Comparing Different Employee Benefits Captive Solutions
There are a few different types of captives that employees can use, depending on their size, goals and appetite for
risk:
- Single parent captives are licensed insurance companies owned by the parent company that
insures the risk of the company. While they involve an investment on the part of the parent to establish and
operate the flexibility, data availability and control can allow companies to recognize lower benefit costs
over time. Additionally, employers can integrate their employee benefits into a captive originally created for a
different purpose, such as adding to an existing property and casualty captive. This can be an option for
companies with an existing captive who recognize that it can be useful as a cost control measure rather an as a
profit center.
- Cell captives are a more recent innovation, with lower operating costs and faster
implementation through leveraging an existing captive-platform. Employers benefit from an existing structure
with market relationships already in place. They allow employers the option to start with a few employee benefit
lines and then scale over time. A cell captive offers the security of an independent captive while benefiting
from the sharing of administrative functions across the wider entity.
- Group captives are not a realistic solution for employee benefits but exist in other contexts.
Deciding What’s Right for the Organization
The first step toward setting up a captive is conducting a feasibility study. This includes:
- Determining what the employer’s goals are and their risk tolerance
- Examining plan design, insurer networks and governance structures
- Gathering and analyzing claims and premium data, looking at loss ratios, volatility and large claim patterns
- Recommending which type of captive structure and governance makes sense
The feasibility study may also determine that a captive isn’t the right solution. There are reasons an employee
benefits captive program can be more challenging. For example, employers looking to set up an employee benefits
captive may find the scope of relationships and partnerships difficult to coordinate into a single integrated
program, meaning making a clean transition could be difficult. Some employers mitigate this by starting smaller with
a handful of programs and adding additional ones as they come up for renewal.
There are also regulatory hurdles to consider. For example, in the U.S., employers would need to secure approval from
the Department of Labor on any new captive arrangement that includes medical coverage, which can be an expensive and
difficult proposition. Some companies are overcoming this challenge by starting with their U.S. health benefits
outside the captive, dealing with rising costs via medical stop-loss coverage, and then eventually folding health
benefits into the captive once the program matures.
The most common barriers employers cited in Aon’s 2025 Global
Benefits Trends Study were a lack of an existing
captive arrangement, the lack of a clear business case and costs (both setup costs and ongoing costs). Cell captives
may alleviate some of the most common barriers because they have significantly lower setup and ongoing operational
costs, a lower governance burden for the company and a clearer exit strategy.
Lastly, it should be noted that captives are not a quick fix. Much of the benefit comes from being able to analyze
claims data, and it takes some time to accumulate enough data to gain real insight. “Six months of data won’t tell
you what you need to know about medical trend,” says Aon’s Roelandt.