The Premier Employee Healthcare Benefits Benchmarking Tool
Scalable, one page, tens of thousands of data points, plan values, dollars, and percentiles
Case Study: Acme Construction
– Acme employees pay $500 per year via payroll for single coverage (85th percentile) and have silver plus health plan benefits, at the bottom 22% relative to their peer group
– A lower deductible or out-of-pocket maximum are two ways to increase the plan value; net employee payroll contributions for single coverage are very competitive, $700 below the median, and lower than 85% of other firms.
– Contributions to premiums are a key part of benchmarking that is often omitted. The tool allows you to quickly model in one page to set percentile or dollar targets, aid in client renews, give key insights for HR managers, and more.
– Save and share a quick snapshot of only what is most relevant.
Unlimited. Scalable. Data include 2,500+ firms. Model the key drivers in under 2 minutes, in dollars and percentiles, for clients and prospects. All in one page.
Most frequent questions and answers
The Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Benefits survey underlying data, trended from 2018, with 2020 data + proprietary employer data.
The version and most recent effective date are always listed below the percentile gauges.
Once per year for Kaiser data; employer data is loaded periodically. Latest version is effective April 2021.
Plan value approximates actuarial value, or, on average, the percentage of in-network claims paid by insurance. Values range between 60% to over 90% and are often referred to by metal levels. Bronze is 60%, Silver 70%, Gold 80%, and Platinum 90% +/- 2%. Healthier people will have lower claims and pay a greater percentage, while those with higher claims will pay a lower percentage of the value.
A multiple regression model run using over 100 distinct plan designs and the output actuarial value from the CMS actuarial value calculator–it was found that ~85% of the actuarial value of a plan is determined by 3 factors: deductible, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximum. Actual results are within 1-2% for most plan structures.
An atypical plan design like $0 deductible and $7,000 out-of-pocket max may have a skewed plan value number. If you use outlier values like $15,000 deductibles you will not get an error. Results should end up being between 60-90% for virtually all comparable plans.
The ranges in the charts are the dollar values that reflect the middle 50% (the interquartile range, or the 25th to 75th percentiles) as well as the top and bottom 10%. If you hover you’ll over each chart you’ll see dollars and percentiles as well as the comparison firm in question.
The gauges reflect the percentile of the modeled firm relative to the cohort selected. Green means the top third, or most competitive; yellow is the middle third; and red means the one-third least competitive.
The data for individual firms reflect the average numbers if there are multiple plans–so if half the employees are enrolled in a $1,000 deductible plan and half are in a $3,000 deductible plan, the number represented for comparison purposes in the charts is $2,000. Firms typically offer 1-3 plans to their employees. Future versions of the tool may have a breakdown by plan types and/or metal levels.
Since single coverage is the most common type of coverage used when running the benchmarking exercise, those values are used. Family deductibles and OOP max are most often 2x single.
Yes, it reflects an aggregate deductible, which is the case for 90% of plans.
There is clustering around certain attributes, such as coinsurance. Many plans have 20% coinsurance.
Some healthcare plans have a mix of copays and coinsurance. A plan with a $25 office visit copay is approximately a 20% copay given typical charges. If there are scenarios where office visits are free and hospitalizations are 20%, you can use 20% as the coinsurance or 15-19%, since the bulk of actuarial value hinges on higher dollar categories