Funding Models Explained — Insured, ASO, Pooled, and Hybrid
How Each Model Affects Cost, Risk, Flexibility, and Long-Term Sustainability
How Each Model Affects Cost, Risk, Flexibility, and Long-Term Sustainability
One of the most important—and most misunderstood—decisions an employer makes about their group benefits plan is how it’s funded.
Whether your plan is fully insured, administrative services only (ASO), pooled, or a hybrid of multiple models, your funding structure affects far more than just premiums. It determines:
Who takes on the financial risk
How renewals are calculated
How claims are managed
What you pay (and when)
How much flexibility you have to change
This article demystifies each model, breaks down the pros and cons, and helps you determine the optimal approach for your organization based on size, risk appetite, and plan maturity.
Your funding model determines who pays for claims, who assumes the risk, and how your insurer is compensated.
It’s not just a technicality. The funding structure has massive implications for:
Premium stability vs volatility
Transparency and control over plan performance
Surplus/deficit ownership
Cost containment flexibility
Employer cash flow
Each model aligns differently with plan objectives, risk tolerance, and internal resources.
You pay a fixed monthly premium to the insurer. They take on all risk for claims, including high-cost outliers and trend changes.
Budget certainty
Minimal internal administration
Good for small or high-variance groups
No cash flow concerns
Insurers keep surpluses
Limited transparency on claims
Less incentive to manage cost drivers
Renewal increases may feel arbitrary
Best Fit: Employers with fewer than 100 employees or low tolerance for financial volatility.
You pay claims as they’re incurred, plus a fixed admin fee. You keep any surplus—and absorb any deficit.
Greater transparency and reporting
Opportunity to control costs
Surplus stays with employer
Better fit for stable, predictable plans
Employer assumes financial risk
Claims volatility can impact budget
Cash flow must be managed closely
Typically requires stop-loss insurance
Best Fit: Mid-to-large employers with claims stability, cash flow flexibility, and strong analytics support.
Premiums are based on industry-wide or insurer-wide risk pools—not your specific group’s experience. Typically applies to:
Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D)
Long-Term Disability (LTD)
Critical Illness
Predictable pricing
Group size less relevant
Protection from catastrophic risk
Administration is simple
No reward for good experience
Limited leverage at renewal
Pooling charges can vary widely
Best Fit: Employers of all sizes, as pooled pricing is standard for certain benefit types.
Most plans in Canada use a hybrid funding structure, combining:
Insured for pooled benefits (life, LTD, CI)
ASO for health and dental
Stop-loss for high-cost claims under ASO
This approach balances risk, flexibility, and administrative efficiency.
Risk appetite also matters:
Conservative CFO? → Prefer insured.
Analytics-savvy HR leader? → Open to ASO.
CFO with strong reserves? → Explore full ASO or captive.
Moving to ASO:
Needs 12–24 months of claims data
Requires stop-loss insurance
Set internal processes for weekly claims funding
Moving back to insured:
May result in rate shock if experience is poor
Used after major claims volatility or cash flow strain
Tip: Transitions often make sense after a market canvas or pricing negotiation.
Stop-loss protects you from catastrophic claims.
Thresholds matter. Higher thresholds = lower premiums, but more exposure.
Rule of Thumb: ISL is essential for any ASO plan over 50 lives.
Renewal is based on:
Prior claims experience
Trend/inflation assumptions (8–12%)
Pooling charges and broker commissions
No “renewal” per se—but your:
Admin fees
Stop-loss rates
Claims projections
…are all reviewed annually.
Pro Tip: Request quarterly reporting to avoid surprises and stay proactive.
Pooling charges on small claims
Trend assumptions baked into projections
Unused surpluses forfeited under insured models
Lack of stop-loss coverage in ASO leading to financial risk
Poorly designed ASO contracts that blur the line between insured and self-funded
Always request a full financial breakdown—including manual rates, admin fees, trend assumptions, and broker compensation.
Your funding model is the foundation of your benefits plan. Get it wrong, and you’ll overpay, lose leverage, and carry unnecessary risk. Get it right, and you’ll unlock transparency, control, and long-term sustainability.
Whether you’re fully insured, partially ASO, or operating a hybrid structure, your model should reflect your:
Organizational goals
Risk appetite
Financial reserves
Plan maturity
Still unsure if your current model is the best fit? We’re happy to run a side-by-side comparison to help you decide—with no commitment required.