the factors above, level-funded plans deliver their strongest value proposition for employers who fit this profile:
The growing mid-size employer (50–200 employees) with a stable, relatively healthy workforce and two or more years of consistently below-average claims experience on a fully insured plan. This employer is subsidizing the community pool, has enough lives to generate meaningful actuarial credibility, and has both the claims history and the financial stability to absorb the structure’s managed risk.
The employer receiving consecutive double-digit fully insured renewal increases who has been told by their carrier that the increases reflect the group’s own claims experience. If the carrier is attributing the rate increase to the group’s claims rather than community trend, the group already has self-funding exposure under the fully insured arrangement — at least level-funding provides data access, potential surplus recovery, and a fixed maximum cost.
The employer in a state with extensive mandated benefit requirements that significantly increase fully insured premiums. The ERISA preemption value is highest in states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, where mandated benefit lists are broad and premium taxes are meaningful. The same level-funded product may offer a larger premium differential relative to fully insured options in these states than in states with minimal mandate requirements.
Level-funding is not the right answer for every employer frustrated with fully insured premiums. The cases where it is likely the wrong move:
When your broker presents a level-funded option alongside fully insured alternatives, the comparison isn’t complete without answers to these questions:
The three-scenario financial model is particularly important. A level-funded plan that looks attractive at projected claims may look materially different at the aggregate cap — and a fully insured plan that looks expensive at benchmark may look more competitive when the worst-case level-funded cost is fully accounted for.
Level-funded plans represent a genuinely valuable middle path between fully insured community rating and traditional self-funding — but only for employers whose group size, claims history, financial position, and risk tolerance align with what the model requires. For those employers, level-funding can deliver meaningful premium savings, data access that supports smarter benefits management, and the financial upside of a well-managed, healthy workforce.
For employers who don’t fit that profile — groups that are too small, too high-risk, or too financially constrained to absorb a bad claims year — the level-funded structure adds complexity and risk without delivering the value that justifies it.
The decision deserves a proper analysis, not a renewal-season sales conversation. Run the three-scenario model, understand the stop-loss terms, confirm the surplus provisions, and evaluate the product against your group’s specific claims profile and financial position. If the analysis supports level-funding, it’s a strong move. If it doesn’t, a well-structured fully insured plan or a traditional self-funded arrangement will serve you better.
Taylor Benefits Insurance Agency works with employers across all funding structures — fully insured, level-funded, and self-funded — to identify the arrangement that matches each client’s risk profile, workforce characteristics, and financial objectives. If you’re evaluating whether level-funding makes sense for your organization, contact our team for a comparative analysis before your next renewal.
They can work, but forecasting becomes more complex. Seasonal hiring and layoffs can distort expected claims and enrollment levels. Carriers may require detailed workforce projections, and employers should be prepared for tighter underwriting scrutiny to ensure accurate monthly funding amounts.
Todd Taylor oversees most of the marketing and client administration for the agency with help of an incredible team. Todd is a seasoned benefits insurance broker with over 35 years of industry experience. As the Founder and CEO of Taylor Benefits Insurance Agency, Inc., he provides strategic consultations and high-quality support to ensure his clients’ competitive position in the market.
We just started working with Taylor Benefits and could not be happier. Todd gave us quite the education as well as some time saving tools to help us manage our HR and save money too. We are looking forward to a long relationship!”
-Carol, Accounting Manager, recruitment marketing company, Campbell, CA
We’re ready to help! Call today: 800-903-6066