Laserfiche WebLink
<br />This is the goal of any self-funded plan. If you terminated your plan tomorrow you would <br />have enough money in your plan to pay your run-outs between the cost for claims being <br />incurred and when they were ultimately paid. <br /> <br />On the left you see the things that are included in the revenue numbers and included in <br />the cost numbers. <br /> <br />Question Clark Askins: <br /> <br />Where it says, 2007 what does that mean? <br /> <br />Answer Neal: <br />That is just for January 2007 thru June 30, 2007. <br /> <br />Unlike a School District where there might be a real anomaly season by season on claims <br />utilization, which is not your situation. Probably more important and more revealing is a <br />comparison of cost over a two and a half year period. When you self-fund you act as the <br />insurance company and there only seems to be peaks and valleys. There never is a <br />straight line in anything. Our plan for the period of February thru October 2005 and 2006 <br />and even February thru June of 2007 look pretty plotable and somewhat predictable and <br />then you get to October 2006 and we go right off the chart. You must keep in mind we <br />are talking about raw claims data. These are catastrophic claims for the most part. We <br />know what happened in October, November and December of 2006 as it relates to large <br />claims. We know who those folks are, we know what happened to them and so forth. It is <br />very difficult to forecast what our claims and related cost might be like at any given time. <br />You would like to think you have a handle on forecasting expense cost. Weare real good <br />at predicting the revenue but not very good at predicting the cost. <br /> <br />Question Karen Beerman: <br /> <br />I am trying to understand this. Looking at the 2007 average covered employee it is less <br />than other years. Does that mean we have less employees or does it mean just the <br />employees that utilize the plan? <br /> <br />Answer Neal Welch: <br /> <br />There is a group of people that is not included for some reason. The cost per member per <br />month is probably right but there are thirty or fifty people that are not accounted for. <br /> <br />Question Steve Valerius: <br />I don't want to get into the details here, but could that account for some of the increase in <br />cost per employee? <br />